If they haven’t been authorised by the Inspectorate of RAF Badges then they are unauthorised. It’s like being pregnant: you are or you are not.
We were through this several years ago - sparked by the Tasmanian devil incident.
The aim is not the removal of unauthorised badges but the removal of any that are inappropriate & could cause legal difficulties.
Unless serious no compliant, It’s not something that be controlled or enforced easily in cadet world, it will cause kick off on the volunteers at a perilous time, result in letters to MPs & generally cause more hassle trying up media & comms.
You also have the charity/trustee issue where a Sqn registered as a charity in its own right could probably have its own branding used alongside RAF AC & ATC.
Which is why it’s still in drafts & not published yet as HQAC work through & negotiate a way fwd. 
From my reading the aim is to “maintain the integrity and legality of the RAF Air Cadets brand”, which means putting an end to making up its own logos and badges for all sorts of things without following the proper processes.
Fair point, but such branding would have to be careful not to use any element of copyrighted RAF or RAFAC branding or attempt in any way to impersonate an authorised heraldic badge without the appropriate authorisation (e.g. no ATC falcons, Astral crowns, etc.)
As long as we don’t let Durham copy their ACF counterparts badge i’m happy
The current guidance on badges is really unclear as to what’s 'approved" ‘authorised’ ‘compliant’ or ‘allowed’ and who the decision maker is for that process.
We keep throwing these terms around with no clarity as to what they mean.
And, until you get that clarity, every unit is going to rely upon the definition that helps them the most.
1 Like
So yes which last time was badges checked at region to provide assurance & compliance & remove some of the illegal ones or the inappropriate ones
Mainly it’s about avoiding complaints or getting sued.
If you fancy an archive rabbit hole the previous threads are here
1 Like
Given that only two of the six regions have authorised badges themselves, who are they (in the case of the other four) to judge?
1 Like
Authorised approvers with delegated authority?
According to the media guidance, they are the decision makers.
The current version of the media guidance has an internal authorisation process, with an optional external approval process from the College of Arms.
1 Like
This is the current guidance in badges in the media style policy:
So now we have the term ‘sanctioned’ to throw into the mix. And it also appears that “approval” for a suitable ‘unsanctioned’ badge could be granted by the projects officer as well!
And then wings and regions have had a plethora of other approval processes over the years/decades.
And then you’ll get units claiming it is sanctioned by the college, when it isn’t. Or claiming that some Royal approved the badge decades ago and that you “can come take it from our cold dead hands.”
As I said right at the outset, stick won’t work in this issue. So come up with decent carrots!
3 Likes
That thread is a rabbit hole! Found a Sqn that uses the device from a RAF Sqn badge as its own & all approved by inspectorate & college of arms so things are definitely not hard & fast!
In my experience of badging policies in the Armed Forces. The rules are meant to be broken.
Lets put it into the real world right. I get this is our hobby but…
As much as we may not like it sometimes, we represent the RAF…same uniform, similar badges etc. So they have the right and authority to ask the RAFAC , since we are part of 22gp, to remove anything that doesnt suit the values, brand, tradition and reputation of the parent service.
Likewise, if i was to create a new logo for the company i work for without follwing brand guidelines, seeking permission and use it in a public facing environment, id expect a no coffee meeting with my boss.
Like it or lump it, the rules and the rules, sometimes we need to adopt a bigger picture business hat.
If sqns have an issue with paying for a badge to be approved theres a simple answer. Use the ATC/CCF badge. Thats been approved and the expense has already been paid for.
So much winging in this thread over what is a non issues. Just empire builders not liking being told to follow rules.
9 Likes
What @AlexCorbin said.
I also hope to be able to provide the clarity that many have correctly identified can become confused because of certain language.
To clarify a point quoted above, it is correct that units do not have to go through the Inspectorate of RAF Badges to get an authorised badge. That does not mean they can make up their own thing.
It means you can get an authorised badge through the official process or not, and we’ll support you to do it right if you want to. There is no other option.
No one in this organisation can approve a badge.
It goes through me and Sqn Ldr TofL, then to RAF Ceremonial who give it their blessing or bounce it, and then it goes to the Inspectorate of RAF Badges.
There is no other route.
The ATC badge or CCF badge is there for you to use should the above process not appeal.
2 Likes
I think the issue is that previously Sqn badges were approved by RAFAC even if they weren’t registered with the college of arms.
The DRAFT ibn imply that this is now not permitted or it’s been interpreted as such.
This opens the can of worms re expenditure & investment that’s already been made for something previously approved & it’s not practicable to revert in only three weeks.
If you have a compliant & sanctioned badge which isn’t CoA approved then you should still be permitted to continue using it.
What about those in the process of getting approved
If you’ve gone rogue, not following the design policy or the badge is inappropriate then yep agree you shouldn’t be using it & should revert to the ATC crest.
But we went through this a decade ago and we still where we are.
1 Like
The process has always been the process.
This has always been the purview of the Inspectorate of RAF Badges.
People in the RAFAC (wing OCs etc) approving badges has never had any authority.
Not correcting people and changing course only compounds the problem.
1 Like
Could I make a suggestion though?
We should all stop discussing something which hasn’t been released, because some of us haven’t even seen it, so we’re doomed to have a flawed discussion.
3 Likes
Region were granted this permission 10-15 years ago after the TAZ incident but it was region paid staff by the then RAF inspectorate bods but everyone’s moved on since then - the olds threads shows what was being attempted back in 2014.
This - it’s still in draft, it’s being modified & the paid staff will look at. When’s its policy then challenge if but until then it’s just speculation
But the RAFAC only moves forwards on the rotations of the rumour mill 
But true… if we haven’t got a formal and issued response, how can we discuss and amend?
1 Like
@OC.1324 partly to move the conversation on & partly due to curiosity what’s the latest on the badges going through?
Are they progressing nicely, or has been an initial flurry & now died off?