Last chance. Back to topic or create a new one or I’ll start deleting posts 
It’s not whether we see positive things about the Air Cadets, we all know the positives, because we see them all the time with ordinary cadets not the odd few that go to big events, so beloved because of the ‘selfie’ opportunities.
The question is - do those running the Corps understand the positive things about the Corps and the total reliance on the good will of the people who volunteer.
Looking at spreadsheets and coming up with changes that are then so badly managed, that elsewhere it would result in getting the sack, not promotions and gongs. Businesses that run like this end up out of business.
Our Regional WO has felt the need to enter the fray by email using cutting phrases such as “poorly managed” and “non-existent”.
Now I’m not a betting man, but if I was, I would say that the Regional WO doesn’t send out something like that without passing it by the RC first. For sure, the RC subsequently received a copy. Perhaps, and it’s own a perhaps, there are a number of gp capts beating on Comdt Air Cadets door telling her how the farrago is developing.
PS. I agree with Farriersaxe - CEOs in many businesses would be doing the Axminster shuffle by now.
Well I guess the RC’s are closer to us than CAC is… I wonder what their level of involvement has really been, other than towing the party line
I’ve noticed a few senior Officers wearing their new RAFAC shoulder boards over the last couple of days.
From a distance it makes them look like Regiment Officers!!
I saw that too and one saying
“just a badge”
1 Like
Yeah. Obviously he’s not here to comment and I don’t know his intentions with the comment but I read it as a very sarcastic dig at those unhappy with the change.
1 Like
The point I think he’s trying to make is that it has zero impact on his ability to lead what is a successful wing delivering a range of activities to their cadets
1 Like
And that there is one of the main problems with social media. Comments can be taken in different ways from how they are meant.
I completely agree. That’s why I caveated it. May just have read it like that as I saw it after being on here and so wasn’t in the most charitable of moods!
I’ve been reading this forum for a while.
Anything ‘they’ do annoys you.
‘Them’ not doing anything annoys you.
Not really giving them much options…
So you mentioned a ‘vote’ about what we should call ourselves and what our rank slides should look like.
I don’t think it was a ‘vote’ I think it was a staff survey? It’s naive to think it was or could ever have been a vote!
We don’t have a democracy. If we did we might have ended up with ‘boaty mcboatface’ on our rank slides?
The survey was probably conducted to gather up any good ideas out here? Not as some think to treat us with contempt?
1 Like
All of which were promptly ignored. If it was a fait acomplis, why bother surveying?
You really believe this? They were plainly not after ideas, and had not intention of accepting the result unless it was what ‘they’ wanted. This smacks heavily of contempt towards those of us who responded to the survey.
What I can’t fathom is why certain options were included in the survey in the first place if HQAC/RAF deemed them to be unsuitable.
Perhaps they didn’t think they were good ideas? As I say. It wasn’t a vote.
Regardless of the semantics of exact wording used to describe the vote or whatever you want to call it, would you accept that what happened was quite disingenuous? Would you accept that it was at the very least misleading the respondents to have options included which were discounted because they were ‘unacceptable’?
I don’t know the details but were reasons given as to why certain options were later discounted as being unacceptable?
If something was included as a possible then I would agree that if it is discounted there should be a reason? I guess somebody has asked that question?
Something to consider too,
The survey/vote/ input request, the general question was what should the new commission insignia be? (i can’t remember the exact wording) My Sqns WO and Sgt, both read the email and survey and felt as it didn’t affect them given they were SNCOs they would not give an input/ vote/ return as it was clearly marked for officers. Then only after the results were published did it become clear it did include them as they too were required to change insignia.
How many other people felt the same as them after receiving the wrong information and would the correct information of made a difference to the results?
In a FOI request somewhere there is an email from CAC to others saying something along the lines that “it shows we listen to them… sometimes!”
I believe it was referenced further up in this thread…