Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1420212223242526 LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 377

Thread: Shot with a sniper rifle - goodbye Scouting

  1. #346
    Senior Member Mallah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,184
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 300 Times in 215 Posts
    I'm involved with another charity completing DBS checks and an online company called uCheck. It's been taking less than a week to get them completed.
    Perhaps you could try applying to help with another organisation and see whether the process takes as long. That might at least identify an 'issue' in the system. OR if it comes back within a week a clear issue with TSAs processing!

    He who receives a good turn should never forget it; he who does one should never remember it.

  2. #347
    Group Scout Leader
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    932
    Thanks
    394
    Thanked 291 Times in 156 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    It is, but there may be a reason that we are unaware of.
    I agree. It is unacceptable for TSA to keep an individual waiting for so long. If there is a reason why an individual cannot be part of the TSA then they should have the courtesy and confidence to communicate the reason to the individual. Not simply keep them in limbo for months in the apparent hope that they just give up applying.

    Paul

  3. #348
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    14,784
    Thanks
    285
    Thanked 2,397 Times in 1,302 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulArthurs View Post
    I agree. It is unacceptable for TSA to keep an individual waiting for so long. If there is a reason why an individual cannot be part of the TSA then they should have the courtesy and confidence to communicate the reason to the individual. Not simply keep them in limbo for months in the apparent hope that they just give up applying.

    Paul


    There may be a legal reason why they cannot respond with the reason... there is precedent.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  4. #349
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 483 Times in 292 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    There may be a legal reason why they cannot respond with the reason... there is precedent.
    There may be but in my experience they just play that line whatever the scenario. Sure if there were an ongoing criminal investigation, we'd all understand if disclosure was delayed until all risk of that being prejudiced was out of the way - i.e. to stop you getting to the victim (and possibly further victims unknown as yet to TSA) to intimidate them etc. I have however seen someone under investigation for failure to process DBS checks only get actual confirmation of what was going on at the ACC meeting that confirmed his termination. They got the same "we'll respond shortly" nonsense from HQ all through out - even when asking for information on what was alleged so as to be able to prepare for investigation interviews!

    (There are other precedents elsewhere - if you are under suspicion for money laundering its actually a stated offence to tell you that in case it tips you off and jeopardises the investigation - its why on occasion peoples bank transfers seem to disappear for days at a time with no explanation)
    Does anyone know what's going on?

  5. #350
    Senior Member bernwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Thame, Oxon
    Posts
    1,448
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 255 Times in 173 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mallah View Post
    I'm involved with another charity completing DBS checks and an online company called uCheck. It's been taking less than a week to get them completed.
    Perhaps you could try applying to help with another organisation and see whether the process takes as long. That might at least identify an 'issue' in the system. OR if it comes back within a week a clear issue with TSAs processing!
    My DBS came back clean in 4 days on June 26th, why I'm still stuck in vetting is what is vexing me, can it really take 4 months to give an answer, I could get into GCHQ quicker than this!

  6. #351
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,401
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 1,561 Times in 978 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bernwood View Post
    My DBS came back clean in 4 days on June 26th, why I'm still stuck in vetting is what is vexing me, can it really take 4 months to give an answer, I could get into GCHQ quicker than this!
    what bemuses me with all this is i don't understand what's happening and why it's happening. can i just ask to make things a little clearer...

    1. you were suspended and then dismissed (?) as a result of an appointment review or something similar, yes or no?

    2. you have not been dismissed because of you committing some criminal offence and being convicted of such or cautioned for it, yes or no?

    3. you have not been referred by local scouting to safeguarding because of suspicions or adverse reports about you, yes or no?

    i'm guessing you'll answer yes to all three questions.

    this vetting by HQ is not about safeguarding or safeguarding concerns but simply about your 'suitability' to be a leader, am i correct? (and I have no idea what you have done or been accused of to be labelled as 'unsuitable', if this is the case!)

    hence why your DBS came back as 'nothing known'. of course personal enquiry is more that just a DBS check and it's something else causing the delay, but I haven't clue why it should cause this length of delay.

    maybe they're playing a waiting game hoping that you'll get bored waiting, give up, and go and join the foreign legion, maybe?

    i would lodge a formal complaint against the vetting team as khoomei says.

    but then if you've been dismissed then you have no entitlement to complain.

    this is all very confusing. it would help if you would confirm your appointment status as of now.

    thanks

    TM
    going...going...

