I’m not…
Angus sums it up perfectly. Cadets have been targeted in the past. What makes you think it wont happen again?
[quote=“RearAdmiralScrinson” post=19381]
Angus sums it up perfectly. Cadets have been targeted in the past. What makes you think it wont happen again?[/quote]
I only know of the one, and that was over 10 years ago. Move on. Also, as far as I know, there is no definitive proof that a cadet was the actual target. The bomb was at a TA centre occupied by 4 Para. A cadet could have been the target, but there is good chance they were targeting the TA soldiers. No one claimed responsibility for it so it is hard to be certain.
Is the a realistic danger of a terrorist attack on cadets on their way to their unit? I don’t believe there is!
Its 1 too many. Regardless of that some of these people we are fighting have no problem strapping IEDs to teenage girls with down syndrome and sending them to their death, think they are going to think any different to you or cadets?
If its an opportunity target, then lets not give them the opportunity.
Looks like we are going to have to just disagree on this one. If you want to live in a perpetual state of fear. go right ahead.
15 year old Girl assaulted by Woman for being a “murderer”.
http://m.lep.co.uk/news/local/police-probe-racist-cadet-incident-at-army-barracks-1-5764769
Group of young Air Cadets racially attacked outside a barracks.
It doesnt have to be straight to a Lee Rigby type attack. Its not about “rocking back and forth”. Its common sense. Less attention drawn the better.
Its not about living in fear. Its a case od recognising some people dont like what we do.
Civvies in certain jobs need to take note too.
We arent talking about the “blitz” or “breaking spirit”. Or any of that crap.
Just understand that some people dont take too kindly to us. And if all it takes is not wearing headdress and a civvie jacket, just to not draw the eye, how hard is that?
Perhaps where you are, but here there are no such problems. What is the point of hiding when there is no threat? Since I have been running my unit I have never required my cadets to cover up on the way to and from the unit. Number of incidents: 0.
if you say ‘cadets’ i’m broadly inclined to agree with you, though i think the term terrorist attack has come to mean a bomb, or a gun, when it actually just means something frightening, like being abused/threatened on the bus or having ■■■■ thrown at your front door - my much greater concern is staff.
staff - in uniform - look like reservists. they wear the same clothes as reservists, and they have the same pattern (come home from work in civvies, get changed, leave at 6.30pm in uniform, get home at 10pm in uniform, go out at weekends in uniform) as reservists. for years, and years, and years.
the ‘Lee Rigby wasn’t in uniform, so it doesn’t apply’ argument is utter mince, its actually in indicator of the wide ranging nature of these charactors target list: Rigby was a young, fit bloke with short hair walking out of a barracks wearing a ‘Help for Heroes’ sweatshirt - the odds were that he was a soldier, but he could just as easily been a contractor, a friend/family member visiting, or the bloke who worked in the bar, or a civil servant. those odds were, for his attackers, fine - i wonder therefore what possible logic there could be to suggest that anyone on the periphery on the military would not be on the acceptable target list for the local nutter?
its also worth considering the err… brains involved: there was an excellent interview on Radio 4 (which i can’t find either on the iplayer or in transcript) where the reporter was talking to a group of Pakistani lads in, iirc, Bradford about the stream of young lads going to Syria, Iraq etc… their ignorance was spectactular - they supported going to these places to fight for ISIS in order to ‘fight for/defend Muslims’ without realising that it meant fighting other Muslims. several of these future MENSA members thought that going to join ISIS in Iraq would mean fighting the Americans and NATO in Mosul and Kirkuk, not Iraqi’s.
if they are that thick, that unobservant, that utterly in the dark, how on earth can anyone have any kind of confidence in their ability to differentiate between a regular, a reservist, a bloke vwho looks like a reservist, and even a 18yo cadet?
that isn’t terrorism that is a racial attack…and irrespective of uniform…they weren’t “attacked” for wearing their uniform…would the “attack” have been any different if it were Scouts in uniform?
i appreciate some areas it is less desirable to wear uniform, i myself have been at such Squadrons where as a Cadet walking to/from Sqn it was expected to wear a civi jacket and no dress…but that was to avoid being “picked on/bullied” by the bored youth rather than a terror threat.
i have since been at 4 other Squadrons and never had any incident.
i agree there are times and places where it is recommended to avoid wearing a uniform but for 75% or more of us who are in “low risk areas” i can’t see the point
Sometimes looking like you are trying to conceal something makes you more obvious and people tend to think something more serious or interesting is going on. Behavioural science 101.
How is this thread still going?
Rather than everyone spout their opinion regarding the current security situation (which is going to vary according to local situations anyway), can anyone reference current policy, a DII or a standing order of a similar status detailing what we should or should not be doing?
Anyone can be a victim of crime and it depends on the perpetrator whether your uniform makes you a bigger or smaller target (or more likely no difference at all). Like all risk assessments you look at the likely hood and put the control measures in based on policy and local conditions.
Unfortunately the below seems to sum up the course that this debate/question has taken.
[quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=19149]
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=19424]How is this thread still going?
Rather than everyone spout their opinion regarding the current security situation (which is going to vary according to local situations anyway), can anyone reference current policy, a DII or a standing order of a similar status detailing what we should or should not be doing?
[/quote]
After Lee Rigby, MOD direction was to carry on as normal and the official position is that uniform can be worn in public. Commanding Officers have the final say in local practice.
This policy was cascaded to all cadet forces.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=19424]can anyone reference current policy, a DII or a standing order of a similar status detailing what we should or should not be doing?
[/quote]
certainly
[i]0112. Occasions on which the wearing of uniform is encouraged (subject to OC Wg / Wg Ex O / Sqn Ldr CCF HQAC direction on advice and including security and threat assessments):
a. Travelling from place of duty to place of duty. Uniform should be worn irrespective of the method of travel e.g. public or private transport or on foot.
b. Travelling to and from residence to place of duty and visits to civilian amenities e.g. bank, garage, shopping, coffee shops. Uniform may be worn irrespective of the method of travel e.g. public or private transport or on foot.
c. When authorised by the OC Wg / Wg Ex O / Sqn Ldr CCF HQAC attending events e.g. civil or Service wedding, graduation ceremonies.
Wearing of Head-dress
0125. When wearing uniform outdoors, on or off base, head-dress is to be worn by all personnel in the following manner[/i]
(see the rest of Para 0125 for details on how headress should be worn, for ease i have only quoted the reference which answers the question ie “head is to be worn”)
As taken from AP1358C Ver 1.05 (page9)
The sheep, seals and seagulls have sometimes been known to look at my cadets in a funny way. Otherwise, there is absolutely zero threat around here since the Vikings packed in raiding the place.
Where my squadron is in Bristol the cadets ARE the threat.
Indeed! 