The problem I personally have in putting deserving people forward is time.
I am running a unit which is in rebuild mode along with try to develop new staff to take on key role on the unit.
My personal work is super demanding and takes up a huge amount of time.
I have small children and a partner who want to spend time with me.
The Wing team who could help put forward individuals do not know the names of the people on my unit let alone be able to put forward anything meaningful that would recognise their hardwork.
IMHO.
Frankly HQAC should be putting in EVERY sqn cdr who runs a unit succesfully for 10 years for a BEM.
No different to a local person getting one for running a knitting group for 3 years, or a reading group for 5.
Both seen in my county in the last few years.
Edit to add - yes i have a biased interest.
But i would also add that this would mean all WSOs should have oneā¦ as long as they have done their time on the ācoal faceā and not just climbed the slippery slope.
You mean the place that ironically has defended democracy in this country over the last couple of decades against elected politicians trying to erode it? Yes it needs reform, mainly to prevent politicians being appointed within a certain time of leaving the commons/failing to be elected, but it does itās job as a revising chamber extremely well. In my old job I used to have to sit in the house during debates and pass ministers advice. The Commons was a pathetic hovel full of poorly behaved children. The Lords actually got down to proper, constructive debate. I know which Iād prefer to get rid of
Totally agree with you as the Lords have members who have actually achieved things, such as the peer who was an MI6 officer who was part of the team who got Gordievsky out of Russia when the KGB were on his tail. Or, Robert Winston the surgeon. Many peers bring a depth of knowledge that is absent with the children in the other place.
The Lords would be improved if the granting of peerages was removed from the gift of the sitting government and instead entirely managed by an independent panel.
Have the lords serve an entirely scrutiny function and fill it with experts who serve a fixed term rather than for life to stop it turning into a gerontocracy. Peers could keep their titles after serving their terms but could only return to sitting under exceptional circumstances.
Not sure about this & think itās meant to happen anyway but I would have that anyone who had been a member of the house commons was barred for five years or two parliamentary terms before they could be appointed.
Also no dual nationals unless it is with another Commonwealth realm.
Perhaps donāt have terms as that could make it too politically linked but perhaps up to a certain age (70/80/90?) after which they become ex-officio so they can attend & speak but canāt vote or draw expenses. Also restore the hereditary peers again but also keep them ex-officio (logic on this is the hereditary often take a longer multi generational view than the short term election view).
Even when MPs, Councillors and highly regarded upstanding citizens write citations for CFAVs outside and submit them, they still get bounced back into the Military list. Then ignored.
Iāve known someone who had it out in on the Civil list for stuff they had done outside plus Cadet stuff have it bounced as Cadet stuff was part of it.
After all most people who volunteer in one way also do in another.
I wonder if you could write the citation in a way which doesnāt explicitly state theyāre involved with the RAFAC alongside other thingsā¦
āJohn Smith has volunteered at a local youth group for 20 years with children aged 12-19, assisting in the continuous running of activities ranging from DofE to Adventure Trainingā
isnāt this kind of the general point of volunteering as a CFAV?
ive only just discovered it.
