There is a staff member in my area (officer) who at every turn screws up and goes against regs but only gets a slap on the wrists every time it happens.
But any other staff member in our area would be kicked out were it to be us doing what he is! Why can’t the corps be strict and treat all the same? Why do we get treated differently depending on who we are?
[quote=“Who.gives.a.flying.duck” post=16981]There is a staff member in my area (officer) who at every turn screws up and goes against regs but only gets a slap on the wrists every time it happens.
But any other staff member in our area would be kicked out were it to be us doing what he is! Why can’t the corps be strict and treat all the same? Why do we get treated differently depending on who we are?[/quote]
Your chap got a slap on the wrist? You were lucky.
Our perennial reg breaker rules with impunity at all times.
[quote=“Who.gives.a.flying.duck” post=16981]There is a staff member in my area (officer) who at every turn screws up and goes against regs but only gets a slap on the wrists every time it happens.
[size=4]But any other staff member in our area would be kicked out were it to be us doing what he is![/size] Why can’t the corps be strict and treat all the same? Why do we get treated differently depending on who we are?[/quote]
But what is the binding evidence for the bold/big. From what you say everyone else who has mucked up has been kicked out and this chap hasn’t and is a repeat offender. If they have been kicked out your Wing must have the highest turn over of staff in the Corps.
If this isn’t the case … That’s Life.
“Rules are there for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men.”
I understand your concerns, we seem to have a degree of " Do as I say, not as I do" behaviour.
A WSO who handed back their area of responsibility due to work pressure, to everyone’s knowledge does not now attend a squadron and yet is still listed as an active WSO.
Not gone NEP, not resigned yet still there and yet other squadron based staff are berated if their attendance slips.
Might he be on a Leave of Absence as opposed to NEP?
Since July 2013
Awesome. I’ll quote that when they catch me in bed with a couple of seventeen year olds.
Awesome. I’ll quote that when they catch me in bed with a couple of seventeen year olds.[/quote]
QFT
[quote=“397k” post=17052]A WSO who handed back their area of responsibility due to work pressure, to everyone’s knowledge does not now attend a squadron and yet is still listed as an active WSO.
Not gone NEP, not resigned yet still there and yet other squadron based staff are berated if their attendance slips.[/quote]
We have a couple of WSOs with no area responsibility and to the best of my knowledge no one’s annoyed.
As for ‘local’ attendance, that’s down to the sqn cdr to address. Frankly as long as they let me know why I’ve got bigger fish to fry and our WSOs are happy with this approach. If anyone else has a problem, they’ve not said anything to me.
It does seem we have some by the book dogmatic childness, persisting in the Corps.
Awesome. I’ll quote that when they catch me in bed with a couple of seventeen year olds.[/quote]
As long as they’re not your cadets what’s the issue with that?
Awesome. I’ll quote that when they catch me in bed with a couple of seventeen year olds.[/quote]
As long as they’re not your cadets what’s the issue with that?[/quote]
Well, exactly… not sleeping with sixteen and seventeen year old cadets is one of the ATC’s rules… but I imagine if I took it as ‘guidance’ then there would be particularly epic consequences…
Awesome. I’ll quote that when they catch me in bed with a couple of seventeen year olds.[/quote]
As long as they’re not your cadets what’s the issue with that?[/quote]
Well, exactly… not sleeping with sixteen and seventeen year old cadets is one of the ATC’s rules… but I imagine if I took it as ‘guidance’ then there would be particularly epic consequences…[/quote]
Breaking and Entering is illegal, however would you leave someone in there to burn to death? Or break in and help them out?
If blindly following the rules causes damage to oneself or others, its acceptable to bend them. Its all open to interpretation and perspective. And common sense.
