Should we just let the organisation make up whatever they want in terms of branding?
See @AlexCorbin ’s post above about how that’s just not reasonable in any other context.
I understand the need for carrot, and I’ve made it clear I’m here to support and educate, but people also need to respect rules and process.
If people don’t respect rules, the RAF could simply move to remove the privilege, and it’d be entirely the fault of OCs who aren’t willing to be team players.
I don’t disagree, but you’re ignoring the fact that some people will never want to hear the message and will look for any opportunity to moan.
There’s no point tip-toeing around them.
There are loads of people who are on board with doing it properly and their approach and desire for authorised badges shouldn’t be jeopardised because of others who will ignore any attempt to solve the problem because they simply don’t want to help.
Except you don’t have an effective stick, there is no point going down the enforcement route when deep down it’s a bluff. They aren’t going to sack Squadron OC’s over the subject they don’t have enough staff willing to do the job as it is.
I don’t disagree that it needs tidying up (although if I was still an OC I would fight tooth and nail to not throw money away on it), but you attitude higher up the thread was far more sensible.
This I can entirely get behind.
The moment you go down the enforcement route you will lose people, including people that would’ve agreed with you.
We are a volunteer organisation and when you walk down the HQAC “you must” route goodwill evaporates. Hell my employer has dress and uniform standards which are regularly and cheerfully ignored in some ways (unauthorised patches abound).
If you’re not interested, that’s fine. You just can’t pretend not to be bothered and then spend money doing your own thing.
There are loads of rules we expect people to follow and we wouldn’t rush to expel anyone for not following them. This idea that there has to be some sort of tangible punishment is silly.
You’re not allowed to do your own thing. That hasn’t changed.
However, if the RAF have apparently taken issue and think CFAV making stuff up has gone too far and needs gripping, then people need to stop moaning.
If you want to wear their uniform, then you agree to represent them in the best possible manner and on their terms. That includes behaviour, dress standards, and communications and branding befitting the parent organisation.
The old adage is “never give an order that you know will not be obeyed. Likewise never give an order that you cannot enforce”
If you try to hit the volunteers heads on you will get non compliance with unenforceable instruction as those receiving it will view it as unreasonable.
If you type into Facebook “civilian committee” you will see a number of pages that use their (assume unauthorised) Sqn badge - as the civilian committee is outside of the chain of command - how would we begin to enforce the regulations?
I’ve just stumbled across a wing team on Facebook that used a black ring & their own device. Why should sqns who have a compliant badge & are going through the process stop using their “brand” when wing teams are doing their own thing.
I suggest that hard stop is for non-compliant templates (blue badges, wreaths, numbers in the wrong place, grossly inappropriate central device).
Badges/crests are for sqns, wings. Regions & select teams authorised by the inspectorate.
In a volunteer organisation unfortunately that’s exactly what you get because people are volunteering their own free time so there’s a sense of entitlement coming with that - if you want volunteers to do things you only have carrot.
If the RAF & the ATC were bothered by this it wouldn’t be a single volunteer but a small committee. The objective from high is the naff & awful badges be gone, & you have a common corporate format.
The parent service can dictate but it’s outside their influence - it’s not something they can enforce or keep control of.
Just add a general point of information - if you use the RAFAC logo as a profile picture on your Sqn Facebook page the algorithm will think it’s an attempt at impersonating an official brand & delist your page.
When I say “head-on”, I mean deliberately and providing absolute clarity, rather than not engaging.
The massive problem with your approach (if it’s close enough, let it be) is that everyone then points to that as justification for making their own stuff up.
It isn’t possible to help hundreds of units understand the nuance involved in this process so that they can do “ unofficial but compliant”.
Compliance also means not re-using a motto, not copying too much of a centrepiece etc. If you’re allowing unauthorised badges, who calls dibs? If one of those units then gets an authorised badge, the other units are suddenly not compliant, but they’ll sure protest now that you’re telling them to change…
Clarity is the answer. If it’s not on the official register of authorised badges as a single point of truth, stop.
It’s the only way we can ensure compliance and not bedding-in issues down the line, which you all seem to agree is essential.
I’m absolutely certain my former squadron wouldn’t get theirs approved. The College would no way give a unit in Bristol the white horse of Kent and the motto ‘Invicta’.