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to merryweather For This Useful Post:

    BigBadBaloo (11-10-2017)

  8. #352
    Senior Member bernwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Thame, Oxon
    Posts
    1,448
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 255 Times in 173 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by merryweather View Post
    what bemuses me with all this is i don't understand what's happening and why it's happening. can i just ask to make things a little clearer...

    1. you were suspended and then dismissed (?) as a result of an appointment review or something similar, yes or no?

    2. you have not been dismissed because of you committing some criminal offence and being convicted of such or cautioned for it, yes or no?

    3. you have not been referred by local scouting to safeguarding because of suspicions or adverse reports about you, yes or no?

    i'm guessing you'll answer yes to all three questions.

    this vetting by HQ is not about safeguarding or safeguarding concerns but simply about your 'suitability' to be a leader, am i correct? (and I have no idea what you have done or been accused of to be labelled as 'unsuitable', if this is the case!)

    hence why your DBS came back as 'nothing known'. of course personal enquiry is more that just a DBS check and it's something else causing the delay, but I haven't clue why it should cause this length of delay.

    maybe they're playing a waiting game hoping that you'll get bored waiting, give up, and go and join the foreign legion, maybe?

    i would lodge a formal complaint against the vetting team as khoomei says.

    but then if you've been dismissed then you have no entitlement to complain.

    this is all very confusing. it would help if you would confirm your appointment status as of now.

    thanks

    TM
    As far as I can work out, my warrant was removed by my DC after the AAC meeting, but primarily because I went for a CSL role in another group, he then emailed me telling it was a an ACSL role, I told him therefore I did not want it. So he set up an AAC meeting because his nose was out of joint, and his AAC attack dogs did a hatchet job on me. The case was quashed on appeal to the CC in May, I approached another group, and the GSL put my DBS in on 26th June. Vetting hasnt been taking calls since August, and hasnt replied to nearly a dozen emails

  9. #353
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,401
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 1,561 Times in 978 Posts
    okay let me see if i can work this out! this is unusual and there are seemingly some anomalies.

    Quote Originally Posted by bernwood View Post
    As far as I can work out, my warrant was removed by my DC after the AAC meeting,
    so you were referred to the AAC?

    the AAC will consider your appointment:

    1. when you make an application to join a scout group and wish to take up an appointment;

    2. after an appointment review when they will review the decision of your line manager to either approve a renewal/continuation of your appointment, or you wish to retire, or to dismiss you.

    3. when you've completed a period of suspension and are to be considered for taking up your appointment again.

    i am somewhat bemused why the DC has 'removed' your appointment (warrants ended years ago!).

    did you commit a criminal offence or are you under investigation for criminal activities or have had adverse reports against you primarily on safeguarding grounds?

    (as far as i can see the answer is NO!)

    if you were in trouble for these cases you would be suspended as soon the offences were reported to scouting (HQ) and then passed to your local commissioners and shortly afterwards you would likely be dismissed when proven.

    so 3 above doesn't apply and you're not joining anew so 1 doesn't apply, therefore 2 applies.

    so this means you were referred to the AAC as part of an appointment review. Did you have a formal appointment review and was this done by your line manager, your GSL i presume?

    i'm guessing: No.

    why do you believe the DC got involved in reviewing your appointment? did you do or say anything that may have brought your group or district into disrepute or some such like.

    i'm guessing: No.

    So why is the DC getting involved? Under the appointment process in your situation there should be no need for the DC to get involved.

    this is highly irregular.

    but primarily because I went for a CSL role in another group, he then emailed me telling it was a an ACSL role, I told him therefore I did not want it.
    so we could stretch the reason for his action to 'disagreement between adults', possibly? Crikey! you must have said/done more than this? even then this should have been settled locally within your group. it certainly did not need to go higher.