Awesome. I’ll quote that when they catch me in bed with a couple of seventeen year olds.[/quote]
As long as they’re not your cadets what’s the issue with that?[/quote]
Well, exactly… not sleeping with sixteen and seventeen year old cadets is one of the ATC’s rules… but I imagine if I took it as ‘guidance’ then there would be particularly epic consequences…[/quote]
Breaking and Entering is illegal, however would you leave someone in there to burn to death? Or break in and help them out?
[/quote]
No such offence of Breaking and entering. It’s called burglary. But well done on matching up two similar words to help prove your point.
Awesome. I’ll quote that when they catch me in bed with a couple of seventeen year olds.[/quote]
As long as they’re not your cadets what’s the issue with that?[/quote]
Well, exactly… not sleeping with sixteen and seventeen year old cadets is one of the ATC’s rules… but I imagine if I took it as ‘guidance’ then there would be particularly epic consequences…[/quote]
Breaking and Entering is illegal, however would you leave someone in there to burn to death? Or break in and help them out?
[/quote]
No such offence of Breaking and entering. It’s called burglary. But well done on matching up two similar words to help prove your point.[/quote]
Actually, the example given wouldn’t even be burglary. Burglary is entering a building as a trespasser with an intent to either steal or cause GBH.
So you can break into houses and save people all you like.
I do love this euphemism, why not say what it is?
However not engaging in sexual relationships with cadets in this age range is not a rule per se, it’s just something that morally and ethically (not legally as the age of consent is 16) we’re not expected to do given we are in a ‘position of trust’. On that point it even means cadets who are over 18.
But I do think we are getting away somewhat from the OP’s nonsensical rant. Well unless the person they mention has been found to be sexually intimate (covers a wide gamut) or acting inapproprately with cadets on more than one occasion.
WRT “rules as guidance”, I think that as an organisation we have collected people who are completely inflexible and rules that are inappropriate, such as the 12 hours a month for adult uniformed staff. I suspect this is the subject of the OPs rant. Why do we have this? We don’t have an employment contract with the Corps and it’s not like we get paid, annual leave or any of the other benefits that employment attracts. Thus not doing x hours would not put us in breach of a contract and if that’s a problem for someone, it’s their heart attack. However as we are a volunteer hobby organisation if any of us don’t ‘do our bit’ all that happens is that others have more of their time impinged on.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=17081][
WRT “rules as guidance”, I think that as an organisation we have collected people who are completely inflexible and rules that are inappropriate, such as the 12 hours a month for adult uniformed staff. I suspect this is the subject of the OPs rant. Why do we have this? We don’t have an employment contract with the Corps and it’s not like we get paid, annual leave or any of the other benefits that employment attracts. Thus not doing x hours would not put us in breach of a contract and if that’s a problem for someone, it’s their heart attack. However as we are a volunteer hobby organisation if any of us don’t ‘do our bit’ all that happens is that others have more of their time impinged on.[/quote]
You are totally incorrect. As we agree to abide by the rules when we apply for a uniformed post, those rules include the number of hours service. If you don’t play by the rules then you go back to being a CI, or your contribution refused. It’s easy really yet many people think the rules don’t apply to them and get really upset when they are binned.
[quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=17083][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=17081][
WRT “rules as guidance”, I think that as an organisation we have collected people who are completely inflexible and rules that are inappropriate, such as the 12 hours a month for adult uniformed staff. I suspect this is the subject of the OPs rant. Why do we have this? We don’t have an employment contract with the Corps and it’s not like we get paid, annual leave or any of the other benefits that employment attracts. Thus not doing x hours would not put us in breach of a contract and if that’s a problem for someone, it’s their heart attack. However as we are a volunteer hobby organisation if any of us don’t ‘do our bit’ all that happens is that others have more of their time impinged on.[/quote]
You are totally incorrect. As we agree to abide by the rules when we apply for a uniformed post, those rules include the number of hours service. If you don’t play by the rules then you go back to being a CI, or your contribution refused. It’s easy really yet many people think the rules don’t apply to them and get really upset when they are binned.[/quote]
The prime example of inflexibility.
