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.
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.
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.
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.
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
A draft IBN is just that, a draft, not an instruction as yet.
I know that OC Wings get sight of draft IBNs before release, on the understanding that they can be sent to the relevant Wing SME after 48 hours of receipt, not a blanket email across the Wing
Sounds like someone thinks they’re trying to be clever, might could actual mess up the whole thing for OC Wings.
It has generated a lot of positive badge enquiries though, and it seems to have helped people across the org understand that there’s a formal process for these things, which is excellent.
To the above question on progress @Chief_Tech, I’ve churned about 5 out but had been awaiting a meeting to receive answers to a load of RFIs (which I finally had last night).
I now have info such as:
No shields or pennants etc that could imply a grant of arms (Sorry Surrey Wing, Essex Wing, and many, many squadrons).
Also no using the ATC falcon — needs to focus on the formation, not the parent org which is already covered in the astral crown and circlet text (sorry again to the above).
So now I can tweak the 5 I’ve done and re-submit, having received a load of really valuable feedback.
I have well-over 30 formal applications waiting in my queue, but I’ll soon be cooking on gas, especially now I’ve done the ground work for a reliable system.
The tough ones are those where a unit doesn’t really know what they want, because then I have to do a load of research from scratch and suggest stuff. If a unit has a firm idea of what they want and no red flags, I could get that off my desk and through to RAF Ceremonial in a month.
I’ve expressed my views many times and had lots of very productive conversations since coming in where I’ve set out my stall, received support, and I’ve gone through a process of proposing formal changes to policy, so I’m quite sure that the broader team are fully conversant regarding my views and the rationale behind them.
There’s more to it than my view, and I’m getting the impression from what I’ve heard here that any proposed changes aren’t internally driven, and that would make sense based on what I see around the organisation. As you might imagine, I’ve always clocked logos and badges in use by units with interest.
I personally think it’s surprising the parent service hasn’t objected to units making stuff up all over the UK already.
This has been a primary reason my personal view is to be in favour of a hard reset and clear, firm rules. Anything other than a firmly-enforced process and self-policing with particular involvement from our ceremonial leads (WWOs) is doomed to fail.
People will always try to do their own stuff and ignore rules, but that needs addressing whenever we see it. Worst case is that we could lose our privilege, and that’d be the fault of units not respecting our heritage and being team players.
I would argue that the moment you involve the WWOs in enforcement it’s doomed to fail. It’s outside their influence & not something they would be able to enforce.
It’s Wing Chairs you would need to have on board & to enforce to have any hope on compliance.
