VR(T) Commission Change


#798

Oh I don’t doubt it’s probably a small number who are excited and would make sense to bring everyone onto it together. Was just a couple of people I was talking to about it. (Both of whom had wanted to serve but failed medicals so I guess this is a ‘closest we can get’ thing)


#799

just to make sure you know it isn’t the RAFAC that is holding this up… it’s the MOD as nobody has a clue what it actually all meant and needed to be done to get it in place!


#800

Oh yeah. But the perception is that the delay is primarily because of the legal and practical difficulties relating to RAFAC/VR(T) as they seem to be more complicated than with ACF/SCC


#801

yeah, well…
people perceive a lot of things but thats because the FACTS are unknown such as is this case… :wink:


#802

That is not the fault of the ACO. It is the fault of others who do not want the VR commission on officers in the ATC and CCF/RAF. If all is to be believed then then HQAC did not want this but the Mod and the Dyer report think it is a good thing.


#803

Completely agree. Wasn’t trying to lay the blame on us. Sorry it came across that way.


#804

In the context of the Sea Cadet Corps, the promised retention of the RNR post-nominals by your staff makes no sense whatsoever, if ACF commissioned staff are being removed from having membership of the Army Reserve, and RAFAC commissioned staff are being removed from being part of the RAF Volunteer Reserve.

Also, I note that currently SCC Officers appear not to wear any insignia or identifier on their uniforms to show they are actually members of the Sea Cadet Corps (unlike your CPOs and Cadets etc). Will this change when your Officers are eventually awarded the CFC?

There are those of us who fully-understand the history and enormous pride that goes with the RNVR wavy-navy rank-braid.

But it is surely odd that uniquely, amongst all other Cadet forces in the UK, SCC Officers currently are both uncommissioned and completely-unlabelled as to their formation (unless this does happen in some non-obvious way, in addition to the braid-style).


#805

HQAC didn’t like much in DYER IIRC and Cooper & co refused to ‘ratify it’.

The biggest stumbling blocks were the dismantling of trainsets in terms with doing away with Regions (a long standing anathema in the Corps) and as I recall moving to a more combined centralised management structure. But I see this as a potential theme for the future of the CF and fully expect ACMB dummy spitting.

I find it amusing that the Corps is going to have a “vision” to 2025.


#806

I made this very point when the survey was going on over what insignia we would wear, it was ignored.

Surely if the SCC are keeping RNVR insignia as their only identifier we could keep VRT as ours since no e else wears it.


#807

Ultimately I don’t know conversations were had higher up the food chain, and not knowing the technicalities of the new commission or it’s introduction, I only know the SCC is sponsored through a memorandum of understanding between the MSSC and the MOD and it’s by exceptional concession that SCC officers are allowed the post nominal ‘RNR’ by the MoU. So in isolation it is tradition and practice that the MOD/RN allow this and based on re-negotiating the MoU this just repeats each time.

In regards to SCC/CCF(RN) officers not being identified by further ‘flashes’, it’s in QRRN that only SCC/CCF(RN) officers wear the wavy lace, so maybe it was felt any ‘extra’ flashes on uniform were unnecessary as wavy ranked officers should only be identified as Naval Cadet Force Officers? i.e. the wavy lace IS their labelling?! Ultimately I don’t know if thats the reason or not although it seems logical?

However, there aren’t any planned changes to any uniform post commission introduction, no.


#808

From Bader

New Insignia Update @ 15 Sep 17

We still await a decision by MOD on the implementation of the Cadet Force Commission wef 1 Oct 17. Until that decision is confirmed all CFAV are to remain using the current insignia (VRT, ATC etc) until formally advised otherwise. Volunteers are also advised that no manufacturers have been authorised or endorsed to produce the new RAFAC insignia and that they should not purchase these privately until the official versions have been confirmed and issued by HQ AC. I think they really are taking the MICKEY now. If a NHS trust with 12.000 staff can merge with two others in 6 months solving all the legal and policy issues its making the RAF AC?ATC?CFC etc etc look bad


#809

Well, it looks like I’ll be wearing my nice brass ATCs for a while longer. Yes I did say brass, not those nasty ‘Staybright’ versions as issued now :wink:


#810

Still waiting for the minister to make a final decision then. I’d be surprised if the submission has been sent up yet or they wouldn’t be making this announcement. With Party conference season beginning tomorrow I’m not going to hold my breath on something as minor as this (in the grand scheme of things) being decided on during recess. Maybe now they’ll wait until 1st April and bring it into force on the RAF 100 anniversary? (It seems to be big changes happen on 1st April or 1st October.)