    So he set up an AAC meeting because his nose was out of joint, and his AAC attack dogs did a hatchet job on me.
    you should not have gone to that meeting/interview! the DC must not influence that meeting. are you suggesting that the DC told the committee what to do/say?

    if i was your GSL i would have had a word with the DC and told him to stay out. i might also consider a complaint against the DC for not following process. the appointment review process is very clear and it clearly wasn't followed in your case.

    did you have the support of your GSL in all this business or were they wanting to get rid of you too?

    The case was quashed on appeal to the CC in May,
    there is no appeal to a higher authority if you are dismissed as the result of an appointment review. go check out POR!

    what was the CC quashing? if your dismissal is quashed or overturned then you are still a member. why are you now being vetted?

    again people seemingly not understanding and following process.

    I approached another group, and the GSL put my DBS in on 26th June.
    so you applied to join another group. you went through another application process. was this as a new member or as one transferring? i ask because i'm not sure whether you're a member or not.

    do you still have an appointment? check on compass!

    Vetting hasn't been taking calls since August, and hasn't replied to nearly a dozen emails
    i haven't foggiest why!

    you haven't been referred to vetting because of some suspension for irregularity or offence or adverse report. you said the action by the DC was quashed, was it? did it actually take place?

    you should only be going through personal enquiry as part of the normal application process, though this should be unnecessary if your service is continuous and the clear DBS should suffice.

    there is no reason why it has seemingly taken weeks.

    i have no reason why they don't seem to be responding to your calls.

    what are you doing in scouting now or are you in limbo? have you been kicked out by your last group and district and are awaiting joining your new group and district?

    if you have been kicked out by your last group and district then you should ask why because i thought you were informed that the dismissal was overturned. and i still do not know why you were dismissed! the reason you give is laughable.

    there is seemingly enough for a complaint here.

    TM
    going...going...

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to merryweather For This Useful Post:

    big chris (12-10-2017)

  11. #354
    Senior Member bernwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Thame, Oxon
    Posts
    1,448
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 255 Times in 173 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by merryweather View Post
    okay let me see if i can work this out! this is unusual and there are seemingly some anomalies.



    so you were referred to the AAC?

    the AAC will consider your appointment:

    1. when you make an application to join a scout group and wish to take up an appointment;

    2. after an appointment review when they will review the decision of your line manager to either approve a renewal/continuation of your appointment, or you wish to retire, or to dismiss you.

    3. when you've completed a period of suspension and are to be considered for taking up your appointment again.

    i am somewhat bemused why the DC has 'removed' your appointment (warrants ended years ago!).

    did you commit a criminal offence or are you under investigation for criminal activities or have had adverse reports against you primarily on safeguarding grounds?

    (as far as i can see the answer is NO!)

    if you were in trouble for these cases you would be suspended as soon the offences were reported to scouting (HQ) and then passed to your local commissioners and shortly afterwards you would likely be dismissed when proven.

    so 3 above doesn't apply and you're not joining anew so 1 doesn't apply, therefore 2 applies.

    so this means you were referred to the AAC as part of an appointment review. Did you have a formal appointment review and was this done by your line manager, your GSL i presume?

    i'm guessing: No.

    why do you believe the DC got involved in reviewing your appointment? did you do or say anything that may have brought your group or district into disrepute or some such like.

    i'm guessing: No.

