The Union Flag is offensive - official!!!

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by The Wherryman, Jul 29, 2009.

  1. The Wherryman

    The Wherryman Active Member

    [FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana]Read the story here

    It makes my blood boil - the Met have such a strict dress code that front-line officers are allowed out to police the G20 demo after they removed their identifying collar numbers, but wear a small Union Flag and officers are threatened with the Police Discipline Code.

    Scroll to the bottom of the newspaper article if you wish to subscribe to the petition against this ludicrous and offensive decision.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2009
  2. The Wherryman

    The Wherryman Active Member

    Sorry, the link has been removed from the newspaper article (???) Click here to subscribe to the petition.
  3. stevetrom

    stevetrom Well-Known Member


    How can our flag ever be deemed offensive in our own country?

    Anyone who finds it offensive is more than welcome to leave our little island and go and live somewhere where they feel more comfortable.
  4. Maestro

    Maestro Active Member

  5. iancwilx

    iancwilx Well-Known Member

  6. Vegasbound

    Vegasbound Active Member

    Met Police federation have just been on the radio to say that it is now allowed. these are the badges produced by the help for heroes charity.
  7. The Wherryman

    The Wherryman Active Member

    Thanks VB, I'm very pleased someone's seen sense at last. It should never have been an issue in the first place - how bl***y insensitive can some people be!
  8. BigHorn

    BigHorn Active Member

    Notice in the story how senior officers routinely turn a blind eye to constables wearing gay pride ribbons when they go on marches.

    What sort of message does that send out. You can openly display your own sexual pecadillos but not your support for young heroes dying in your name. :mad:
  9. towse1972

    towse1972 Active Member

    Should they hide their gay pride badge? Its a very bizzare comparison to make.
  10. The Wherryman

    The Wherryman Active Member

    The comparison was not between one badge and another. It was between the different attitudes of the hierarchy...on the one hand towards a display of allegiance considered to be pc, and on the other hand towards another considered by some jobsworth to be non-pc.
  11. Hells Bones

    Hells Bones Active Member

    I'd have two words for them...

    They rhyme with Duck and Toff.
  12. Anno Draconis

    Anno Draconis Well-Known Member

    While I agree with the overall principle (that officers should be allowed to show support for the troops fighting and dying overseas), I'd be careful of taking ANYTHING written in the Daily Mail at face value.

    Note for instance the careful wording of this caption:
    (emphasis is mine)

    Said by whom? This is easily interpreted by the casual reader as fact (BigHorn ^^^ for instance seems to have quoted it as such) whereas in truth it's a throwaway bit of hearsay apparently unsupported by anything so sordid as evidence.

    Incidentally, during my dad's 30 years in the Police he was never permitted to display any badges, emblems, ribbons or pins on his uniform other than those which formed part of the uniform. It was never a problem then and I don't remember him complaining about his human rights being oppressed; why is it an issue now?

    The other issue Wherryman mentions in the OP - that of Met uniformed officers being permitted to remove their numbers from their uniforms - is actually of much greater concern to me, and should be to anyone who values freedom of expression. I hope that this is one innovation which is quickly done away with.
  13. Brian Bowen

    Brian Bowen Active Member

    I think a uniform should display no other insignia than the official requirements. If wearers are free to display whatever cause they support, it ceases to be uniform. It also avoids authorities being selective as to which cause is worthy or not -- and creating unnecessary controversy.

    I remember before he became President, Senator Obama was hounded by many (particularly on the political right) for not wearing the badge of the American flag. He was accused of not being patriotic.

    You shouldn't need to wear a badge to prove your national allegiance or support for troops. If you're in civvies, it's a free choice.
  14. Pythagoras

    Pythagoras Active Member

    Exactly right imo.
  15. geordiecolin

    geordiecolin Active Member

    It was in the daily mail. 'nuff said.....
  16. andywooler

    andywooler Supporting Member

    Maybe you ought to attend a march then! I was present yesterday at the Brighton Pride parade and the Gay Police Officers Association headed up the parade. Would they equaly be allowed to take part in an Anti War parade? or a political rally run by the BNP? I think not.
    Try taking your anti Daily Mail glasses of once in a while!
  17. Rapier

    Rapier Supporting Member

    Yes they should! Wearing the National Flag is one thing, but wearing a badge, be it homosexual support, cycling proficiency or 50 metres breast stroke is just a step too far.
  18. MrsDoyle

    MrsDoyle Supporting Member

    Yes. Good point, Rapier.

