I am not sure that this was the best idea: http://www.sheptonmalletjournal.co.uk/Shepton-Mallet-air-cadets-new-uniform/story-20812632-detail/story.html
I know our Civcom chairman was shocked reading it - each to their own
…Lucky them 
More interested about the defib bit…
Utter waste of money!
Re the defib, while I commend making them more widely available, I would have thought it would have been a better use of cash to provide a public access defibrillator in town, rather than one that would only be available two evenings a week and at public events (which will normally be covered by first aid providers with their own AEDs).
Entirely agreed. Not one penny of that has actually expanded, improved or enhanced the opportunities available to their cadets. It’s sheer vanity.
Playing devil’s advocate, it is of course possible that they had no form of serviceable field clothing, and decided to do fundraising to get hold of the kit - and decided to spend a little extra to go for MTP rather than DPM.
Possible, but not likely 
Entirely agreed. Not one penny of that has actually expanded, improved or enhanced the opportunities available to their cadets. It’s sheer vanity.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this; but I’m not sure it’s quite as bad as a Squadron I know of who have decided to buy personalised number plates for both their Squadron vehicles (in the form <Sqn#>) - I’ve always struggled to get my head round their justification
This is pure vanity.
Entirely agreed. Not one penny of that has actually expanded, improved or enhanced the opportunities available to their cadets. It’s sheer vanity.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this; but I’m not sure it’s quite as bad as a Squadron I know of who have decided to buy personalised number plates for both their Squadron vehicles (in the form <Sqn#>) - I’ve always struggled to get my head round their justification[/quote]Yeah, that’s definitely worse.
Ok, so as a Cadet SNCO on the squadron which was pictured, this is really rather intriguing to me!
I’m interested to know the objections to this that people have?
I think it’s along the lines of spending quite a large sum of money on something that is more of a luxury than a necessary or particularly useful bit of kit (in the case of the MTP it’s essentially a newer version of something we already have). As for the defibrillator there are probably better places for it to be, I know the town near where I live has one in the mall.
Uniform - new - smarter - good for morale? Recruiting? Reward for the previous good services to the community?
Defib - it said “Cadet Centre” in the article - used by other cadet groups I presume? If cadets take the defib to public events, even better.
As to public events, only seems to be a “recommendation by HSE” to have minimum ratio of 2 first aiders per 1000-3000 people attending - ah, only got 50 for a cadet event…! Total required resources are “suggested” rather than “must.”
Event Safety Guide
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg195.pdf
As to having a defib, even if only limited access, yes please. I did CPR (with 2 others - both nurses as it happened!) at Bisley about 18 months ago, for just under 20 mins, swapping CPR/rescue breath tasks as required. No defib available.
The gentleman concerned had no vital signs. Two ambulances attended, & he was connected to a defib about 20 mins after he had collapsed. He was given one shock only & intubated for various drugs. Although an air ambulance helicopter also arrived, the man was considered stable enough to be transferred to hospital by normal ambulance.
Two follow-ups from the incident - I was able to speak with the man about a week later when he was released from hospital (he had had a stent inserted), no adverse issues from his collapse. After a little bit of pushing & prodding to the NRA, Bisley shooting ground now has a defib machine with 2 people trained.
From HSE website:
[quote]What training is required for using a defibrillator?
First aid at work (FAW) courses do not cover the use of defibrillators. If you decide to provide a defibrillator in your workplace, it is important that those who may use it are appropriately trained. HSE does not specify the content of this training. However, whoever you select to deliver this training must be competent. Information on training is available from the Resuscitation Council (UK) .[/quote]
I spent 13k on paddling kit. That wasn’t strictly a necessity, but we raised the money for it so I’ll flaming well spend it! If they’ve done the hard work to raise the money, either by bag packing or grants, fair play to them. It may well be that they are otherwise well off and didn’t need anything else.
Don’t judge before you know the full story methinks!
[quote=“GingerFS” post=16623]Ok, so as a Cadet SNCO on the squadron which was pictured, this is really rather intriguing to me!
