Correct.
1 Like
Im jist gonna leave this here so we can start talking about the website again
2 Likes
Ah that thread.
When i had energy to give fudges about anything.
Now its all used up just trying to unlock the door at Sqn and keep the lights on.
2 Likes
Badges, crests, shields, coat of arms, heralds etc just predantics I think the original arguement is the design not what people want to call them to try and justify their actions, but you are right they are already in public domain with no complaints so just 1 or 1 control freaks who want squadrons to have no identity and bow to their āsuperiorā knowledge as no doubt rafac hq will say they are unable to vet 900+ units so it is easier to say no crests shields badges etc
Insignia: A distinguishing badge or emblem of military rank, office, or membership of an organization.
Crest: A distinctive device representing a family or corporate body, borne above the shield of a coat of arms (originally as worn on a helmet) or separately reproduced, for example on writing paper.
Emblem: A heraldic device or symbolic object as a distinctive badge of a nation, organization, or family.
Badge: A small piece of metal, plastic, or cloth bearing a design or words, typically worn to identify a person or to indicate membership of an organization or support for a cause.
Putting right/wrong aside Found this which just shows why different people use different terms and shows world is not as black and white as ww want it to be 
to me that makes it clearer not less so.
the image is not an insignia, it is not a crest as there are no coat of arms or shields in the organisation (to my knowledge - and if there were then in that case a crest would make sense)
not an emblem for the definition given.
Badge - best fit and in this case, in our organisation/parent organisation the chosen name for the image in question.
2 Likes
No.
The College of Arms instructs that they are reffered to as āBadgesā.
Its not a dictionary definition. Its the Proper Noun for the item. As from the definers themselves.
1 Like
I agree, but others interpret differently, at end of day its just terminology abd no one will get hurt if they call it a crest. I think the issues being debated on this thread is design and control.Understandably those who have been using a design for past umpteen years are not going to roll over and relinguish their design just because a new website has been launched. I look at it several ways, either voluntarily get approved via CofH(may be cost prohibited) or in same stance as corps banner there should be only 1 official badge(crest/emblem/insignia lol) but units may use their own, all new designs should meet guidelines which should be promulgated via MCO hence self regulated with no need to beg wings for approval but checks during annual inspectioncould be made by sectir commanders, Whilst understandable there are regulations, compliance has been allowed to drift over the years (and not just gecause OCs are nit toeing the line, as the line has faded) and it is not economic to bin all the hoodies, caps etc that may not be to correct standard but do promote units in a positive manner. Guess we all have different opinions.
I donāt disagree I was just trying to demonstrate why others may without malice call it something different, we went through CofA process so I agree with you.
i disagree it is faded, it is simply ppl not toeing the line - and the reason being there is no penalty for non compliance. It doesnāt take long to find examples which do not conform but it isnāt corrected so people carry on - others see neighbouring units āgood ideaā and copy it not knowing any better believing if X unit could do so why not themā¦
it is simply something that doesnāt fall under anyoneās control except the Wing/Rgn OCs/WExOs to manage and is a very low priority on what is a long list of āto-dosā for those individuals
1 Like
I can think of a couple off-hand that Iād say are āinappropriateā in the sense that theyāre not appropriate for our purposes (rather than being offensive):
āLike Lightning We Strikeā - You āStrikeā? Youāre a cadet Squadron; what do you āstrikeā?
āAttack to Defendā - Eh?
But my personal favourite is a team rather than a Squadronā¦ āLorem Ipsumā 
Well done. That was clearly proofed before it went to print in big 5 foot vinyl stickers.
Ok where is the exact RAFAC policy that outlines or signposts the regulations and when was it published and when was the last official audit if badges . , this continues accusation of OCs not toeing the line I dont agree with as i dont believe it is a deliberate act of insubordination its more ignorance because the imaginary line to tow is simply difficult for some to find, and if it has been crossed it is at all levels as not challenging possible breaches by higher echelons of command is also part of the so called problem.
Indeedā¦ But letās remember where this conversation started and where my original comments came fromā¦ There was a suggestion that Sqn badges be pushed automatically to the public website. No one will die if a badge is wrong, but that doesnāt mean that it should go to the website where it will appear to be fully endorsed.
That is of course true. As you say, an official HQ website ought to be correct and squeaky clean. We donāt need any more C&D orders from Warner Brothers.
Since thatās a response to my words, Iāll commentā¦ The Line hasnāt faded around here; Iāve explained it umpteen times. Many are keen to get it ārightā, especially because they want to go down the route of formal approval; so having a good idea of what might be acceptable for their motto and charges is key from the start.
Some people just choose to wilfully ignore it.
1 Like
And I can think of at least 1 that got told off for copyright infringementā¦
Was that because of the images or the motto? Iām wasnāt aware of mottos which had fallen foul. Iād be interested to hear what it was.
Oh no, sorry, I think I got confused where the conversation had gone! It was for the image rather than the motto!
Ah, right yes.
Our old friend Taz, the Tasmanian Devil is probably the most famous no-no.
1 Like
on Sharepoint, under āBrand Guidelinesā published in November 2018
The page you are asking for is 13, and can be found on: This Sharepoint link
It is also worth noting for those interest this document confirms the name as ābadgesā and also indicates on page 12 further information
(i predict comments that this is not a policy but it is the answer to the question of āwhereā)
I agree - OCs see other Squadrons/Wings with a badge and they want a piece of the action but rather than do it correctly and ask, people make up their own rules and why we see the variations we see today
completely agree and what I indicated by my comment āthere is no penaltyā
2 Likes
There are more than a few adapted from the RAF Squadron of the same number, in most cases that Iāve seen this is was done 50-60 years ago with the consent of the Squadron involved (which in many cases no longer exist), I know of 1 where it was specifically requested by the RAF Squadron on disbandment.
The only motto Iāve ever seen which I had a real issue with was āThe Noble Oxā and even that I have no idea how long it had been in use for, 10 minutes or 50 years.
1 Like