Sorry meant bader mail from region com
thanks TSR2,
I wonder if the FTRS WExoâs, ARCâs and RCâs etc will be told to wear these too eventually?
Why would they, if they are FTRS?
The fun seeking might wonder aloud whether in future they will be cadet commission officers doing FTRS - though of course the cynical might imagine that given the mile-wide âdo as I say, and not as I doâ streak that runs through the upper echelons of the ACO, such august characters will for operational reasons be will be required to remain on the much more prestigious standard commissions.
Obviously theyâd like to be all in it with the rest of us, but for reasons we wouldnât understand they - regrettably - have to retain the traditional Queenâs CommissionâŚ
Incubus I was just thinking aloud:
I know that some wear VR(T) pins at present so perhaps they will move over too eventually and
we are all meant to be in the ACO family together so why not change them too so why not bring everyone under the same umbrella?
As a side question⌠FTRS⌠Full Time Reserve Service
what is really the reserve side of there job as RC,ARC or WExo??
if you deployed our WExo to say the middle east tomorrow, ISIS will of successfully invaded the UK by then end of the week as he would of sent them rail warrants and transport by mistake and bombed our own guys in the UK waiting for the warrants and transport to go on leave⌠
2 Likes
There is a fair chance heâd have sent them to Israel though!
1 Like
The system wonât change, they need to justify the existence of OASC.
I agree that the RAF will probably want to retain the current (ishâŚ) system so as to justify the retention of OASC - and, letâs face it, retain the cultural influence that ACO staff being âproperâ RAF Officers gives them over the organisation.
That does not however mean that the MOD or the Treasury will see things in the same way, or indeed that a future CAS will see that influence as being worth X number of very expensive PIDâs that an OASC that continues to do the ACOâs officer selection costs him/her when he could use them in the F35 or P-8 programmes instead.
Iâm afraid i take the view that this is an astonishingly short sighted move by HQAC that will have - in the medium and long term - a catastrophic effect on the cultural, let alone official, relationship between the ACO and the RAF. I would put good money on that relationship in 10 years time being akin to the current relationship between the RAF and the Scouts.
The one amusing outcome of this is that those comfortable FTRS jobs with wildly rank inflated salaries at HQAC and RHQâs will be long gone - it will be volunteers and a smattering of junior grade CS posts, perhaps with a couple of HEO level people supporting an SEO. None of which will pay the fees at Stamford SchoolâŚ
This is not HQACâs doing; it was imposed from above (in the cadet forces world, not the RAF).
HQAC actually opposed it and seemed to be at the verge of dragging SNCO/WO into the RAFVR(T) before the CFC put a halt to those plans.
How do you jump to this conclusion? I donât see how the move to a Cadet Force Commission for CFAVs will impact the requirement for FTRS roles within the permanent cadre.
You canât tell some people. âHQAC SHOULD HAVE DONE MOREâ. âHQAC SHOULD HAVE PERSOANLLY ASKED ME FOR MY OPINION BEFORE ROLLING OVERâ. âHQAC SHOULD SHOULD SHOULDâ.
4 Likes
Sorry but if HQAC had engaged with DYER and what looked like suggestions as to how to develop, in the face of growing financial and staffing problems, into a coherent organisation this would might not have happened like this. But the ACMB from what I remember didnât like it and we said at the time among ourselves it was because theyâd be turkeys voting for Christmas in terms of their well paid do not a lot jobs.
Also an organisation that doesnât engage with itâs âwork forceâ in this day and age is doomed to failure. In the past 10 years at work we have had the opportunity to give opinion and views on how the company develops and does things, especially at a local level. OK they donât always listen to everything but some ideas have been taken on and we remain in business. Mostly because we accepted redundancies and recruitment bans unless a real business need could be put. But this is probably a step too far to people who have lived and still live in world where things just get done to you and you are expected to put up, shut up or leave. The latter has been seen as happening in the armed forces. This is fine (up to a point) if you are dealing with people who get paid to live in that world, but none of us adult staff in the Corps are, which is why we have a greater expectation to be consulted on things.
This cadet force commission, as mentioned, looks like the start of the process that will eventually lead to a single cadet organisation, which will mean a loss of cushy jobs for retired Officers. Prune, given your love of CEP seems to be something you would relish. But it would be something that would happen to the ATC. I donât know where you work or what you do, but the world of work today is massively different to 10 years ago. Iâve got mates who work in local govt and they really kicked off when councils had to rein in spending and recruitment about 7 years ago. But we at work had had to accept that for the preceding couple of years.
So, HQAC should have engaged more with all volunteer staff, but that would mean doing something when golf handicaps need to worked on and the grass needs cutting, so do the latter and just apply platitudes. Itâs the people faced with the day to day running who know best and where savings and efficiencies can be made, not the CEO etc.
Iâm sorry, but you continue to type utter garbage. You have no idea what discussions have been held at the senior level. You just assume and make piecemeal of what scraps of information are around. Having had a meeting with a DYER Col and Capt Iâm aware of the driver which was firmly locked in from day 1, that being a ROYAL instruction supported by the heads of the forces. HQAC had diddly squat chance of changing the path of CFCs.
