There have been a few hints at what people complain about, but what exactly are these things that get people so hot under the collar that they make an official complaint. The three mentioned, can’t spawn 10s or 100s of complaints, to tie up people for ages and ages. If they are tieing people up as suggested it smacks of messing around to make jobs look more important.
I have the same moans about the utter incompetence of the people supplied by the RAF / MOD to operate / run the Corps, but I would say making an official complaint is pointless as it’s overseen by the system and unless they want a sacrificial lamb or just get rid of someone, the ‘system’ isn’t going to find in anything less than their mates favour or a playful slap on the wrist.
As for RFCA running out of cash, I tend to agree with big_g’s analysis. The last time I had any direct dealings with them I was told it cost them over £70 to have a fluorescent tube replaced. RFCA suggested we do it ourselves so the CWC got a box of 10 tubes and box of starters (donated by the local DIY shop) which we have replaced as and when required in a couple of minutes. Prune if you know more detail spill, how or why are they going to pursue you? Surely they can’t do anything that’s going to affect your day to day job/life? You seem to be worried about nothing IMO.
It’s not hard to work out who people are. A couple of people in my wing know my username so it would leak eventually. Sadly I can’t go in specifics but I do wonder who works for who at times. Especially since RFCA are predominantly Army focussed. To clarify, this is t reflective of all RFCAs.
The question needs to be one of scrutiny and looking at the awarding of contracts and do RFCA just renew or award contracts regardless of whether or not they give value. I heard that a modular hut cost around £300K, these are a prefabricated shed, someone’s coining it somewhere. We had an extension supplied to bring us up to the 180 sq M and it was nice to start with, but it started to degrade after a couple of years, notice boards warping, doors not shutting properly, bits of décor falling off and I doubt it would last as long as the ‘main’ Spooner, which has been around since the 60s. Given the time I reckon me and couple of the staff and CWC could make it good. I’m just hoping they don’t decide we’ll have a new build joint hut with the ACF as from what I’ve seen of these the Army cadets don’t respect their bits, which makes it all look crap.
We’ve got a large company near to us and a couple of people have said they have contractors on-site who are no better than your average DIY enthusiast, but don’t feel they have to bother as their bosses are mates with the head engineer so no need to do anything more than average.
[quote=“juliet_mike, post:18, topic:2647, full:true”]
Nothing has been mentioned about OASC changing, but how ironic would it be that we brought our Commissioning process in-line with the RAF only for the RAF to be removed from the Commission.[/quote]
That would be a laugh. The OASC process for VRT was only introduced to keep OASC in job after the 2010 cuts, which meant less need for OASC to process kiddies as potential Officers. The grandiose notion of bringing us closer to the RAF was just that a notion.
Well there is the problem … considered ; thought through ; in detail - are alien concepts, however knee-jerk is the SOP.
As a CI who is hoping to go for a commission soon, I am wondering if it is worth waiting for the changes to come into place before I officially take the plunge. Personally, I am not bothered about the commission status because I am in this organisation for the love of what I do rather than the status it brings with it. However, I am reluctant to enter the whole process of wing interview, OASC etc if it will all change within a few months. Furthermore, if things are changing within the coming months, are they even accepting new VRT applications?
I shouldn’t worry about that, the job is going to be the same, and from what I can see nothing in your day to day life will be different to how it would be in the VR(T).
It looks like the only real difference is what happens when it all goes wrong - you won’t have the right to petition the crown, but on the other hand you probably can’t be court martialed. Of course, no one ever gets court martialed, and petitioning the crown has no effect, you end up leaving whatever the result…
What for on earth for?
Just ask them to leave and have done with it.
Christ if dealing with complaints is seen as an expensive thing then going through a Courts Martial must be off the scale.
While that is undoubtedly grounds for a disciplinary hearing within the organisation there needs to be a mechanism to do that other than a court marshal.
Whether is is a case for the police will depend on the age of the cadet.