I’m interested to know the objections to this that people have? :)[/quote]
The money could have been spent on Kit that could be utilised by several generations of Cadets, by replacing or providing AT kit for example.
How many sets will you get back when cadets leave?
What happens when the kit runs out and you have new cadets?
MTP is not scaled for the ACO, other then SATTs/JLs etc. We have a perfectly acceptable alternative in CS95 which served the Armed forces for 20 years. Lets remember MTP PCS is due to the change of terrain that our troops most commonly find them selves in, now that we have stopped invading Germany every couple of Decades!!!
Paddling kit is fine. In fact, more than fine, it’s an ideal use of non-public money. It allows cadets the chance to do something that either they wouldn’t otherwise get the chance to do, or in any case, much cheaper
It is worth noting that at present we, as a squadron, have an extremely effective committee, who raised an extra 30% on top of the target the CO set last year. As such, we don’t have a shortage of kit! With regards to AT equipment, we have kit which is relevant to the capabilities and qualifications of staff, much like the rest of the wing. It’s all well and good buying a large amount of more specialist AT equipment but (as far as I’m aware) we don’t have the staff to run the activities, and therefore would be funding equipment which would be sitting in a store room unused:)
The matter of whether we will get the unifrom back is something which the staff have taken into consideration. Each cadet has been asked to sign (along with Parent/Guardian) a “Uniform Loan Agreement” form, before receiving their new kit! Furthermore, cadets are not allowed to just “not turn up anymore”. They are contacted by staff members, after a set period of time, and reminded that they are still welcome, but if they have decided that the organisation isn’t for them, then they should return their uniform and have their discharge certificate signed!
With regards to what happens when kit runs out, I’m sure a relevant plan has been out into place, however I’m only a Cadet SNCO, so that is something I don’t have exact information on!
Interesting arguments from both sides of the fence.
However, if someone can tell me why a smaller amount of money could not have been spent on virtually new CS95; let’s face it, there is piles of it around, and the rest on the good of future cadets, then I think I could understand it better.
My personal opinion is it is pure vanity.
[quote=“Racing Stick” post=16633]
My personal opinion is it is pure vanity.[/quote]
A valid point, and one which a lot of the cadets from the neighbouring squadron agreed with.
I just reread everything I posted earlier, and realised I didn’t actually explain the details of why a bulk purchase of MTP was deemed a good idea!
As I’m sure many remember, the thread on MTP brought up a number of issues, including how we could have half a squadron in MTP and half the squadron in DPM. When our staff heard of the authorisation to wear MTP, a decision was quickly made that they wanted a smooth, decisive change over; if possible this should avoid mixing uniform on the squadron. It was therefore decided that the squadron would buy MTP. This would mean that it is squadron property, giving more autonomy to the staff on deciding when it could/couldn’t be worn ( in as far as every cadet still has a set of DPM which will be worn for night exercises), that the squadron has a stock of MTP on which it can build upon (preventing the need to buy or acquire a potentially larger amount in the future - buy 30 sets in 2014 and another 20 in 2016 vs buy 50 sets in 2016), and finally cutting out the mixing of camouflage on the squadron.
Now, last year the cadets were explained this. As a group we were told that we could buy ourselves a set of MTP if we wanted to, but the squadron was buying uniform in the new year. Obviously, each cadet understood the economics behind “pay £50+ for MTP or wait until new year and get given it”, and after myself and the other cadet flight commander had a chat with our flights, we came to an agreement that it would look smarter and our parents bank accounts would far prefer if we waited until the uniform was provided by the squadron. The night the image was taken was the night the cadet were wearing the uniform for the first time, and it prevented the ‘dribs and drabs’ approach that a lot of other squadrons have to deal with.
I don’t see the problem with this. The cadets raised (most of) the money, and they’re getting to wear smart kit that they can feel proud of.
In my experience, squadrons that make an effort to appear smart and professional have better discipline, engagement and pride than the ones that staunchly scrape by with tatty kit they’ve had since the year 0.