Talk:Combined Cadet Force

Adult NCO ranks

In my experience, there are no Adult Sergeant Major Instructor (SMI) or Regimental Sergeant Instructor (RSMI) ranks/titles in the CCF. They do exist in the ACF. I propose that they are removed. The only time such ranks would be worn, is when the SSI is ex-Army/Royal Marines and has reached the WO2/WO1 rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbo194 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I updated the section to show the allowed progression to Staff Sergeant Instructor. This was promulgated in Cadet Branch Notice 19/026 along with the statement that CCF Regulations would be updated. I cannot find the CBN in the public domain and CCF Regs has yet to be updated. I do not have an image of the rank slide either, if Skjoldbro would care to produce one, that would be great. Hooky58 (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Project assessments

not a schoolVictuallers 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reassess - importance changed to mid as so many important schools in the UK link to it.Victuallers 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Stowe patrol

I'm not sure why the Stowe Patrol Competition needs such a large mention on a page about the CCF in general. Very few schools compete, and indeed seeing as it's an annual competition, having the 2004 results seems doubly unnecessary (I think Haileybury won 2005). It seems rather like having a list of teams that at some point competed the Heineken Cup on the page about rugby. I think that at the very least it should be moved to its own article, or at best removed entirely. Ejgm 04:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions re ranks

I left the CCF twenty years ago, so things may have changed, but several parts of the section on ranks conflict with the situation in my contingent. Can anyone confirm that these are accurate and if so possibly when they changed?

• Contingent Sergeant Major: There was no such rank in my day - Army Sections were headed by an RSM or a JUO.
• The RAF Section doesn't recognise JUOs: Definitely did - all three sections in my last year were headed by a JUO, with an RSM, CWO and Cadet Coxswain as deputy in each case.
• JUOs are addressed as "Sir" - addressed by us as JUO, as in OTCs.
• SUOs: didn't exist in the CCF.

I'm interested in any info anyone may have. -- Necrothesp 10:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, to awnser your questions, in order:

1) CSM, much the same as COMPANY Sergeant Major, is the rank held by the senior NCO of any contingent of the correct size (Company) it is therefore generally reserved for larger, compulsory CCF's. RSM is the same, there MIGHT be one RSM per LARGE school such as Duke Of Yorks. However, many CCF's unfortunately flout these rules, and you see 40 strong contingents with 3 CSM's and an RSM, or something silly. Under officer is more an instructors rank, held by someone who has left the CCF as they left school, but wished to come back and teach more. 2) The RAF indeed do not recognise UO's, they legally do not exist, the title is a curtesy appointment to an NCO who has left and returned to teach, or is more centered on admin than anything else. The section should be led by a brace os Sgts, or Flight Sgts. 3) UO's are indeed addressed as Sir. 4) Never heard of SUO, nor is there an official rank for it, but i would suggest it too is a curtesy appointment to the most senior UO in the detatchment. Teta (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify things. For a start Contingent Sergeant Major doesn't exist, a CSM is a Company Sergeant Major. Then, a Company Sergeant Major is not a rank, neither is a Regimental Sergeant Major, they are both appointments. Therefore I will change the article the reflect the fact that cadet ranks are WO1 and WO2, and will add that appointments can be made to CSM, RSM, RQMS, etc. Chachu207 ^{talk to me} 19:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A protocol of the Convention for the Rights of the Child

What is the implication of the Combined Cadet Force with regard to the Optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict? – Kaihsu (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly none. It is a voluntary organisation for the most part (thereby voiding the compulsorily recruited clause in the protocol). In the cases where it is compulsory, it is important to make the distinction between the armed forces and the CCF. The CCF is a uniformed organisation run by the MOD, yet it is not a part of the armed forces. In no circumstances would they become involved in hostilities so actually this protocol has no implications for the CCF. (That said, I am no lawyer and have not had any access to the protocol.) Woody (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what "voluntary" means here. At my school, and I think at most schools that had CCF, attendance was compulsory. Had it not been compusory, very few would have chosen to take part. Maproom (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maproom is right. I think it is compulsory pretty much everywhere, and anyone who doesn't want to opt in will probably get given a hard time as a result. I suppose it's a good way of weeding out subversives and pacifists early in life too.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not compulsory in my school, and almost everyone in each year joins anyway. It's fun and is focused more on teambuilding and discipline than "weeding out subversives and pacifists". Perhaps you do not know what you're talking about? 90.206.126.228 (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cadet Ranks

