As far as I’m concerned, no policy document should override ACP 1358. It should say you can do X as per ACP 1358. Not just make its own rules.
2 Likes
There’s a hierarchy to document but as only HQAC can issue policy & its actual policy then it’s an authorised exception.
The loophole is because only the authorised wing badges may be worn, wings are obliged to get the badge authorised.
Which is why the RAF uses their logo rather than their approved heraldic badge. Marketing & branding need to change with the times so these will adapt.
the fact regular RAF sqns have been using the devices from their badges on various different merchandise (& have been for a number of decades) does mean that precedent exists & has gone unchallenged for such a significant period it is now accepted practice. (cf Retailers block RAF bid to trademark its roundel)
1 Like
The fact this policy calls them crests makes it immediately a load of rubbish imo 
4 Likes
Yeah this is AcRoMati 06 it’s legit.
2 Likes
The college and inspectorate are quite firm in their position that they don’t conform to precedent.
RAF sqns doing their own thing does not a new rule make.
This is why I’m always quite keen to point out that while we might have internal policy on how to use branding, it’s not our business to be making policy on things like badge eligibility, or to say we can edit them if that goes against what the relevant authority says.
1 Like
Last time I looked, every authorised wing badge had the same crest — the Astral crown. The idea of using this to identify which wing the wearer is from feels somewhat redundant and futile.
I wouldnt mind pushing to having this to be ruled in court just for giggles really (the last time the court of chivalry sat it first had to decide it still existed!)
1 Like
But you’re not really talking about the law.
It’s like if a station didn’t police uniform and all the SP had been failing to follow the dress regs for a decade at this one station.
That wouldn’t suddenly give the RAF the right to break the rules because enforcement had failed.
It’s the same here. It’s just a failure to enforce high standards because people don’t really understand it.
I mean no one should have tassels on their banners as per policy, and yet nobody seems to understand that.
Does that mean we should just allow tassels? No. I did ask the question, but the authorities confirmed we shouldn’t be using them because it’s a reflection of our relationship to the parent service.
We can’t desire to have things like banners and badges because we want the prestige that comes with them but then disrespect all the rules and conventions that govern them.
1 Like
Thats what I said about the commando dagger actually…
1 Like
27 posts were merged into an existing topic: Banner Regulations
However, back to badges. I’ll split that stuff out in a bit.
3 Likes
Could go under the FP, or If we’re keeping RM there, then hell knows
The issue is that my formation patches need to be a bit bigger, as you need to preserve the whole badge intact. Therefore there isn’t space beneath the badge.
You could put something to the side, but I think it’d look weird.
It’d be easier if we didn’t have the arm pockets at an angle!
ohhhh, are you still going down the heraldic angle?
It’d be pointless having a dual system if you wanted to go anymore in-depth than region, which is a door worth leaving open.
And we pay that money for a unit badge, so I think it’d be an immense shame to then step away from them. It’s why I’m prioritising the remaining regions.
How would they look like would it just be the crest?
1 Like
I have a mock-up, but I’m not going to post one publicly at this stage.
Essentially think of your RAFAC TRF, but an extra quarter longer and with a full unit badge on it. Detailed / high-quality enough that you can read all the text and see all the detail.
How would that work with CCFs as that’s where their formation badges go?
Part of a discussion that needs to be had.
It might not be possible for them, but we can consult and see what their reps think. Ultimately there will always be differences because we’re not the all in the same organisation.
1 Like
Is this a actual proposal? Or somthing you would want to propose?