Off topic. Keep to talking about the commission change please and if you want I’m happy to split the thread.
Yes boss sorry boss …
1 Like
There is a potential drift, but it does seem credible to explore what might be felt as differences in how people are ‘disciplined’ by the system. As this from the comments appears to be the main driver for a change. You can only do this properly by citing examples and experiences and a conversation developing around these. Just like things do in the tea bar, office, canteen, bar etc etc.
Talking about the ins and outs of why an ACF Officer got court martialled has very little to do with a change in our commission. As I said, if you want I will make a new thread to continue it there. If not, keep to topic.
I joined over 30 years ago, I have been OC of a Squadron for 10 years although I am now a Squadron Officer… I am currently an RCO & SAAI. I would not have joined a youth organisation that did not have a military “parent”. I saw this close connection as re-assuring and a reconnection with the military. I know we shouldn’t but the attitude between VRT officers and CCF is noticeable, never to their faces but I have heard a lot of VRT’s deprecate CCF. Is this how the ATC / VRT is going to appear to our no-longer parent organisation and then how long until its privatised?
1 Like
I can’t see that being a problem at all, as long as the military don’t make demands on you and leave you to get in with it.
From everything I’ve seen, both in the ACO and in a parent service, the relationship was built on a appreciation of the quality of the people in the cadet organisation and the regard that the people in the parent service held for what the cadet organisation does for kids.
None whatsoever was based on the fact that they wore a particular uniform or had done the knife and fork course at Sleaford Tech - the fact that they are/were badged as VR(T) never came into it, not many knew it, and fewer cared.
I’m a CI hoping to move to ASNCO this year. In light of the changes to officer commissions will there then be another more to cut funding could we see the following:
Reduction in pay as officers now Cadet commission not VRT?
Move to a tri service Cadet centre were they have three wings one for ACF, one for ATC and one for SCC?
Increase in time served before moving up the ranks
Removal of MOD 90 and issue of a Cadet Services ID Card?
To your four questions:
- Unlikely. Mooted reduction in VA a year or two back was quickly quashed as they realised the likely impact on the cadets.
- I’d like to see this. I know those living in single-service silos (SCC, ACF, ATC) don’t want it; but working in the CCF I can see many benefits.
- More likely, it will be harder to be promoted. This is already happening with the removal of time-served promotions with the new CFC.
- Unlikely though possible; the amount of education of regular personnel and MPGS would be problematic. We’ve actually moved in the other direction in the last 10 years or so - CCFs used to issue their own ID cards to Army section officers, for example, though in my time RAF always had F1250 then MOD90.
The military parent aspect is increasingly losing its relevance as time goes on through the numerous cuts over the last couple of decades. I would expect a parent to look after and tend to their children’s needs, but our parent doesn’t. Parents I know who have found themselves on hard times ensure their children get the things they need and go without themselves. The cuts in the RAF are the hard times and yet we see no or little recognition of the efforts that real parents make.
I tend to feel we’re only staying with them as they are reluctant to cut the apron strings as they need us around more than we need them … to give a few people jobs. If we did break away I could see a real tantrum, ref EU reaction after our referendum, and cutting of ties as we ‘leave home’. Just because your kids leave home doesn’t mean you stop caring about them and supporting them as and when required, but I see a cut from our parent service would be us completely cut off as they’d have a fit of pique.
Losing the VRT will be the first step and, as long as it doesn’t become a CF cf with each branch wanting to run things, it won’t be a bad thing.
A CF ID card would be an excellent development as it should mean every single member of adult staff gets one, thus bringing CIs more into the fold, rather than the second rate citizen status they have. Also it might mean we lose this BS that you need a uniform to do things.
1 Like
I would say actually we are very well supported by the Parent. Volunteer Allowance is generous, travel pay is ok, free uniforms issued to cadets and use of service facilities ,opportunities to take part in RAF activities for staff etc.
One area that has reduced is the number of camp places available, but that’s due to the Parent downsizing - if there isn’t the space there isn’t the space - think how many stations have closed.