So what is the point of HQAC if they have no nor never had any influence? They should just pass control to ACF Counties and have done with it. It would make all those who love wearing âDPMâ happy.
It would then seem that since DYER we have been living and told a lie that there is a long term future for the ATC. What are qualities we bang on about? Ah yes integrity and honesty, not much evidence of that in members of the ACMB.
Nice to see one of the DYER recommendations actioned though,
Now, about the âsingle cadet MISâ workstrandâŚ
Royals donât give instructions, ministers give instructions - Royals may or may not have opinions but they are not employed to voice them, and neither ministers nor military officers are paid to listen to them. if you believe that the MOD would go through a whole process of changing the commissioning structure to suit the whinings of a Royal you are sadly - perhaps deliberately - misinformed.
IME - at MOD - MOD pretends to listen politely to Royal pleading/whining and then ignores it.
the Service heads did not walk into a room one day and discover over Tea and Toast that they all, seperately, had come to the same conclusion over the nature of the commisions held by the Officers in their respective cadet forces, there was a process, during which a proposal was supported by some and should have been opposed by others.
it is very, very simple: if HQAC opposed this the - as we are told - âextremely close relationship between HQAC and CASâ should have brought about RAF opposition to what was still a proposal. moreover, it should be noted that since 2013 the RAF has held the VCDS post, and now holds the CDS post - if HQAC has the influence it claims (which i doubt, but thats a side issueâŚ) then the RAF had more than enough administrative clout within MOD to see this proposal kicked into the toilet block.
the conclusions are obvious, and not flattering:
either HQAC have have zero influence and is so friendless and dicredited that it couldnât talk a man out of a burning car, or it was so disengaged from the process that it didnât know about it until it was all stitched up, or its lying and that actually it did support itâŚ
one further thought springs to mind - if the Palace is so critical in this matter, as we are told, why did HQACâs âinâ at the Palace in the form of our Patron, a lowly palace official known as âThe Queenâ or indeed our honorary Air Commodore-in Chief the Duchess of Cambridge have no ability to shoot down this foolishness? or is it that actually the Palace werenât really involved, and that when the big boys were stitching this up our esteemed, though friendless, Leader was making a backside of herself on Facebook while the Army giggled into their tea?
6 Likes
[quote=âTeflon, post:179, topic:2647â]
It would then seem that since DYER we have been living and told a lie that there is a long term future for the ATC. What are qualities we bang on about? Ah yes integrity and honesty, not much evidence of that in members of the ACMB.
[/quote]Either that or theyâre telling the truth and youâre adding 2+2 and getting 37.
But you would like to think theyâd be all over it like chicken pox to allay any fears or reservations and explain it fully. My suspicion is that come Apr 17 this will still be a WIP.
I imagine that CAC has or will put some facile nonsense on FB and whichever other popular social media she subscribes to, rather than putting out a proper and full document explaining the ins and outs to all addresses, so that we can come to our own conclusions / make an informed decision about it. Ironically the govt have got to get the instigating of Article 50 approved by parliament, despite the fact we the electorate democratically expressed our view to leave the EU, so why shouldnât we in the cadet forces be fully consulted on the changes and approve them before implementation, rather than just having it done to us? We invest a lot of time, effort and money and are treated with more disrespect than the lowest of the low. The people putting this together know about as much about the real cadet forces as 99.99999% of the general public know about theoretical particle physics.
Hahahhahahahhahhhahahha hahhhahab hagaggagga hhahahahahahha hahhhahhah.
Silly boy
You canât have been a member of staff for long. I donât recall ever being g consulted, even in the halcyon days of old.
1 Like
Well there a lot of fools out there.
I know itâs not the military way, where itâs a case of bending over and waiting for the radish and being thankful or leaving, but this will affect every single member of the cadet forces not just the ATC. Get it wrong and the cadet experience will mainly be for the hoorays (and a few state schools) as it was before we got involved.
Generally morale among ATC staff is low and speaking to several ACF staff including 3 senior county staff and the chap who goes around trying to fix things theyâve said the general morale is low in the ACF. The local det lost 2 Sgts in the last year and had 3 PIs of who 2 left. When you look at it overall, how many staff are in the cadet forces out of habit, just to provide the youngsters with the best local experience they can. Lose these, which many would relish, and you would see squadrons and ACF dets shut which then threatens the overall viability of the cadet forces. Or may be thatâs the unwritten intention of the 2020 CF Strategy, destroy peopleâs enthusiasm, lose a load of units, staff and cadets and just have a few hundred CCF units, which when you look online and speak to people there is little evidence of new ones forming, or locally anyway. The only one local to us was in a school that the local ATC sqn only got around 2/3 cadets a year from and they never stuck it out. The CO said it was a waste of effort recruiting there and they only had 20-30 cadets out of around 800 eligible, so 3-4%.