VR(T) Commission Change


#747

Quite.


#748

if you want to stick the knife in, surely was arrested, charged, prosecuted and found guilty of noncing would be better?

has his magnum opus, and all reference to it been deleted from the records yet?


#749

Topic. Keep on it.


#750

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/change_in_officer_commission#incoming-1025737 Looks like they are aiming for 1st October still but as of 21st August they are still apparently working on policy issues.

Not suprising really. So many things come from this ‘simple’ change:
New Royal Warrant for the ATC (Possibly for other cadet forces?)
Transfer of existing staff (how and when)
Need to create an equivalent of QRs (tri-service or one single one)
Insurance issues
Questions over access to ranges, MT, etc.
What happens to VR(T) going through the disciplinary/appeal/service complaint process at the point of transfer (whenever that is)?


#751

Also, does anyone know the legal authority they are relying on to do this?

The HQAC press release says that “The Commissioning Act of 11th April 1862 was the last time a commission was created. All UK Armed Forces commissions appear to date back to that point. Source: DRFC”

If this is true then surely the creation of a commission type is no longer within the Royal Prerogative as Parliament have legislated on it?

But…according to legislation.gov.uk this legislation doesn’t exist. There is the “Officers Commissions Act 1862” (11th April) but that doesn’t create a new commission. It simply removes the requirement for her to attach her sign manual to a commission for it to be valid. But this only applies to “all or any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.” (section 1)

Even though this act does not create a new commission it is still a case of Parliament legislating on the requirements of a Queen’s Commission and arguably therefore this change would require primary legislation.

I am concerned from a legal perspective whether MOD have the power to do this. I know from experience that this press release (or the submission to the minister that it was based on) will have been cleared by MOD Legal Advisors prior to issue. Not only do they get the name of the legislation wrong, but more worryingly they get the whole purpose wrong when they say it created a new commission. How can we trust the rest of their legal analysis now?

I certainly don’t have the time or money to pursue it but I can honestly see someone (possibly one of those who make service complaints) deciding to judicially review the implementation of this new commission. That would be amusing if they got told they had no power to do it.

EDIT: I think the power probably does still test with the Crown in relation to armed forces commissions (which is all the government claim see page 32 at www.peerage.org/genealogy/royal-Prerogative.pdf) but the text of their own press release suggests parliament has taken it over.

According to the foi that’s floating around they will be commissioned into the RAF Air Cadets which is not one of the armed forces (interestingly I’m not sure of the official legal status of the entity known as RAF Air Cadets. I always thought it was a umbrella term for two distinct organisations which share a command structure and resources) but it will be a military commission. Are we now saying therefore that the RAF Air Cadets are a formal branch of the RAF (I understand we are currently a sponsored organisation)? If so what will the status be of the cadets? So many questions and so few answers.


#752

It is almost impossible to make this up. That’s an extract from a letter from the Commandant asking for legal opinions on the effect of the ‘new’ commission on her Civil Service staff. See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/637189/2017-02885.pdf.


#753

Sorry? VR(T) are only allowed to wear No1 uniform?, Surely that’s not right? Someone better tell the author of AP1358C


#754

It’s unclear from the letter if that refers to volunteers and CS, or just CS. Either way how can HQAC not know?!?


#755

I think that is just for CS. You can almost guarantee that they will be the last to change… if they ever do, since the VGS type are apparently keeping the VR commission


#756

Getting priorities sorted…

As long as the Head Sheds have it in front of all the VVIPs then that’s all that matters clearly. An illusion “all is good here boss, see my people assembled”


#757

Interesting to read that none of the three CF could get any new insignia. The existing contracts don’t allow that flexibility and a new set of contracts exceeds in cost the allowable amount thus pushing procurement timescales back to Oct!!!


#758

One letter in there suggests October would be tough, though end of March 18 would be doable…


#759

:joy::joy::joy:


#760

because OUR communications are swift and effective!


#761

Interesting (and refreshing) there was thought about being transparent (due to fears of FOI) from the start

.
.
.
.
.

Looks like even way back in February it was known October would be a difficult deadline

.
.
.
.
.
.

it would seem CAC does want to listen to us!

.
.

.
.
.
.
As i read it looks like RAFAC was a favourite before the survey was considered and the results of the survey shouldn’t steer the decision
(despite the lack of “respect” towards the survey, i do agree with all the points)

.
.
.
.
.

So it would seem at least someone has considered the post-nominals questions which for some is important…


#762

Some interesting points there that:
a. There was neither funding or contracts for new badging, suggesting that there was no business case to support this course of action.
b. There is an admission that they might sometimes listen to the volunteers - the subtext being (in my view) that they rarely listen.
c. It would appear to be a foregone conclusion which branding we would end up with regardless of the ‘consultation’ exercise. (I’m still confused as to why there were ‘options’ in the survey which were dismissed out of hand upon completion and analysis of the results…)


#763

I wonder how much exists on non military communications systems (e.g. Back channels) about this subject?


#764

Oh. You should see CAC’s snap chat (username airma’am). You learn so much


#765

It’s Boaty McBoat Face all over. I’m not voting on a preference for anything ever again!


#766

I particularly found it amusing that it appeared the Commandant didn’t know 2FTS were getting aircrew rankslides (unless I’ve misread it)