While I have not had much exposure to the CCF, I am certain that the rank of Leading Hand is equal to Corporal, not Sergeant? Likewise, Petty Officers are equal in rank to Sergeants, not Staff/Colour/Flight Sergeants. DSA_Ratu (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the ranks as they currently stand are correct. However, because CCF ranks may not always mirror service ranks, it would be worthwhile getting a conclusive answer on this. --Chachu207 ^{talk to me} 22:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made the adjustment for Cadet Coxswain, they are the head of the navy section and hence are equivalent to the head of the RAF or Army section (WO and RSM respectively).Henry.pearson (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Political issues

This article needs more material on controversies relating to the CCF outfit. I can't believe that there aren't any. A small sentence at the start of the article mentions its renaming from the OTC, but there must be other issues. What happens to people who object to taking part? Have there been (m)any fatal accidents or severe injuries as a result of taking part? (I recall vaguely some people have drowned, can't think of anything else) Has anyone criticised it as a form of conditioning or brutalisation?

I can also think of issues in some parts of the world, notably in Ireland, where people might not want children to be inducted into the British Army.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can think of better articles for you to contribute to. The compulsory nature of CCF derives from it taking place during school hours and attendance at school being generally compulsory. Not all independent schools offer CCF. Anyone with concerns about it would not send their children to a CCF-affiliated school, or would ensure that there were alternatives available like community service. All of this notwithstanding that the UK Armed Services are in any case open to citizens of the Republic. But that's a separate subject which you have artificially introduced, as CCF is not part of the armed forces, as I believe the article makes clear.Hakluyt bean (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. I wasn't talking about the parents but mainly the children. What happens if the children themselves decide that they don't want to do it? The obvious answer is that they shall be punished, which is a violation of their political choices. I notice that you have answered none of my concerns by the way.

" All of this notwithstanding that the UK Armed Services are in any case open to citizens of the Republic." - I said *Ireland*, not the Republic. "the UK Armed Services are in any case open to citizens of the Republic." - And Kenya, and Fiji etc - probably because there aren't enough local fools to sign up these days.

"I can think of better articles for you to contribute to." - I'm sure you can and I can think of certain places where you can shove a patronising comment like that. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The CCF is relatively uncontroversial, but if you can find notable and reliable sources for controversy, do go ahead and add them. 84.12.252.17 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Civilian instructors

Is there really a need for the citation needed addition in the part about civilian instructors, we are all aware that members of staff from school may help out with CCF, whilst not getting a commission under the generic banner of civilian instructor. It is just fact, it is not really an unproven claim, please remove it, it just looks a mess! Henry.pearson (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is. This is something that it not common, and many schools, if not most, do not have civilian instructors. According to ACP 31 Section 5 there are no civilian instructors within the CCF. There may be members of staff who "help out whilst not getting a commission" but they are not civilian instructors in the cadet sense. Whatever the conclusion, we still need a citation to support it. --Chachu207 ^{talk to me} 16:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK fair point, but if it said "In addition to the SSI some contingents have one or more Civilian Instructors" it would be fine, and citation can be removed.

Is a CCF civilian instructor "in a cadet sense" not just usually another member of school staff who helps out with CCF? Henry.pearson (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few links showing the existance of civilian instructors at contingents as further evidence to remove the citation needed!

London Oratory School

Bradfield College

And Ratcliffe college

I hope these finally prove that some schools DO have civilian instructors! Henry.pearson (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries - perhaps you'd like to add the referencing to support this - then we can get rid of that ugly CN tag! ;) --Chachu207 ^{talk to me} 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Combined Cadet Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129212629/http://www.1260sqn.co.uk/about-us/the-air-cadet-organisation/the-history-of-the-combined-cadet-force to http://www.1260sqn.co.uk/about-us/the-air-cadet-organisation/the-history-of-the-combined-cadet-force
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060826002842/http://www.clsb.org.uk/Ex_Curric/CSO.html to http://www.clsb.org.uk/Ex_Curric/CSO.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://combinedcadetforce.org.uk/about-the-ccf/governance/combined-cadet-force-association and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10640052/Public-school-funding-for-military-cadet-forces-diverted-to-state-sector.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)