Angus…
it was with hindsight and after the fact it was found out, We are talking of the height of his fame…
did ordinary people know what was going on outwith the BBC? No
Would the BBC sign a reference form for him? I think so they helped cover up his crimes so why would the stick “no he’s a pedo” on a form when they couldn’t do it in house
Your gut won’t tell you he’s a pedo if he attended it will be jumping up and down celebrating you just got a good bit of PR into your squadron
So with all this would you be able to identify him as a paedophile?? I think not
When Saville was exposed, how many people honestly expressed shock and surprise. The man was a weirdo and it wasn’t just his stage persona. Only after his death has it become apparent how deep it went.
I’m sorry but you are talking out of your hoop, Jimmy Saville was quite obviously a nonce and if he had walked through the door of my Squadron he would have been politely told to jog on. What evidence would I have had? None. But if it walks like a nonce, looks like a nonce and sounds like a nonce that how I will treat it.
I have turned away 2 people who have expressed an interest in being a CI, one was recommended by a Senior WSO had his DBS and his paperwork was at Wing but I became concerned after a few in depth conversations with him and had his application binned before it went to HQAC. The other was a “Soap Star” who I turned away after his intiative interview with me (before we even got to WSO level) as something just wasn’t right.
To this end I think that organisation has been fortunate that people have accepted it and cracked on (disgruntled or otherwise) or just left. If someone had gone or goes public over it, then rather than a hunch the people making the decision would have to come up with a decision based on objective criteria, fact or something equally determinable. This equally applies to cadets hitting 18 which some COs see as a way of getting rid cadets that they don’t like. Everyone from bottom to the top would be in the frame. Given the way historic instances come to the fore, someone could be asked about something that happened years ago and with nothing objective to go by, could be accused of malpractice asked to leave the Corps.
When I’ve been involved in interview processes at work, we have a CV/application which states I’ve done this/that/other and we put that to the test in tasks and then as you know people don’t always perform well under pressure they are questioned on technical aspects in the interview. We get people who just don’t have the technical or practical experience, knowledge or ability coming for a job and they are told this if they ask, but whichever way we do it there is objectivity.
Getting back to my original post it appears a board is not required as I received my letter of appointment last week effective from the day after I aged out. May just have been that the WSO who did my interview got confused about the process, I don’t honestly know.
no, there is a veneer of objectivity put in place purely to remove liability.
if a candidate comes infront of an interview board and no one on the board likes them, or they give people the creeps, or they just appear to be a complete throbber, they won’t get the job regardless of how qualified they are to do that job or the absence of other candidates.
if we get two or three broadly qualified candidates who no one has an objection to, we may pick the one we really like or the one most qualified. what no one - or no one with the wit that god gave a sheep - will do is decide to employ someone no one likes just because they happen to be qualified.
qualified, it should be noted, in sensible organisations includes ‘will be able to get on with co-workers and not cause me an admin nightmare the whole time they are with the company/organisation’.
having a CI/Whatever you don’t trust isn’t equivilant to having a CI/Whatever who can’t drive, or who doesn’t do early mornings, or who needs to leave at 5pm regardless of whats happening, its having a cancer at the heart of your sqn - what it means in practice is that you will sopend more time worrying about what they are doing than they save by their contribution.
no, there is a veneer of objectivity put in place purely to remove liability.[/quote]
The Corps, as suggested on this thread, is happy not to have even the merest veneer of objectivity and just go down subjective route, which if challenged would unravel and expose some people as egomaniacs and thinking they have God status and can do just as they think.
actually, the aim of this direction of travel is to have a marginally more objective look at candidates than is currently the case.
at the moment its mearly does the OC like you, and can you pass a DBS?. the idea is to move it to does the OC like you, does someone outside the Sqn and who therefore doesn’t care what the OC thinks like you, and can you pass a DBS?
thats it - and if you think that what is currently in place is objective, or more objective than what is proposed, then you need to give your head a shake.
As an OC if I think they are a wrong’un they won’t get to be interviewed by the WSO they will get told no and that’s it. There is no divine right to be a volunteer and if someone is unhappy they can whinge all they want, they still won’t be a volunteer at my Squadron.
I’m sorry but I disagree! OC’s may not like the individual but they could make a brilliant volunteer! I’ve seen this many time. How many of us in the working world have to work with people we don’t like? I think everybody should be given a chance to prove themselves.
This is a bit off topic as we have gone into the realms of turning people away because we don’t want them not because we aren’t happy with their motivations, but as an OC you’ve got to manage not just the individual but the team as well, if someone comes through the door who is a tool and who will have a detrimental effect on everyone else and their morale why should you take them on? They can be the most qualified person in the world, they can have an ML a CWA and be a former fighter pilot, but if they are a ■■■■ they may well be more trouble than they are worth and as an OC I need to make that judgement call.
If as with one of the 2 I turned away the concern was around safeguarding I will generally share the fact that I have turned them away with my neighbouring OC’s and my WSO in case said person turns up elsewhere. If he does so I will the. Share the details and my rationale.
I’m amazed by the insight some profess to have on first speaking to people to ascertain if they will be good as staff in the Corps or not and have anything lurking in the cupboard or not. In the professional environment making a decision on someone is life changing, but you work to experience, knowledge, education standard etc criteria, which are assessed by tasks. In the ATC bubble we don’t set any specific criteria like that, so we have the nothing to judge by other than people’s perception and if you’re going to sit there and say no thanks because my gut feeling is you’re not right for the Corps and if asked why are able to give a proper reason, which you could have given first time round, great, if not you have a career awaiting in the as a psychic, astrologer, tarot reader et al.
Someone unable to articulate why they want to join, are evasive in answering questions, have no background or experience of working with children or as a volunteer, have held lots of volunteer posts/roles with kids, nervous, struggle being able to provide referees (any, some or all) are a good indication and don’t require ESP or specialist training.
Prune, the reverse of all of those points could equally be indicators of someone being undesirable as staff.
I don’t see quite how you could have someone who has no background and then someone who has done lots of things and view them with equal suspicion. Someone with no background could be someone who now finds themselves with the spare time and just wants to do something and someone who has done a lot could easily be someone who hasn’t found their niche, I’ve worked with and know a lot of people who move to different jobs regularly in search of their heaven. The latter could well move on after a little while, which is more of a problem IMO. Someone who is able to summon up several references quite easily could have a network of friendlies.
Aside from this is that we do what everyone else (in the world of working with vulnerable groups does) which is satisfactory enhanced DBS as mandatory for joining as staff.
As incubus says where is the definitive training and guidance etc etc etc for people to critically judge individuals for then potential referral to someone else equally untrained.
I agree with some of this but that person could be great with kids and could make some change even if they are an ■■■■. Again we have to work with people we don’t like
thats the thing about being volunteers, even uniformed volunteers, who have several more important commitments to meet than the ACO - if someone joins the team who the others don’t like, or who gives them the creeps, or who is a bit of a throbber, other members of staff may well (and in my experience, have done…) lessen their commitment, go to other Sqns or just leave.
There is squadrons out there whose staff members get along and there are some squadrons whose staff don’t get along all the time but yet their cadets still get all the opportunities they can. I just don’t think it’s right to deny access for a willing volunteer just because a SQN commander doesn’t really like their company! After all, are we not there for the cadets? That certain willing volunteer could give massive opportunity for the cadets
It’s like work, no one gets on with every single person here, but you adopt a professional working relationship. No one is asking anyone to be best mates. There are staff at work and the sqn younger than our kids, so they are never going to be on my social list.
Leaving a sqn to go elsewhere because of one person or even 2 people is plain daft. People acting like that would indicate something deeper.