#811

I suspect the defence minister is busy with other matters requiring UN involvement IYKWIM
Another suspicion is the desire to kick this back until after the RAF100 as it may look bad in the press. The RAF have already had a brief kicking over the cost.


#812

Anything after end of October works for me as I can retire and not have to change my 5’s!


#813

There is also the theory that allows the RAF to have its centenary and look to reform the RAF as an “airborne regiment”, given the downsizing and the fact that so much in terms of air defence is tripartite that do you need a dedicated Air Force. In my RAFA branch there has been a lot of disquiet since the RAF corporate branding exercise and many of the members see ex-senior officers coming in as head office wallahs on a nice little number.

If this happened it would be easier to go down the ‘purple’ cadet force route suggested in DYER and maybe have a coherent cadet force, rather than 3 groups all trying to do their own thing, all trying to “urinate up the wall” higher than the others.

There has for years been talk of cutting the number of units to cut costs and this would make perfect sense, as rather than an ATC, ACF and SCC (although they don’t cost per se) unit in a town/borough/district, you have one cadet forces unit, getting the best of all 3. You would also lose the cost in the ATC of RCs, ARCs and most if not all the HQAC staff. Kerching for the defence budget.

Although I’m out of this little re-badging game, it is just another change that they haven’t been able to get right and becomes a recurring distraction.


#814

It’s not just the party conference season, brexit will become even more of a focus for parliament for who knows how long, given it’s a notional 18 months away. Some piddling admin exercise like changing a cadet commission afaic doesn’t warrant any parliamentary time. In the grand scheme of things what is more important ensuring we as a nation don’t get screwed over by eurocrats, like Juncker, Barnier etc, trying to protect their empire, or, something that is only happening as the people in charge of a cadet organisation fail to deal with complaints in an expedient and satisfactory manner. IIRC complaints from uniformed staff and disproportionate time to deal with them was highlighted in DYER Forget the rhetoric, when all said and done that is what this is about, incompetence and trying to cover it up with an admin exercise, that has been dealt with, with equal incompetence.

Then there is UN and NATO direction on matters requiring a military presence and who knows what else in the coming months. If NK carries on sabre rattling you can see the potential for international troops exercising in SK, just like they are in the Baltic states.


#815

i wouldn’t be remotely surprised if it gets kicked into the long grass maked ‘too difficult, too expensive, too much hassle, and no one really cares’… and doesn’t reappear.

there simply isn’t space on the desk for this piddling crap, Defence have got too much on and the resources envelope is too bare to be devoting any time to an issue that effects no one important and appears to have legal aggro written all over it.

no great loss…


#816

Then there’s the issue of the amount of cash paid to uniform staff which makes up a portion of the 2% spending we barely achieve as a country as required by NATO. Change all this and it might get a bit wobbly


#817

i think, in big hand terms, thats already toast - amusing as it is to watch this, and all the other, cadet forces projects hit the buffers of incompetence of those paid handsomely to run the various organisations, i fear its hardly a good advert for wit and value.

we’re at the stage where the Army is having to cancel the big, Bde level exercises in Kenya and BATUS - which have long been regarded as the holy-of-holies of quality training and operational readiness. when you get to that point, pretty much everything goes onto the table. the Daily Mail will go into bat for ceremonial and Public Duties, BAe will go into bat for the Red Arrows, who they largely pay for anyway, but who will go into bat for us? some witless bungler with all the credibility of Theresa Mays election manager…