Are you going to get a link on the Influence Hub at some point? 
I went looking for the page just now, and ended up having to find this thread to then find the page.
1 Like
Ah yes, sorry. It’s on the list! 
I’ve now reached out to all units with authorised badges (bar the CCF, as I couldn’t work out their addresses) to try and speed up the rate at which I get some sort of image added to the register.
Some have also started presenting me with the rationale etc for the design, so I’m adding that info too, and will refine how it’s presented over time.
Ultimately, I’d love to provide each unit with an official booklet to record not just the history of their badge, rationale etc, but also their official sketches and a range of ways they’re authorised to use the badge, with measurements etc for stuff like banners, which can be presented to a supplier.
The goal is to make it as personal as possible and easy for units to have access to their heritage, beyond just the official painting.
4 Likes
CCFs wouldn’t use the same Sqn badge template as they are part of their school - some of whom already have their school crest approved by the college of arms.
There are also not squadrons (which is where the whole Sqn badge thing comes from) but sections.
They would probably need to go from the army inspectorate for any badge approval as it would need to be done at contingent level.
I thought similarly, but at some point, a badge design has been approved for CCF (RAF) sections and I think two such badges have been authorised.
I’m starting to get the feeling that at the top formal levels due diligence isn’t being done & as long as the design complies with basics it’s a rubber stamp process. Hence why some sqns have approved “non-compliant” badges.
If the design matches the right format, according to the current organisation approved guidance, it IS a compliant badge.
The badge may not be approved by the College of Arms, but the organisation does not require it to be, so there shouldn’t really be any surprise that not every badge is approved.
3 Likes
But to be clear, there are authorised badges and there are “not badges”. If your unit motif isn’t authorised, then there may be a culture of letting it go, but the existing policy does make clear that the post holder has the delegated authority to direct units to stop using a badge. There are no authorised unit badges that have not been authorised by the Inspectorate of RAF Badges. In fact, even if there is an agreed upon badge and money has been paid, a badge is not authorised and granted until that signed painting is presented.
With the exception of one seemingly authorised badge that was painted without brackets around the designation, all badges would appear to have gone through a formal process with the Inspectorate of RAF Badges and stayed true to the correct format, depending on the sort of badge (ie region and wing are different to VGS, which are different to squadron, which are different to CCF(RAF) section).
As the parent organisation, it is likely (though not something I have yet established, so grain of salt) that HQ has the authority to seek approval, in consultation with RAF Ceremonial and the Inspectorate of RAF Badges, for changes such as these. Because if not HQ, then who?
So from the change of a territorial designation on a granted badge to the creation of the term “RAFAC” or “CCF (RAF) Section” for use in a circlet for those elements of the broader organisation, they will I’m sure have all gone through a process.
If it is a legitimate badge and appears on the register, it has gone through an entire process and been immortalised.
2 Likes
Wheres the guidance for Sqn banners? Hard to find with all the chaff there.
Currently in the badging policy on this page (end of the doc, iirc)
Will be duplicated on the new page once a review has taken place.
https://rafac.sharepoint.com/sites/MediaHub/SitePages/Policy-and-guidelines.aspx
2 Likes
Id never previously noticed the handful of ATC badges mounted by the business suite at the RAF club.
Lets get more on the wall!
3 Likes
Please take a good photo of each of those for my official register while I track down the best copies!
1 Like
You will all probably be aware of the MOD intention to cut our funding in the next year by a further 25 percent having cut it 25 percent this year. Our funds are being used to replace armaments given to Ukraine.
I must be missing something major here, as i understand it,
From what i can see on Bader 80 percent or more of our squadrons, wings and regions do not have approved Heraldic badges in place.
It seems that if your crest is acceptable then at a cost of 650 per unit you can have it approved.
There is currently an 18 month backlog in applications for approval.
So our budgets are being massivly reduced, the govt is currently destroying our economy to the point where most people have stopped spending on anything that is not essential so fundraising is very difficult…
And from what i can see the vast majority of you want this scheme pushed through, so how are you proposing to pay for it exactly ?, getting your squadron badge approved will do nothing to enhance the cadet experience which is exactly what we are here for…
Your civ coms have a legal obligation to manage squadron funds in such a way as to maximize the benifit for the cadets, not some outside organisation charging 800 units 650 quid a pop, thats 520k if my maths is right.for a piece of paper saying your badge is approved.
That money is far better spent enhancing the cadet experience.
And, if designs had to be changed, on banners, squadron clothing, social media etc etc then that adds further to the cost.
Squadrons are being told they have three weeks to remove all non approved heraldic badges from their social media feeds, recruitment videos on same clothing and checks will be made to ensure this is complied with. Who by, an army of newly employed civil servants on 50k each and unsackable. Another grand waste of money.
