Just to be clear, literally my first act as OC was to ban that unauthorised badge and cull it wherever I found it.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to all channels where it appears, despite lots of effort.
The recent IBN has seen me re-attempt access and to reach out to former staff etc, but I still haven’t managed it (yet).
There’s a lot more wrong with it than that but, as @OC.1324 has said, it isn’t anything to do with him and he’s done everything he can to ban it and he is following the correct process to obtain an authorised badge.
It’s almost “all the wrong”. 
I do like how the one platform I can’t access has been used as a stick with which to beat me though.
I think you’ll find my others to be in order.
Edit: A member of my team assures me he’s managed to change that one, so not sure why you’re seeing that. It’s instagram we can’t access.
Unless it’s Google. I’ve had trouble proving we own the business “account”.
Remember when a lot of accounts were set up it was Oc.1324@aircadets.org not @rafac.mod so you may need to do the password reset with that.
Outside of the organisation no one refers to use as Royal Air Force Air Cadets, they just emerged go us as Air Cadets.
Almost like the rebrand from Air Cadet Organisation did more harm than good from a branding perspective.
Or just set up linked to the personal Twitter feed of a then staff member who’s now gone.
Ironically with the rise in air scouts it would probably makes sense to pivot back to the old branding so when people here air cadets they think RAF. The other issue is that people refer to it as “Raff-Ack” which means even less.
RAF Cadets would’ve made more sense. It’s already how I’ve heard CCF(RAF) cadets refer to themselves (and RN / RM sections in a similar vein).
When they did the survey RAF Cadets was a very highly chosen option. But that survey was realistically never gong to influence the actual decision.
There was a survey? I thought it was just a swap from ACO to align with RAF branding (RAF sport, RAF aerobatics team, etc).
The conflict issue is that the RAF is a national based centralised organisation. The air cadets are primarily locally based with a community focused & just need coordination from the central rather than a single one size fits all.
@Chief_Tech there was a survey, one of several over a short period regarding remaming/rebranding. I think with the branding and badging surveys the result didn’t align with what HQ wanted, so they did what they wanted anyway.
Wasn’t that more to do with what should replace the “RAFVR(T)” and “ATC” branding of the CFAV cohort?
Based on the branding guidance, it states that research identified levels of recognition, even determining that “RAF Air Cadets” was less recognisable that “Royal Air Force Air Cadets”, so I’d be surprised if those decisions were ever really open to what people wanted internally (as that’s not the audience).
This wouldn’t have been a bad option, especially if the brand recognition relies upon us saying “RAF” in full already.
I can only assume that “Air Cadets” was felt to have such strong recognition at the time that it wasn’t a good idea to lose it as a phrase.
Of course, that could change over time for reasons that have been identified (ie we now all say “raffack” and not “air cadets”)
But we only really use ‘rafak’ within the tarnished but gilded cage of the air cadet sphere of influence. You use it to people ‘outside’, and they look at you blankly; say RAF Air Cadets, and you might get asked ‘What happened to the ATC?’. I have had this conversation too many times on public facing events with members of the public.
In my mind it comes down to an almost schizophrenia in branding and seniors deciding that things should change because things must change, thereby losing some level of identity and wider recognition. Separate , but related issue is that this has been a problem in the wider military for some time, that well known and respected organistions lose identity in rebranding exercises - leading to people not knowing where to go to, to get the job done.
I really dislike the expression RAF-ACK. 
I know where you’re coming from. On one hand it mirrors terms associated with the parent service — like RAFAT, RAFOTA, RAFALO, etc. — but on the other it detracts from that connection to the parent service by sounding like a meaningless word that people don’t associate with the RAF, ATC, or CCF.
I’m still sad that the creation of the RAFACK is heading towards the erasure of the Air Training Corps
I’m in the same boad, does anyone know how to find a in to a google account.
That has to be down to bad communication. RAFAC replaced ACO and RAFVR(T) (in most cases) at around the same time: but should have been no more of a threat to the ATC identity than either of the legacy terms it replaced.
Edit to acknowledge: It also replaced ATC, but only on adult rank slides and titles.
