Started by Nor'easter, May 10, 2011, 02:13:20 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 12, 2011, 05:27:36 PMIt can cause operational difficulties, to be sure.There are times when I have proctored tests for cadets and it is not conducive to a good study/testing environment because of having to leave the door open when there may be background noise outside.As well, even something as simple as a latrine break...whenever I go, I knock on the door, but cadets don't always do so. It is awkward, to say the least, for a cadet to walk in when I am in the latrine alone and I have to direct him to leave.But given the alternatives, it's something we just have to live with. It is far preferable to a child being damaged - those scars don't go away - or for a potential false rumour against a CAP adult member leading to jail time or almost inevitably the CAP member either getting kicked out of or having to leave CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 12, 2011, 05:33:37 PMThe is no such thing as the "no lone zone" or any other variant. Don't confuse personal CYA / ORM with anything mandated by the program.
Quote from: NIN on May 12, 2011, 05:47:28 PMIt had nothing to do with ORM or CYA, it had to do with reminding members of the two-person rule.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 12, 2011, 05:55:48 PMWherever it came from, we've been actively dispelling that "wives tale" for the 12 years I have been in and no matter how much and where we do, it still pops up all the time.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 12, 2011, 06:29:03 PMFor example, any number of CC's restricting female participation on overnight activities, or denying the activity itself because of a made-up "regulation" requiring female chaperons.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on May 12, 2011, 07:03:56 PMAt that moment, the wing commander walks by the classroom door. "Excuse me, Sir. Could you help answer a question? The students in the class have told me that there is a policy, from you, that requires a female senior member for activities that have a female cadet.""No, there isn't. I've never had such a policy, my predecessor never had such a policy, and doing so would violate our anti-discrimination policy."Next topic, anyone?
Quote from: CyBorg on May 12, 2011, 07:20:17 PMI think you'll understand if I take what I believe are necessary CP precautions to stay as far away from either of those possible eventualities as I can.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 12, 2011, 06:29:03 PMAfter we're all done reading it, perhaps someone can contact Ashville Composite and ask why they still have it posted.
Quote from: NIN on May 12, 2011, 09:22:41 PMI wasn't one-on-one with just one cadet, thankfully, at least there were two of them.
Quote from: pilot2b on May 13, 2011, 01:21:05 AMCPPT is necessary in many ways, but I do feel that it should be clarified. Too many senior members underestimate the maturity and competence of cadet officers and ncos. CPPT is meant to safeguard cadet programs, not to stifle it.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 12, 2011, 09:31:42 PMQuote from: NIN on May 12, 2011, 09:22:41 PMI wasn't one-on-one with just one cadet, thankfully, at least there were two of them. You've mentioned this several times, was this a local wing directive? Its never been in the regs.
Page created in 0.081 seconds with 21 queries.