???! 
10f are showing a different badge to 10 Sqn RAF? Although it does looked defaced…
Unless they are meant to be using the panda on the badge of RAF Luton….
It’s a great homage to the original, I especially like the colour swaps between the two. Blue wings on the red badge, red wings on the blue badge.
4 Likes
I agree it tells the story & similar but different & for a founder Sqn works well.
You can see the lineage between the badges 
3 Likes
16F have done something similar, using the Saint which 16 Squadron use on their aircraft as the centre of the badge rather than using anything from 16 Squadrons badge. So if pays homage without ripping it off.
2 Likes
Unfortunately that’s not an acceptable badge.
For one, it has text/number in the centrepiece, and it’s just the badge we received on 16 when we went solo. A cartoon character isn’t appropriate for a unit badge.
This is the problem when units and others try to decide what passes as “compliant”. It looks inoffensive and sort of seems like a nice homage, but it’s not up to scratch.
I think you need four categories - for your own sanity if nothing else
Pass
Probable pass
Probably Fail
Fail
I think you also need a team / committee to help
You deal with the pass & the team deal with the probable pass & probably fails. Fails are an easy bounce back.
It shares the work load, avoids you being by people viewed as the “the evil badge blocking one” & gives a counterpoint to yourself when considering allowing some nuance.
Perhaps ask some of those who have submitted successfully & compliant badgers if they can help.
2 Likes
22 Squadron RAF got a number? A really long one too!
I’d definitely love to develop a team if there’s an opportunity to.
There are people who are interested and it’d help with the research and to support units who don’t know what they want, but without bogging down the whole process.
2 Likes
It predates 16 being ETF, goes back to when they were a Jaguar Squadron I think.
I’ve gone down a rabbit hole of my mates Squadrons and I’d say at least 50% would hit the unacceptable mark. 
1 Like
If it’s just you, you will break.
If you can get a person per region it will share the load, avoids you becoming the focus of frustration (from the people you say no to) and most importantly challenges you so you can have slight variance without it all being on you.
5 Likes
This whole conversation seems very circular. I fully support what you’re doing @OC.1324, but, I do agree with many of the ‘counter’ points being made.
We need a re-write of the current branding guidelines as they’re linked above, as they seem to be incorrect. We need a list of the guidelines that sqns should be using to come up with first designs, and a step-by-step process. Make it as black and white as possible. This needs to happen well before any sort of enforcement is even mentioned.
Further, some sort of acknowledgement needs to be made that there are badges that are ‘approved’, but have been approved incorrectly. The current wording in the branding guidelines basically says if a certain person within the RAFAC is happy, then it’s okay. That is obviously not the case. The current wording implies proper approval is optional.
Once this is sorted and a new policy written up with all the above, then focus needs to be on gettings regional then wing badges compliant, before going after any sqns.
What I am talking about also goes for all branding, not just badges.
3 Likes
If you can make it a primary role then count me in. I’m still on the books with my ELA. Always had a desire to get more into heraldry.
2 Likes
Ping me an email and I’ll add it to my list!
3 Likes
@Farmerdan would be a good shout. He’s the other end of the country, legally based & would be a good balance.
2 Likes
Solid tradition nerd too! Would be a good asset!
2 Likes
That sounds like an insult with plausible deniability 
2 Likes
Couple of other points in closing.
A, Most Civ Comms in my part of the world could simply not afford to do this.
The idea of fundraising from an alumini group of ex cadets etc is first class but to my knowledge very few squadrons have such a group in place.
So step 1 for all squadrons is to get this in place.
B, The cost at I am told £650 a go is IMHO scandalous, If we do as it would appear to have 800 units that are not compliant then i would expect a big discount on this rate. I could see CC acceptance at £100 but no more.
I am pretty sure that AI could scan the images and save a lot of leg work.
C, Personally i feel this would be a terrible waste of funds especially at a time when most squadrons are feeling a financial pinch. No civ comm in their right mind would approve such expenditure, and that guys is who you have to persaude. They dont take orders or instructions well especially when backed with threats.
None the less a good discussion guys, thank you.
A
1 Like
And squadrons/wings/regions are just fine to think that, but just don’t go creating your own “badge” to circumvent the official route. 
4 Likes
I think there needs to be a sensible approach of “what have you got at the moment” Corps wide have a look, support those that want to go through the official process, and possibly try and deal with the most off piste (like the really inappropriate ones not just the “that doesn’t meet policy”) and then a “no new made up badge” policy.
Ultimately people aren’t going to stop using old ones and thinking otherwise just opens yourself up to disappointment.
2 Likes
Someone might have made the same claim about the halt on car park marshalling, yet despite all the noise it has stopped (to my knowledge).