There’s certainly a strong case for doing regions first, then wings, then sqns. Amongst over reasons, it would allow formations without badges to use the badge of the higher formation immediately above them (e.g. sqns using a wing badge) rather than only having the ATC / CCF badge to fall back on (or region badge, if you’re in one of the two that have them).
1 Like
Unless it’s independent of that & doesn’t aim at the heraldry registration side at all but unauthorised unit badge on uniform like the Wing TRFs, unauthorised email signatures & alterations to the approved RAFAC logo.
They haven’t consulted the heraldry badge project because it’s not a project that affects their planning scheme. OC.1324 as a volunteer could leave tomorrow putting the whole thing back into limbo.
It could even be more aimed at smaller than Sqn teams creating their own badges & spending money on them rather what is in current policy (which is stated in the ACP150).
Lol… Staffordshire wing…
Rogue graphics for well over a decade now.
This keeps popping up my Facebook feed recently - wonder if this is what got RAF brand protection in a twist……
Not RAF Luton?
1 Like
For me, the moment I realised our badging was seriously FUBAR was when they ditched rhe Vigilant and someone made that poster of one with the badges of all the VGSs along the bottom.
And not a single one matched the style of the others. It was a joke.
4 Likes
I know it’s not on topic, but where has RAF Luton gone, not seen anything for ages 
1 Like
I had a similar moment when I saw a social media post from a wing announcing their top 3 squadrons for 2023/24 I think it was. I won’t name and shame.
Every single squadron badge was completely inappropriate and it looked really unprofessional because there wasn’t even any consistency.
But this is where the education piece is important. Everyone just assumes they must be authorised because they’re in use. Nobody feels sufficiently informed and empowered to deal with it, even though many would like to see it dealt with (anecdotally).
2 Likes
I understand the nuance there and don’t disagree. That’s why I’d like to deal with it a bit more head-on.
Again, personally speaking.
1 Like
Station commanders have DDH, but we don’t see a raft of inconsistent RAF sqn or wg badges, many looking much the same as each other (county arms over a falcon), with duplicated mottoes (Venture Adventure), with the wrong crown, in the wrong colour, with the sqn number in the wrong place, etc.
1 Like
In my post I was referring to that a decade or so ago, regions were instructed to review all Sqn badges and either sanction/approve if a badge was compliant or instruct it to be no longer used if not.
It resulted in a lot more harmonising but some wings were permitted to continue as their badge was “nearly compliant”. Compliance was with regards to ATC Sqn template not necessarily college of arms.
But it was region who were authorised by the RAF inspectorate to do the review.
It’s still posting but doesn’t appear to pop up on the algorithm anymore. They are now on Bluesky.
To keep to topic, their badge is below 
Is that still going?
This is the review which I alluded to earlier too. To now have what appears to be a looming desist using what was sactioned at this last round will lead to people asking what us the point of trying. There will be the thought that someone else will come along in a few years and start shouting the odds that we’re doing it wrong against some new criteria.
1 Like
It’s half measures that will compound the issue.
It is absolutely possible to correct it properly and allay your concern about the future.
1 Like
On what evidence? Because there are certainly badges that shouldn’t have passed that sift, meaning they either were overlooked / not submitted, or have been adopted since.
2 Likes
What does the motto translate as?
As ever, HQAC’s attitude is to revert to the ‘sledge hammer to break a nut’ process.
If you want to bring in a policy for squadrons to review badging, then give squadrons time to look and look at new options. A couple of weeks in nonsense, it only upsets those at the coalface !!
2 Likes
I don’t think you’re representing that fairly, especially not if direction has been received from the RAF to stop units making stuff up and damaging the brand.
If it were a matter of not using unauthorised badging and logos for digital purposes and comms, you can sort that overnight.
Sorting a heraldic badge takes a very long time and is mostly a timeframe beyond our control, so giving the entire organisation long enough to get through that process is unrealistic.
If people wish to use the correct logos and a heraldic badge, those are available on SharePoint and can be swapped-in immediately.
1 Like
If that’s the route you want to got, that’s the way that people will dig there heels in and ultimately tell you to jog on.
Your approach earlier of taking those who want help and getting as many of them as complaint as possible is the correct one, the moment weight gets thrown around (no matter who it’s by) Squadron OC’s will start to be obstinate and you will see goodwill evaporate, even from Squadron’s that might’ve been onside.
The volunteer cadre react best to being given an oppourtunity and being persuaded, being told “you must” and “you will” when it’s something non-safety related never goes well.
3 Likes