That sounds more like dismissal and hand over to the Police and get it dealt with properly. It would show that these things are taken seriously and dealt with.
I’ve had mates in court on the say so of a couple of coppers, which the CPS seemed more than happy to go with.
Given the list of things which seem to be fully substantiated a court appearance and due process excised would have been a dead cert. Blimey they are happy enough with the expense when crucifying celebs and WWII German ‘war criminals’ on the basis of 20/30/40/50/60/70+ year old half-remembered anecdotes and blurred photos. Therefore it comes across more like they didn’t want it in the public domain, as the headlines would have been damaging. Keeping it internal does no one any favours. It’s not like a daughter “visiting an aunt” of yesteryear.
It will be interesting if due to the change in status means the complaints process is easier to be taken outside the MODs cloisters and things become more public, how that will look. Not unless we have a system that is even more in-house to make more jobs, but as it’s outside the RAF so it doesn’t matter. The other side is people see no point in complaining as everything is dealt with by a form letter with a date and name change, and leave.
It could be that due to the ages of the cadets in question, there was no prosecution possible at the time. Without knowing the facts of the case it is pure speculation.
Surely the ages of people affected can’t be a block to prosecution? All you get is people can’t be named, except the accused regardless of their guilt in the matter and their life ruined even if acquitted. I’m all for accused not be named unless found guilty and if acquitted everyone named.
When the incident happened would also be relevant, as the laws regarding communications have changed in the last few years. We can only assume that there wasn’t enough evidence for a prosecution or no actual crime was committed. In such cases we still have the power to throw the book at them ourselves and get rid.
the powers exist to use the military justice system in all manner of situations that have arisen in the experience of (i would imagine…) pretty much every member of this board, but the reality is that the authorities in the ACO - and here i mean at every level from Sqn OC upwards - overwhelmingly prefer to quietly get rid, or to use the civil police and prosecution authorities in exactly the same way that the Scouts or your local council-run Youth Club would.
the truth is that Courts Martial hasn’t been a real threat for VR(T) (or anyone else) for many a long year - generations in fact - so the loss of CM as a theoretical pathway means absolutely nothing.
the vast, overwhelming majority of people in the ACO who get into trouble just leave, they suffer no professional or personal loss and the problem just goes away - and lets face it, the ACO prefers it that way.
I’m not sure we ought to promote that as an ideal situation - if there is a legitimate issue then it is far better to investigate and record it fully (at the lowest level possible) rather than having people just quietly leave. That way we can avoid any claims of sweeping matters under the carpet and ensure that any criminality is addressed properly.
For example, CFAV who sleeps with a 19 year old cadet has broken our rules and should either face internal reprimand or quietly leave. CFAV who sleeps with 15 year old cadet has broken the law and the matter needs to be escalated.
The court-martial and royal appeal path is an embuggerance due to individuals who, when faced with attempt to impose discipline have decided to dig their heels in and not go quietly, even if we aren’t talking about a criminal case. It is that situation that we will be rid of, and rightly so.
People need to work under a process and to have the right of appeal. This organisation also needs to be able to manage those P-cases correctly and efficiently and not rely on the bumbling attempts of whatever ranking officer we manage to dig up. The ACO has a long way to go before I consider it to be credible in that respect.
No real offence other than abusing your power, they’d need to be over the age of consent at the time
I suppose the argument is you are taking away their ‘audience’ for such acts as it’s unlikely they’d have no interaction with the age groups normally.
But it is laughable attitude when you consider the time, effort and money put into pursuing the groups I mentioned for similar historic offences, with evidence supplied on the basis I suggest.
Mind you acts of adultery and inappropriate behaviour by staff (to mainly female cadets) are rife in the Corps and it’s ignored, overlooked or brushed under the carpet, so it’s not too much of a leap to see acts against cadets being treated in the same way. I suppose the only hope is that nothing happens, once they’ve left, that focusses attention on the way the CF deals with these things.