    I think we should display our national flag as standard; let us not be forced into embarrassment by ridiculous PC jobsworths.
  19. Anno Draconis

    Anno Draconis Well-Known Member

    I have (attended a march, that is), and I didn't see any pride ribbons on the uniforms of the officers on duty. Can I infer from your post that the GPOA were off-duty officers taking part in the parade, rather than on-duty officer policing the parade? If that's the case, I don't see why they shouldn't take part. The various Pride associations don't have political affiliations, whereas the BNP and Stop the War are, by their nature, political. I may be a bit out of date but serving officers never used to be able to join or openly campaign for political parties or organisations. So you're quite right that they WOULDN'T equally be allowed to take part in a BNP or anti-war rally even when off-duty, and imho that's quite correct. Showing support for British troops abroad while off-duty is entirely non-political and wouldn't be a problem.

    Just to step off topic and address the Daily Mail here: Andy, I know from your posts that you're an intelligent guy. I find it hard to believe that you take everything printed in your newspaper (whatever it is) to be gospel truth. The Mail is simply, imo, the worst of a bad bunch, for two reasons. Firstly, it has an ill-deserved veneer of middle class respectability which encourages otherwise clear-thinking readers to discard the pinch of salt that they take with the contents of the Sun or the Star. Secondly (and this is my major beef), because its target readership has historically been well right-of-centre ever since it supported Hitler in the thirties, its stories tend to be those that inflame prejudice. The Guardian prints as much rubbish, but for some reason "Oil companies destroy rainforests" headlines tend to generate less heat than "Britain is swamped with immigrants".

    I'll give you an example. In 2007, when Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, the Mail had a sustained campaign of stories indicating that Britain was being flooded with immigrants, all of who were coming over here with hands outstretched ready to live the high life on benefits paid for by hardworking British taxpayers. They based their stories on the number of child benefit claims made by non-UK citizens. What they didn't explain, because it would have ruined a good headline, is the number of registered immigrants paying national insurance was nearly 10 times the number claiming benefits of some kind - a significantly higher proportion of payments to claims than the indigenous population. An inconvenient truth, indeed, and one that might have prevented the good people of Middle England from spitting their breakfast tea out in choleric outrage.

    Then THIS, last year, really wound me up. Not only is it a non-story - I can't see how this is in any way relevant to anything newsworthy - but it isn't even accurate. Even a few minutes looking at their own numbers would show you that. No matter - a good inflammatory headline is what counts, from the Mail's point of view.

    So I'll keep those glasses on, thanks very much. Don't worry, I have a similar pair for most other newspapers as well.
  20. The Wherryman

    The Wherryman Active Member

    If the officers taking part in the parade were off-duty, why did they parade in uniform? The police uniform is just that, uniform to be worn while carrying out police duties. It is not the uniform of the Gay Police Officers Association.

    The police service Statement of Common purpose reads:

    "The purpose of the police service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen's Peace; to protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do all this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement."

    Police officers attending a march as supporters of the gay movement are not carrying out a police duty. Displaying overt support for a particular section of the community as opposed to other sections of the community is hardly commensurate with that Statement.

    I wasn't at the march so I don't know who wore what, but I do know that Norfolk Police officers have been urged to wear Gay Pride ribbons on duty. I know of one officer who objected against this, was accused of being homophobic and is now in other employment :(

    The OP was in relation to action being taken to prohibit Met Police officers wearing a Union Flag brooch that had been purchased to support a charitable cause in connection with our military. No other Police Force in the country had been subjected to such a ban.

    What incensed me was that it was reported that the ban was originally imposed because "someone" had been offended by such a patriotic display. It had got nothing at all to do with whether other "non-uniform" items are or are not worn, although that was a reason put forward several days later, when the ban was lifted.

    I happen to agree with those who say that uniform is uniform and no ad hoc embellishments should be permitted and if that had been initially given as the the reason for the ban I would not have raised an eyebrow.

Share This Page