4 Likes
Well when there is ever a problem with uniform supply we don’t get a look in. So yes we get it free but only if there isn’t a supply problem. There are times I wish we paid for it, so we could exercise some consumer rights, I would love to see them dealing with a few snotty parents who have paid and not getting and then getting trading standards involved.
Use of service facilities and participation in activities depends on location. Given we can only really get to places at the weekend when their shut or during school holdiays, it’s not a really viable prospect for many.
Remuneration is probably the greatest cause of division in the Corps and probably accounts for more people going into uniform than anything else. It is high time every member of staff was remunerated for what they do and not just people in uniform.
Travel is a level playing field, except the balls up around restricted HTD mileage. Where we got confused with service personnel and no one bothered to fight our corner.
While the lack of camp places is a result of fewer stations, the problems started years ago when H Blocks were converted to single rooms and blocks of ‘flats’ were built. If each station had kept one H Block with dorms you could get 60-80 cadets/week on a camp, rather than the 30-40 which seems to be the norm. But this comes down to a lack of imagination among our management.
Don’t get me wrong I’m proud to wear the uniform because of what it represents, but by the same token I’m proud of my parents, but it doesn’t mean I want to live with them or expect them to support me.
Teflon, are you sure it’s not time you left??
The RAF REQUIRE uniform for their work - we don’t REQUIRE uniform for anything. I’m a lot happier getting it for free and waiting a few weeks.
HTD - CAC did fight our corner, hence we didn’t have the journeys reduced to 9 miles each way - the original intention.
I’d be in favour of remuneration based on role rather than rank, but it takes enough time to get it on the current easy system, so lets not worry about that for now.
1 Like
This topic has directed off on a tangent, haha! I’m still at a loss of whether to apply now for a VRT commission or wait for all the new changes to come into effect and then apply for a commission! 
If we don’t REQUIRE it, why have it? A statement like that questions our very existence as a uniformed organisation military or otherwise. That would upset the walts and shouty types, no bad thing
Whenever we get a block on supply it’s open ended, if we were told we can’t have anything for x weeks (optimistic use of weeks) you know where you are and can communicate that, but it comes out you can’t have and that’s it. When you make a lot of having a free uniform and use as a selling point in the face of our competition, then have to say to parents sorry because as in one case the MOD screwed up the contract, it sounds so unprofessional it’s embarrassing. I know it’s not our fault, but it seems like an out of body experience when you say it. If we can’t be given a timeframe it shows how amateurish they are, as has been said if a business operated in that way, they wouldn’t be in business.
P[quote=“Teflon, post:75, topic:2647”]
While the lack of camp places is a result of fewer stations, the problems started years ago when H Blocks were converted to single rooms and blocks of ‘flats’ were built. If each station had kept one H Block with dorms you could get 60-80 cadets/week on a camp, rather than the 30-40 which seems to be the norm. But this comes down to a lack of imagination among our management.
[/quote]
You talk some brilliant sense then end it with utter garbage. Do everyone a favour and shut up or leave. Please.
Do you honestly think the RAF would set aside a whole accommodation block for a few weeks usage a year by the ACO.
Do you realise how much tax payers money is used in putting up service personnel in private accommodation because they haven’t got space on their home stations? If you did, you wouldn’t make such comments.
Has there been a formal briefing in respect of all this?
Specifically aimed at explaining the intentions, impacts, overall timelines, an internal distribution aimed at current and potential Officers (and all other Staff).
If someone would please post a link to such an official document, intra or internet, that would be excellent (since I have no recollection of having received any sort of email on this).
The absence of official ACO comment on the CFC makes me doubtful regarding the supposed timeline (six months away, and no official statement?). Perhaps I’ve just missed this…but I doubt it.
two possible explanations…
first: backside. both hands. the dark.
second: they know that the change isn’t going to be a popular move - it may have no actual effect on 99.9% of ACO officers, and those it does effect might well be complete throbbers who we are well rid of, but that has nothing to do with what it feels like - which is that we are downgrading your status because you’re a pain in the bum. it going to be much less hassle if theres no time for a head of steam to build up within the rank and file and it can be presented as, near enough, a done deal.
incompetance or venality - as usual with HQAC, take your pick…
May I suggest a third option:
Confusion of their posterior with their elbow and vice versa?