    So why is the DC getting involved? Under the appointment process in your situation there should be no need for the DC to get involved.

    this is highly irregular.



    so we could stretch the reason for his action to 'disagreement between adults', possibly? Crikey! you must have said/done more than this? even then this should have been settled locally within your group. it certainly did not need to go higher.



    you should not have gone to that meeting/interview! the DC must not influence that meeting. are you suggesting that the DC told the committee what to do/say?

    if i was your GSL i would have had a word with the DC and told him to stay out. i might also consider a complaint against the DC for not following process. the appointment review process is very clear and it clearly wasn't followed in your case.

    did you have the support of your GSL in all this business or were they wanting to get rid of you too?



    there is no appeal to a higher authority if you are dismissed as the result of an appointment review. go check out POR!

    what was the CC quashing? if your dismissal is quashed or overturned then you are still a member. why are you now being vetted?

    again people seemingly not understanding and following process.



    so you applied to join another group. you went through another application process. was this as a new member or as one transferring? i ask because i'm not sure whether you're a member or not.

    do you still have an appointment? check on compass!



    i haven't foggiest why!

    you haven't been referred to vetting because of some suspension for irregularity or offence or adverse report. you said the action by the DC was quashed, was it? did it actually take place?

    you should only be going through personal enquiry as part of the normal application process, though this should be unnecessary if your service is continuous and the clear DBS should suffice.

    there is no reason why it has seemingly taken weeks.

    i have no reason why they don't seem to be responding to your calls.

    what are you doing in scouting now or are you in limbo? have you been kicked out by your last group and district and are awaiting joining your new group and district?

    if you have been kicked out by your last group and district then you should ask why because i thought you were informed that the dismissal was overturned. and i still do not know why you were dismissed! the reason you give is laughable.

    there is seemingly enough for a complaint here.

    TM
    Just to clarify a couple of things - I have never met the DC, the only contact were the two emails, one to turn down the role of ACSL when I had been told it was CSL, and the second the day after the AAC meeting to tell me my role was being with drawn. The three guys at the AAC meeting, knew all about the role I had applied for, and were critical of why I turned it down, and why I wanted to leave my current cub pack ( primarily as an ACSL I got very minimal input into the pack, we didnt go camping, and the program was chaotic at best) They were also questioning why I didnt go through the appointments committee to seek a new role ( strange as it was posted as a vacancy on the groups website). The timing and conversations that took place only point to a vindictive decision. I was called to the AAC meeting (not given a reason for it) seven days after the first email to the DC and was kicked in the proverbial man vegetables by email the day after. As far as I can work out I'm not a member - I can't log in to compass, but when I call gilwell my membership number is still 'live' - so I assume I am applying as a new member not a transfer. Gilwell have told me that the case raised has been quashed and this was confirmed by my old CC. So for the life of me I cannnot work out while I'm still in the system. The last time I actually got to talk to Vetting they assured me they were fast tracking me for a start in September, and thats the last I've heard from them, since then I've emailed them nine times and just get automated responses.

  12. #355
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,401
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 1,561 Times in 978 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bernwood View Post
    Just to clarify a couple of things -
    i dearly hope so because this is extremely baffling!

    I have never met the DC, the only contact were the two emails, one to turn down the role of ACSL when I had been told it was CSL, and the second the day after the AAC meeting to tell me my role was being with drawn.
    okay so there was no appointment review type of meeting.

    so i'm trying to see what the role of the AAC is here. so let's get this clear: you applied for a CSL role in your district but unbeknown to you someone (i suspect the group you were applying to) changed the role to ACSL. as you were already an ACSL and frustrated somewhat by its seemingly limited scope for you to develop you declined the new role. the AAC's role was to consider your application for the CSL now ACSL role.

    In this respect it had every right to invite you to an AAC panel interview. however, once you had withdrawn your application (on hearing the role wasn't for you) that should have been the end of it. the AAC can invite you to attend a meeting all it likes but you can decline - and should have declined!

    The three guys at the AAC meeting, knew all about the role I had applied for, and were critical of why I turned it down, and why I wanted to leave my current cub pack
    of course they knew all about the role you applied for because that's why they would be interviewing you! they have no other reason as i explained in my last post - none of the 3 standard reasons for you to attend an AAC panel apply as far as i can see - to summon you.

    did you not ask why you were called to an AAC panel interview?