Should a unit change its badge then by all means go through the correct channels and get it approved eventually. But to lay the law down with deadlines etc in my personal opinion is well out of order.
So what exactly am i missing here ?, how are you going to sell that to your civ coms. Just remember that they are potentially personally liable if they behave in a reckless fashion. I know having had almost 25 years on the CC side.
Thank you for your help and guidance.
A
4 Likes
Hi, @alycidon.
I’m not going to get roped into a discussion about what a unit may feel they want to spend their money on, especially because it’s not entirely clear to me what you’re referencing.
What I can say is that authorised unit badges have several benefits and bring a huge amount of esprit de corps to a unit and its identity and legacy. Some units will make a personal choice not to invest and I totally respect that. Nobody is being forced to invest in an authorised unit badge, but that doesn’t mean a unit could then simply do what it wants where corporate identity and heraldry is concerned.
My personal view is that we are incredibly fortunate to even have the option of petitioning for an authorised badge which then becomes immortalised alongside those our our parent service — the RAF and other senior stakeholders could quite legitimately have scoffed at the idea of a youth organisation having such a right and told us to forget it and we’d all simply have to use the CCF / ATC badge at all times.
But as I say, while I would encourage units to consider it, there is no obligation for anyone to invest in a unit badge — the ATC / CCF badges are there for all to proudly display.
1 Like
The money HQAC receives from the MOD has Nothing to do with badges
Units pay for them via “Non public funds” AKA none of the taxpayers business, This non public money is also legally not allowed to pay for a lot of “The Cadet Experience”, namely Shooting, Flying, Gliding and some other naff
You also seem to be incorrectly directing your anger about govt expenditure towards us on the forum, anger which itself is misguided as the CS is currently undergoing cuts, not an uptick employment for the Cadet social media stalking Branch
It’s not a scheme though is it, @OC.1324 gains nothing from having more approved badges, nor do I or the other supporters of his efforts as SO2 B&P
Fixed that
As the proud owner of many bits of unaproved Unit apparel…
no
also Banners are only replaced (and Rebadged) when their condition is deemed U/S, So if you got a new banner last year, and a new badge last week, Tough, the banner stays.
Social media policy is nothing new, nor is it’s enforcement. There was a brill demonstration of this around September 2022…
1 Like
Sorry, i must have missed this announcement.
Can someone direct me to the IBN or corps directive?
1 Like
I was giving benefit of the doubt and assuming some Wg/Rgn Media officer or CS type spat it out…
That’s usually how bad policy is enacted
2 Likes
I would assume that a media officer or WSo somewhere has seen the new badge push & kneejerked.
The CS don’t care
2 Likes
On this point (and then rolling into more general observations on the topic), unit banners are only authorised if you’re using an authorised unit badge, so any units who are ignoring very clear rules should have checked first. This is why I’m very keen to do more education and outreach, and to empower the RWO/WWO cohort.
Before spending loads of money, get in touch and I’m happy to advise and support. It’s really important that badges have the right gravitas and that we don’t make the RAF look childish or “chip shop” through use of naff graphics or cartoons.
The problem is that there’s so much nuance, it’s impossible to adequately advise units to enable them to do anything informally and stop them doing it wrong. I have loads of official applicants to advise and work with and that takes long enough to get right and agreed with the very senior stakeholders, so I can’t take on unofficial work too.
Loads of units stealing existing RAF / ATC badges because “senior officer Bloggs said we could use it” is a prime example — your unit has no right to use another’s badge.
We’re an organisation with links to the military and we therefore have some important standards and history to uphold. There are some people (although not many, actually) who don’t think it’s important because we’re a youth organisation, but I’d disagree with them.
If people want to engage with privileges like unit badges and unit banners, they should have respect for the process and do it properly. If they make mistakes through ignorance, I really feel for them, but they have a responsibility to make it right and set the example / uphold military standards.
Not treating important elements of military history / custom with respect because we think it doesn’t matter as a youth organisation is not acceptable. If people don’t want to engage, it’s very easy to just “not” mess around with unauthorised badges. If people don’t really care or see the value, then not spending time on unauthorised badges is a great way to save time and focus on delivering the cadet experience, because any money spent on unauthorised graphics and merch is wasted money… and it’ll quickly add up to £650.
2 Likes
Tornado,
Have a look at IBN serial number XX/24 , page 2, additional info,
Additional Information
You have three weeks from the date of this announcement, Monday, February 17, 2025, to remove all non-compliant graphics and branding from all platforms and materials under your control. After this three-week period, compliance will be checked, and any remaining instances of unauthorised branding will be subject to further action. We understand this may require some effort, but adherence to these guidelines is essential to maintain the integrity and legality of the RAF Air Cadets brand. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or require clarification, please contact Ken Pike, Head of Influence and Engagement.
“Will be subject to further action” , that in my book sounds like a threat.
A