Because it uses the Corps motto and Falcon
1 Like
So those units that have complied have hit an issue based on this LinkedIn Post.
Who’d have thought that using the same identify as another page would trigger impersonation!!
2 Likes
This was mentioned further up the thread as a potential issue!
Also, saw this yesterday and forgot to post:
It would appear that ‘this has come from the RAF’ isn’t quite true… It looks more like this has come from us, and we’ve asked the RAF to take the blame.
3 Likes
Once again, we withdraw the mess webley, load, cock, apply the marksmanship pinciples and take a highly accurate shot at our own foot.
3 Likes
This is very funny
2 Likes
Frankly, we’d already done that with all the gopping illegal badges and branding.
So, “the RAF have told us to tell you” is actually “we told the RAF that we were were going to tell you that they told us to tell you and they didn’t tell us not to tell you that”.
Interesting.
I’d say it’s more ‘we told the RAF we’d lost control of their brand, and wanted to comply with their branding policy, but needed to call on their authority to fix the mess we’d allowed to happen’.
Yes, a different approach — such as leading from the top by getting the regions compliant first — would have been better: but the mess still needs fixing.
1 Like
I is for INTEGRITY, and the org has tried to pass the buck.
“Oh it’s not us, they’re being mean so we have to” is the slimiest way to sell a project.
12 Likes
The second of the RISE principles is integrity.
If the volunteer at HQ has lied to the volunteers then the second principle has been breached.
Why should anything further be believed (including how definite any deadlines are or more seriously if an event is safe to go ahead)
It could be argued that the brand guidelines, which had been duly ignored within RAFAC, came from the RAF and that part of the rebrand from ACO to RAFAC was the adoption of the RAF brand. Therefore, the requirement to bin the awful DIY branding did come from the RAF policy even if — based on the FOI response — it looks like the impetus for the reset was internal.
It could also be argued that if my Aunt had wheels she would be a wagon.
Ultimately some sad little individual with RAFAC has decided they didn’t like the badges that Squadrons were using, ran crying to the RAF and then lied about it because they new we would mostly think that they were a sad little individual.
“Oh it’s not me, bigger boys made us do it” it’s pathetic.
3 Likes
I would argue that actually the RAFAC is just a made up construct - show me a Royal Warrant containing RAFAC - for the ATC, the ATC “badge” is more appropriate.
5 Likes
Shall we perhaps calm down . . .
3 Likes
If a person has demonstrated the lack of moral courage the email sender has I stand by my view that they are a sad little individual.
Just as I stood by my view of the wet pants involved in the car parking ban.
1 Like
They’re not named, it’s a fair opinion to hold.
1 Like
Although slightly off topic on branding, it would be interesting to know the RAF’s thoughts (if they have any) on our uniform branding in the sense of ATC beret badge cadet vs RAF for CCF (RAF) cadet and the numerous badges along with potential for double brassards for Lord Lieutenant cadet. I agree there should be a set format for branding across the board however a lot comes down to cost especially when it was “merchandise” and 3 weeks to replace everything. When the regions can’t get their social media accounts right, how are Squadrons expected to do everything in what for some could have been 4 parade nights.
Can you post a link to the LinkedIn post detailing about the Impersonation allegation by Meta? Would like to connect as the same has happened to our Sqn page. Thanks.