I had my suitability interview for CI with a WSO last night which went well however he said I would still have to go in front of a Wing Board prior to being appointed. I’ve recently aged out after 7 years as a cadet so I know that CI’s never used to be boarded.
Is this a new national policy or a ridiculous extra layer of bureaucracy implemented by my Wing?
I’d go with the latter - we just look for a WSO interview as per ACP20 (PI401 para 6) up here and even that is a relatively recent requirement.
Somebody needs to have a word with your OC Wing and tell them to stop the madness!
Your Wg isn’t located in the South East by any chance is it and beginning with ‘S’?
Just curious.
A ‘Wing Board’ for CIs? Somebody needs to find a mirror and give themselves a chuffing good talking to.
Nope. Without going into too much detail for fear of repercussions I’m in one of only three numbered Wings in the Corps. (I think)
Would I be within my rights to refuse to be boarded as it’s not Corps policy as a requirement for CI?
Personally I think the whole thing is bloody silly and if I do get boarded will be making that abundantly clear to them, it’s taken a ridiculous amount of time for me just to get to this stage and now I have to wait for another box ticking exercise (and an unnecessary one at that) to be scheduled and completed. No wonder my Wing has issues with staff recruitment and retention.
Perhaps they want an opportunity to pressure you into taking up a uniformed role.
Well that’s the thing, I had originally intended to go into uniform but the process took so long and staff on my squadron were being messed about by the Wing so I decided to go for CI (in addition to a few other personal reasons). They’re not getting me into uniform at this stage.
I cannot think of an organisation like ours (with possible exception of the ACF?) which seems to make people willing to volunteer feel like they are starting a job. In most places (notwithstanding checks where appropriate) take people’s arms off at the shoulder, while all we do is nibble the fingers.
Becoming a CI used to be turn up for a chat with the CO, if the potential wanted to do it ask for papers and off you go. I even think the WSO chat is unnecessary.
The DBS will sort out those unsuitable for real reasons (if they’ve been done for it) and what comes after in terms of personality etc can’t be mitigated for.
Incubus is probably on the money with the uniform idea which seems to be the motive for the OTT CI process.
I think the WSO interview we have now is essential as many OCs won’t feel able* to say no to a dribbling buffoon who stumbles through their door wanting to work with us - having an independent person as part of the process (and a more formal process) gives support, backup and some level of protection in case said buffoon complains about rejection.
While units may need volunteers those volunteers do need to be of a certain standard, even before we subject them to disclosures and probations. The system is still in need of improvement but it is better than it was.
*because we give no training or support to allow them to do so
2 Likes
Actually it won’t. There are people that have been interviewed/had a chat with a pair of staff who have been refused permission to join because they weren’t happy with them. Months later - they appear in the press. Their DBS would have showed clear at the time.
1 Like
As I said if they’ve been done for it abd that’s the problem with the system, although I thought the “other relevant information disclosed at the Chief Police Officer discretion” box was for relevant things not picked up in the other boxes which was for the discretion of “employers” to use as a viable reason to not engage someone. If it’s not mentioned or irrelevant to the organisation, who’s to know and unless you have a direct question about impending or past prosecutions/convictions or trouble with the authorities you won’t.
The statement 'months later they appear in the press", what for? The supposition by anyone reading it would be to imagine the worst, when it could be for something relatively minor / unimportant.
I don’t know about others but I think I’d have more things to worry about than joining a youth organisation as a helper if I was being ‘done’ for something.
I would want more than ‘gut feel’ from an anonymous WSO refusing someone as staff for my squadron, unless they are going to join the sqn. I do not regard anyone as infallible when it comes to selecting people for jobs or in our case a volunteer role. I’ve been involved in things at work and the person while appearing to be up to the task, wasn’t and didn’t last the probationary period. But in a voluntary organisation by the very nature of the type of organisation it is, cannot dictate strict rules etc etc unless you have a binding contract that requires the organisation to fulfil something in order to show that the person had not met the criteria laid down. At work the 6 months probationary period requires the company to ensure the person is trained fully for the role and checked they are competent for the role and able to work unsupervised and the person complies with this, along with attendance requirements and compliance with company rules. The ATC wouldn’t be able to enforce that people attend and falls woefully by a long, long way when it comes “to ensure the person is trained fully for the role” given that training courses are few/far between and rely on the dates falling in-line with our availability. So a probationary period is pointless.