    ( primarily as an ACSL I got very minimal input into the pack, we didnt go camping, and the program was chaotic at best)
    the reason one has for taking up or turning down a role are irrelevant; it's your choice. if i don't agree with your choice, then tough! look you could apply for a role in my group and string me along for weeks with me thinking you're joining and filling the hole of CSL that i need to fill, but then you could turn it down suddenly simply because you don't like the type of biscuits we have at GSMs. silly reason and i may not be very happy with you but that's life! move on. (of course if you applied again you wouldn't get far!)

    They were also questioning why I didnt go through the appointments committee to seek a new role ( strange as it was posted as a vacancy on the groups website).
    the AAC's role is to consider appointments and make recommendations to the DC. the clue is in its name - advisory! it has absolutely no role in managing appointments.

    The timing and conversations that took place only point to a vindictive decision.
    the meeting was irrelevant. you should not have attended.

    i am curious. what was your GSL doing in all this? they should have stood up for you and advised you. if i had been your GSL in this matter and allowed this stuff to happen i think i would have lost the support of my leader team and practically made my position as GSL untenable.

    (some people will know what i've been through regarding district interference and know that i stood side-by-side with my leaders. crikey that's my job! i am a caretaker. i take care of my leaders!)

    I was called to the AAC meeting (not given a reason for it) seven days after the first email to the DC and was kicked in the proverbial man vegetables by email the day after.
    why on earth did you go!!!? you should have politely declined their invite citing that as you had withdrawn you application for the other role the AAC's interest in the matter was concluded.

    look guys the rule book lays out the roles and responsibilities and processes and no matter how much some districts and people don't like the rules and bend them to their view, if you stick to them you will come through in the end.

    (i stuck to them and i got through!)

    As far as I can work out I'm not a member - I can't log in to compass, but when I call gilwell my membership number is still 'live' - so I assume I am applying as a new member not a transfer.
    well something's not right! if your membership is still live, i.e. you don't have a cancelled against it then it's still live! whether you can log in to compass or not is somewhat irrelevant. you should ask why you can't! ring them up!

    Gilwell have told me that the case raised has been quashed and this was confirmed by my old CC.
    hold on a second!!!!!

    what case was raised against you? it is not against the rules to apply for another role when you want to. it's not against the rules to string people along and then dump them with a 'no thanks', even if you didn't!

    you should ask what was the case!!!!!!

    being a pain in the **** is not a reason for dismissal.

    crikey, your GSL should have jumped all over district with this malarkey. maybe your GSL doesn't like you? well then all s/he has to do is give you a formal appointment review and then dismiss you.

    So for the life of me I cannot work out while I'm still in the system.
    i cannot work out why you're even in this spot of bother!

    The last time I actually got to talk to Vetting they assured me they were fast tracking me for a start in September, and thats the last I've heard from them, since then I've emailed them nine times and just get automated responses.
    i can't even understand why you're being vetted!

    crikey i know a few DCs who are completely useless and obnoxious by they're still in place and vetting does not do - as far as i know - a test of usefulness or kindness or niceness.

    you should be pushing this much harder. locally someone has got it in for you so start complaining.

    TM
    going...going...

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to merryweather For This Useful Post:

    itchen (14-10-2017),shiftypete (14-10-2017)