Don’t accuse people of being totally incorrect when it is a matter of moral obligation! Some people have a life outside the Air Training Corps as GHE2 was trying to get through to you. We are volunteers. We probably all to a man would like to offer more time but we can’t. If some little upstart wants to start stamping his feet because we cannot commit to 12 hours a month, then that just shows how immature they are. You’d happily get rid of a SNCO or VR(T) Officer because he hasn’t done his allotted number of hours for a few months when most Wings are so low on numbers? Possibly because of some reason that is none of your business? You need to take a reality pill fella and see what’s outside your Sqn’s front door!
[quote=“Racing Stick” post=17087]The prime example of inflexibility.
Don’t accuse people of being totally incorrect when it is a matter of moral obligation! Some people have a life outside the Air Training Corps as GHE2 was trying to get through to you. We are volunteers. We probably all to a man would like to offer more time but we can’t. If some little upstart wants to start stamping his feet because we cannot commit to 12 hours a month, then that just shows how immature they are. You’d happily get rid of a SNCO or VR(T) Officer because he hasn’t done his allotted number of hours for a few months when most Wings are so low on numbers? Possibly because of some reason that is none of your business? You need to take a reality pill fella and see what’s outside your Sqn’s front door![/quote]
Moral Obligation? How is following AP1919 a question of ‘moral’ obligation?
[quote=“AP1919, Chapter 3”]
310. Attendance. RAFVR(T) officers are expected to give an attendance of not less than 12 hours, or 2 days in the case of officers on VGSs, in any one calendar month to the official and semi-official activities of the ACO. Procedures for the recording and administration of the hours of attendance are detailed in ACP20, PI No 224. Failure to attend for the specified number of hours may result in the termination of an officer’s commission.
…
319. Compulsory Termination of Commission and Removal from the ACO. A RAFVR(T) officer will be liable to have his commission terminated or removed from the Corps in the following circumstances:
a. For non-attendance in accordance with para 310 above.[/quote]
Similarly,
[quote=“ACP20 PI 302”]ATTENDANCE ON ATC ACTIVITIES BY WOs/SNCOs(ATC)
6. WOs/SNCOs(ATC) should attend for not less than 12 hours in any one calendar month on official
and semi-official ATC activities. [/quote]
We don’t volunteer. We serve, and we have conditions of service. If you breach them you can be chucked out. It’s pretty simple.
And yes, if I was a Squadron Commander and one of my staff displayed the same attitude to their minimum service as you clearly do I’d quite happily let them go.
[quote=“Racing Stick” post=17087]
The prime example of inflexibility.
Don’t accuse people of being totally incorrect when it is a matter of moral obligation! Some people have a life outside the Air Training Corps as GHE2 was trying to get through to you. We are volunteers. We probably all to a man would like to offer more time but we can’t. If some little upstart wants to start stamping his feet because we cannot commit to 12 hours a month, then that just shows how immature they are. You’d happily get rid of a SNCO or VR(T) Officer because he hasn’t done his allotted number of hours for a few months when most Wings are so low on numbers? Possibly because of some reason that is none of your business? You need to take a reality pill fella and see what’s outside your Sqn’s front door![/quote]
If you can’t do 12 hours a month, which is really less than 3 hours in any one week when you do the math, and it’s not a temporary blip (don’t forget, you can have temporary leave or NEP status) then you are not fulfilling your duty to the cadets. It’s worse if you are an OC - slacking off and leaving the unit without it’s leader. Shameful, and if you can’t do the time, and don’t fancy taking time off/going NEP, then you are trying to engineer special rules for yourself because the ones you signed on the dotted line don’t seem to be good enough for you. You know the rules prior to accepting the uniform, it’s too late now to try and wriggle out of it. In fact, they is a pretty poor show of good officer/NCO qualities and perhaps you shouldn’t be wearing HM uniform anyway.