^^^This
we have a Wing introduction for our potential CIs to attend.
they get a run through of the organisation, what we do, who we are and how we operate then an “interview” which is a personality check from what i understand. making sure these potential Staff are in it for the right reasons, and as above, the kind of people we want.
anything more formal is OTT
We have something but it’s once they’re fully on board. I feel more than able to tell people how the organisation works etc etc. Probably not the sunny days perspective of any glossies.
How far down the line are the ‘potential’ CIs as to me this describes an information day for potential CIs who aren’t in the system. How often are they run? What if the day doesn’t fit in with their real lives, are they binned?
I don’t get the ‘in it for the right reasons’ line, I volunteer in different things and I know why I’m doing it, initially it’s essentially for the community and to help with the smooth running/operation, anything I do after that is because I want to.
I can imagine some people coming to the ATC and getting scared off because of the second job mentality and we own every waking hour ethos espoused by HQAC as long as you get on with it yourself as they have the expectation that they can give you sod all training / support. I don’t understand why we have to explain why we don’t attend some things and have to get express permission. I don’t even do that at work.
We have the same as Steve. I have helped out at a couple of these nights and they’re useful for:
A) centralising the admin. All DBS packs can be issued and completed on the night. No waiting for postage or OC’s briefcase syndrome
B) Meeting other people in the same situation, potentially locally to you.
C) Getting a bigger picture of the organisation
D) Helping you understand the commitments (and opportunities) at various levels of the organisation.
We also run actual boards for uniformed staff and CWOs simultaneously which is good for efficiency.
The “interview” bit is really more of a chat to find out more about the person, what they’re interested in and whether (in the case of some clusters of squadrons) they’d be better volunteering at a neighbouring sqn if feasible.
I like them as an OC. It means I don’t have to fuss about with as much paperwork, I know that if someone doesn’t turn up then they aren’t that committed anyway and it saves me the bother of fruitless admin.
I also like that we as an organisation apply checks and balances to people and I don’t think it’s disproportionate.
2 Likes
Once again you choose to misread the post. The offence was relevant to young people. It was committed months after they attempted to join the organisation. They had never been on anyones radar before the offence was reported. Had we not had a sneaking suspicion they would have been a CI at the time. This was a person reccomended by an OC Sqn for appointment to staff.
i think this is perfectly answered by
[quote=“Plt_Off_Prune, post:16, topic:2387, full:true”]
Once again you choose to misread the post. The offence was relevant to young people. It was committed months after they attempted to join the organisation. They had never been on anyones radar before the offence was reported. Had we not had a sneaking suspicion they would have been a CI at the time. This was a person reccomended by an OC Sqn for appointment to staff.[/quote]
When a comment like “Months later - they appear in the press. Their DBS would have showed clear at the time.” does not suggest anything to do with young people. It is a misconception that a flag on a DBS only applies to things to do with young people, which is why there is ‘employer’ discretion. So from the quote it would only imply to a blinkered audience it was something involving young people.
I would suspect that if someone was convicted, being prosecuted or even under suspicion of something involving children would involve contact by the police to relevant organisation(s) that the person is part of, especially in this day and age after all the things Yew Tree threw up and prior to that events in Soham. Of course this ignores the press’ need to fill column inches.
You suspect wrong as, in this case, the offence occurred, was investigated in a few days and the chap arrested and charged in the same day. Briefly appeared at the local magistrates court the following day, then plead guilty at crown court four weeks later. This all happened AFTER he applied to the ACO.
But if it happened after he applied, I don’t see how interviewing him would have made the slightest difference. Would it have gone something like, by the way I’m being prosecuted for something I haven’t done yet.
If his DBS was done while he was being investigated, potentially having already been charged with a prosecution pending, then it would have shown up. If not then a question would need to be asked of the DBS. We know someone who had caution that was 4 years old for possession of cannabis that showed when they went for a job. They still got the job as the employer used their discretion.