Private purchase or not is sort of irrelevant. Most No 3s are private purchase, for example!
if this is the case i don’t know of it happening!
but i will accept that this is the case…i
We digress but MTP is an approved order of uniform dress.
Polo tops are primarily civilian dress so not an item of uniform.
The MTP/Polo top “event dress” is in the dress regs but you need approval from region RC or CoS for both the specific dress (inc photos) & the event in question
https://bedscambswingatc.org.uk/archives/3076
I think part of that is if the polo top has a Sqn badge (coming back to topic) then it has to be in the correct format & standard (although not necessarily formally approved)
Unfortunately then you’re getting close to “unless you’re willing to part with £650 (which is tight for a lot of squadrons I imagine!) then you’re dead to us”
There are Dress Regs for Polo Shirts in the half polo half No.3 order of dress.
However, the regs in polo shirts are internally inconsistent, inconsistent with practice, and don’t even match the pictures used in the examples.
2 Likes
Not quite.
A unit wouldn’t need a badge, they’d just need to stop plastering an unauthorised badge around.
1 Like
Fair one!
Bearing in mind that I have no skin in the game, it just may cause a divide between the haves and have not’s (and I appreciate that it’s a badge but it would sting to have the wealthier squadrons being able to show off their badge but less affluent - [read poorer] squadrons having to stick with the generic one).
Very much agreed, which I why I want to be clear that I have ambitions for broad support. No squadron left behind!
4 Likes
Are you taking on renumbering Squadrons? Two in the local area have been changed but now the knowledge base has left.
1 Like
Geographical designators will come under this, so sqn numbers would make sense.
If they reach out with what they know, I’ll try to make sure that information is recorded correctly.
A big part of the job needs to be making it easy to find the official record, as loads of problems come about because of legend and hearsay.
A change to designator is rare. I’m struggling to think of a need to change a number (save as part of a merger, perhaps).
DFs being reported to Squadrons sometimes get new numbers.
Look at 2 (Helston) Sqn. They weren’t the original 2 Squadron.
13 lost its F too.
Ah gotcha. I’m surprised they wouldn’t simply use a new number (unless bringing a unit back from the dead because it had a badge, for example).
It kinda sucks if the place with the original number reopens, or why not give them back their original number?
I also thought taking 13’s F was a bit vindictive.
They did the same I think to 19 Squadron, they were downgraded to DF, when they were reformed as a Squadron they weren’t allowed their F back, so they rebadged as XIX Squadron instead
1 Like
I’ve started populating the official register with the official scans that the college sends out.
If you know of one, it’d help speed things up for me if you could have someone from the unit send it to me!
1 Like
It should be a case that Sqn number can’t be reused until 10 years have passed since its last use unless it’s the same location.
Seems like a jab at a certain orange themed thread
For those who are interested, the new Heraldic Badges page on SharePoint, with a gallery of (some) badges and the official register linked, with images where I have them (more to come and the cropping etc to be standardised when I get hold of originals).
All feedback welcome!
2 Likes
Is it worth adding wing & region columns in? It may encourage buy in at those levels.
1 Like
They’re currently on the same list (formation allows you to filter), but not a bad shout.
I could perhaps do an official register for each in a bid to tidy it up, with each having its own link on the main page?
Keep it simple for now, mass register across ATC register with filters for wing & region.
Some stats nerds will start doing the totals for you which will drive the incentive to get formation badges authorised.