  14. #356
    Senior Member bernwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Thame, Oxon
    Posts
    1,448
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 255 Times in 173 Posts
    I had been a CSL for 11 years, and had switched groups - and as CSL roles are as rare as hens teeth, had to settle for an ACSL, stuck it for two years and was frankly bored, hence I was looking to step back up. The AAC meeting was pitched to me as a standard review meeting, as I hadn't had one since 2012. When I was a CSL I started with a pack of nine cubs, and when I left we had 3 packs and 96 cubs so I can't see how my suitability was in question. They seemed strangely obsessed with 'Youth Shaped' as if it some new revelation in Scouting, I'm always amazed how SA can rebadge ideas and feed buzzwords to these people, that are things most people have been doing for years.
    The 'case' raised against me. I simply have no idea what it was, and Gilwell wont tell me, submitted an SAR request, but even that tells very little other than what I know already from the email at the start of this thread. Since being thrown out I've had no support from my group, I was locked out of the groups facebook page the same day, and all communication ceased (everything seemed fine up to that point) but they seemed to be s**t scared of the DC and pulled up the shutters.
    I assume I'm in vetting as the case raised against may have been under safeguarding, as a convenient flag to expunge me in such a complicated matter that I may just walk away. The new group I'm applying for is 45 miles away, with a couple of counties between my old one. I could never be in scouting in my old district, as I would have no faith in the hierarchy hovering behind me, which brings me back to the fundamental problem of Scouting, there is too much power concentrated in a few people in each county, with few if any restrictions on their actions.
    Putting a call into Gilwell (number 19 in a weekly cycle) on Monday - I call every Monday to chuck a few grenades into the system - not that it has much effect - but at least they realise that I'm not going away - A previous post advised to collate the whole saga and send it recorded delivery to the Chief Executive, which is my next action after Monday

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to bernwood For This Useful Post:

    shiftypete (14-10-2017)

  16. #357
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 483 Times in 292 Posts
    Re the SAR request - there must have been more communication between district and HQ than has been disclosed. They may try and decline this on the grounds that it reveals other people etc, but that is not a valid reason to decline disclosure. What does their response say in respect of the limited information provided? I'd go back and ask for a full copy of every email or other communication they have that relates to you. Unless there is an ongoing criminal investigation the grounds for failing to disclose are pretty limited but many data controllers will see what they can get away with restricting as a test to see if you really know your rights.
    Does anyone know what's going on?

  17. #358
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    14,784
    Thanks
    285
    Thanked 2,397 Times in 1,302 Posts
    The Scout Association does not have to disclose its reasons for refusal.


    You can push as hard as you like, if it decides not to disclose then it will not.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  18. #359
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 483 Times in 292 Posts
    Yes and no. It doesn't have to write back and say why it has made a decision but it does have to disclose any data it holds on receipt of a SAR. So if the original DC that set this whole chain of events in motion emailled HQ, then that email is data which has to be disclosed. They may try and say that it relates to more than one person (i.e. the DC) but that as I understand it is not grounds for non disclosure - it can be redacted to remove reference to who sent the email but the remaining contents should be disclosed. Pretty soon with all the information they've based their decision on, you'd know why they made the decision even without the explicitly saying so. You may need to be explicit in your request - e.g. I request disclosure of all data in relation to myself, including but not limited to copies of emails from and to "DC", "CC", plus any data held in relation to personal enquiries outside the DBS system. That then may provoke them to come back and say "Ah but we don't have to disclose the emails from "DC" because they also relate to him" which can then be challenged.

    Having said that if they outright refuse and or lie about what they've got you are as Ewan says stuffed because you're only course then is appeal to the ICO which would be a grounds for suspension under POR (appeal to a third party authority).
    Does anyone know what's going on?

  19. #360
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,365
    Thanks
    375
    Thanked 378 Times in 243 Posts
    It would seem that Bernwood is not banned, otherwise I am sure they would receive a letter confirming this (which most likely would not explain the reason for the decision). If Bernwood has received such a letter, then there is little chance of reinstatement, and best to give up the whole thing.

    However, it sounds like someone has dropped the ball on this one (or someone else has kicked it in to the long grass, probably because they messed up).

    I appreciate that the vetting team are very busy, but failing to communicate at all is not right and fully justifies a formal complaint (you do not have to be a member to make a complaint). I am sure they will write back to you regarding your complaint, even if they say it has not been upheld (in which case best to give up, as you are never going to get anywhere). On the other hand it might unblock the system.
    Last edited by khoomei; 14-10-2017 at 01:22 PM.

Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1420212223242526 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. mug shot
    By nicki in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22-01-2011, 02:07 AM
  2. Recycle Shot Gun Cases
    By watsit in forum Programme Ideas & Resources
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-11-2010, 10:43 PM
  3. urban myths-getting shot
    By freeminer in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 24-02-2009, 02:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •