Banned, the police Union Flag badge that backs our troops
Barred: Officers at Heathrow were with issued the directive
Scores of Scotland Yard officers are in open revolt after being banned from wearing Union Flag badges in support of British troops.
Met chiefs have decreed that the tiny emblems – which cost £1 with proceeds going to charity – must be removed after a complaint that they are offensive.
But furious junior officers are continuing to wear them in defiance at the politically
correct stance.
A petition has been launched on the Downing Street website demanding they be allowed to wear the badges, which are to raise funds for the Royal British
Legion and the Help for Heroes charity.
Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said: ‘The decision
to forbid police officers from joining the rest of the country in showing support for those who are fighting for their country is nothing less than shameful.’
The row started when 200 officers at Heathrow Airport were barred from wearing the badges last month on the grounds that they were in breach of the Met’s strict dress code.
The order is thought to have followed a complaint from a member of public that the symbol is ‘offensive’. But about 70 officers, many of whom have been in the Services or have relatives fighting in Afghanistan, have ignored the directive despite warnings of disciplinary action.
Mr Smyth, who represents more than 30,000 rank and file officers, said staff in
the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Group, CO19 firearms squad and dog units have joined the revolt. In a statement on the Metropolitan Police Federation’s website, he said: ‘As the country mourned the deaths of young soldiers and saluted the heroism of the men and women fighting in Afghanistan, Met officers at the airport were
ordered to take off small, one-inch square Union Flag badges because someone had complained they were offensive.’
Officers at Heathrow were also ordered to take down a Union Flag hoisted on June 27
– Armed Forces Day – because it was not an ‘approved ensign’. Strict rules are in place about when the Union Flag can be flown at individual police stations.
Mr Smyth added: ‘These orders from senior officers are legal and must be obeyed.
They are, however, also completely crass.’
‘Offensive’: One of the emblems is just a tiny Union Jack with the words support our troops.
He added: ‘Personnel serving in the armed forces pass through Heathrow, but are
being denied any boost to morale they might get from a very modest display of support
by the Metropolitan Police. ‘It is not even as if the wearing of “unofficial” badges is
without precedent.’
Mr Smyth said said senior officers routinely turn a blind eye to constables wearing gay
pride ribbons when they go on marches.
Strictly speaking, officers are not allowed to wear any type of badge on their uniforms. Mr Smyth said: ‘From what I can gather, someone may have complained that the Union Flag is offensive. I find that hard to believe. We take theoath to serve the Queen and these badges are for a charitable cause.’
He added that as the row has escalated, hundreds of patriotic officers have expressed an interest in buying the Union Flag badge.
In February, Scotland Yard was hit by another row over political correctness after the
Union Flag hanging outside a police station was replaced by a gay rights flag to mark Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) history month.
This is despite Met rules stating that only the Union Flag and its own flag can fly from
force buildings. Scotland Yard said last night: ‘The Metropolitan Police has a dress code policy to clarify the dress standard expected from all staff whether they are wearing uniform or plain clothes. The Met wants to ensure that everyone projects a smart and professional image in support of delivering a quality service.
‘The dress code states only the approved corporate badging may be used and only on
clothing authorised by the Clothing Board.’
Those wishing to support the badge wearing officers can sign the Downing Street petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PoliceUniform
Scores of Scotland Yard officers are in open revolt after being banned from wearing Union Flag badges in support of British troops.
Met chiefs have decreed that the tiny emblems – which cost £1 with proceeds going to charity – must be removed after a complaint that they are offensive.
But furious junior officers are continuing to wear them in defiance at the politically
correct stance.
A petition has been launched on the Downing Street website demanding they be allowed to wear the badges, which are to raise funds for the Royal British
Legion and the Help for Heroes charity.
Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said: ‘The decision
to forbid police officers from joining the rest of the country in showing support for those who are fighting for their country is nothing less than shameful.’
The row started when 200 officers at Heathrow Airport were barred from wearing the badges last month on the grounds that they were in breach of the Met’s strict dress code.
The order is thought to have followed a complaint from a member of public that the symbol is ‘offensive’. But about 70 officers, many of whom have been in the Services or have relatives fighting in Afghanistan, have ignored the directive despite warnings of disciplinary action.
Mr Smyth, who represents more than 30,000 rank and file officers, said staff in
the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Group, CO19 firearms squad and dog units have joined the revolt. In a statement on the Metropolitan Police Federation’s website, he said: ‘As the country mourned the deaths of young soldiers and saluted the heroism of the men and women fighting in Afghanistan, Met officers at the airport were
ordered to take off small, one-inch square Union Flag badges because someone had complained they were offensive.’
Officers at Heathrow were also ordered to take down a Union Flag hoisted on June 27
– Armed Forces Day – because it was not an ‘approved ensign’. Strict rules are in place about when the Union Flag can be flown at individual police stations.
Mr Smyth added: ‘These orders from senior officers are legal and must be obeyed.
They are, however, also completely crass.’
‘Offensive’: One of the emblems is just a tiny Union Jack with the words support our troops.
He added: ‘Personnel serving in the armed forces pass through Heathrow, but are
being denied any boost to morale they might get from a very modest display of support
by the Metropolitan Police. ‘It is not even as if the wearing of “unofficial” badges is
without precedent.’
Mr Smyth said said senior officers routinely turn a blind eye to constables wearing gay
pride ribbons when they go on marches.
Strictly speaking, officers are not allowed to wear any type of badge on their uniforms. Mr Smyth said: ‘From what I can gather, someone may have complained that the Union Flag is offensive. I find that hard to believe. We take theoath to serve the Queen and these badges are for a charitable cause.’
He added that as the row has escalated, hundreds of patriotic officers have expressed an interest in buying the Union Flag badge.
In February, Scotland Yard was hit by another row over political correctness after the
Union Flag hanging outside a police station was replaced by a gay rights flag to mark Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) history month.
This is despite Met rules stating that only the Union Flag and its own flag can fly from
force buildings. Scotland Yard said last night: ‘The Metropolitan Police has a dress code policy to clarify the dress standard expected from all staff whether they are wearing uniform or plain clothes. The Met wants to ensure that everyone projects a smart and professional image in support of delivering a quality service.
‘The dress code states only the approved corporate badging may be used and only on
clothing authorised by the Clothing Board.’
Those wishing to support the badge wearing officers can sign the Downing Street petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PoliceUniform
.
33 comments:
On the subject of gays anybody any ideas why Denise at Lancaster UAF made this comment
[b]Marina Tyndall - somebody, almost certainly not one of us, is trying to stir things for her, and I've deleted two such comments.
Our position is simple - she cannot help her parentage, and as far as we know has - despite obvious difficulties - led a blameless life.
She is a non-combatant and all decent anti-fascists will respect that - so no further comments on this young lady please.[/b]
If she's right who's trying to stir things up for JT's daughter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVkp96Gm5tU
Worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVkp96Gm5tU
Part.2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFBQfxjUOas&NR=1
Part.3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cai0FyxfhPA&NR=1
Part.4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YdtZwTjtUM&NR=1
Part.5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFRIJEpL2M&NR=1
Part.6.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSr3oL0N7pg&NR=1
Part.7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxMbi7vyEPY&NR=1
Part.8.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RzIOHDlSXo&NR=1
Part.9.
off theme but of interest. Visit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/13/johnhooper
to read an article about how M16 controlled what the Guardian calls Germany's most successful post war neo nazi party. Lets also bare in mind the recent disclosures of German state intellegance people at the top of to-days NPD. (perhaps they are running the NPD,who knows?)
So what do you think ,in view of this Guardian article, is M16's relationship to the BNP?
Is it
a) none
b) benign
c)controlling
d)opposed
(tick as appropriate in view of your experiences within the BNP)
The state needs a pretend radical ,but impotent, opposition. If there isn'nt one around that it can take over it ,the state , will create one. (it's easy) Why. Here are two reasons that come to mind.
1) The maintainance of the pretence of democracy. This neuters mass opposition. It tells you that you,the people, are in control. In reallity you are not. You are what it is ment that you should be, powerless.It is democracy's task to hide that unplasent fact from you and there-by keep you quite. (neutered).radical opposition is the prove offered, by the state,of the (false) reality of democracy.
2) A controlled opposition is a surveillance tool for the state. It allows the state to identify the most committed opponents of the state. (and waste their time and money).The state needs information (it feels insecure) and controlled opposition parties provide informstion. ie) members names etc. Send of your membership cheque and you are identified, stand in an election , get photographed on an activity etc etc. You are known and noted.
There are other good reasons for controlled opposition. have a think about them.
All this may make nationalists feel glum. After all ,to me, it looks like we nationalists have all been played for suckers by the state--and for a long time. But bare in mind that we are not, almost certainly, alone. I suspect that the 'reds' have, and are, being played (by the state) for suckers to. How the state must laugh. Having two groups of anti state suckers ,that from time to time it may help or hinder, oppose each other and there-by not oppose the state. Isn'nt this what the history books refer to as 'divide and conquer?
The time has come for all to understand that the only enemy today is (in all it's disguises) the anti democratic (I use the word democratic now with it's proper and true meaning) state.
Richard Chadfield
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RzIOHDlSXo&NR=1
part.9.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrGpKupHWnE&NR=1
Part.10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KKvEwCS1Q&NR=1
Part.11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z0EmVu_uN8&NR=1
Part.12.(Last)
Under an agreement between Camden council, north London, and Kirklees council, West Yorkshire, familys last year took up the offer of a home in Huddersfield. They had been told they would have to wait nine years for a permanent home in London.
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=417
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA
LOVE LOVE LOVE IT!!!
TEEEEEEEEEHEEEEEEEEEE and a TEEEEEEEEEHEEEEEEEEEE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2
A GOOD WATCH.
Group that exposed 'IDF crimes' in Gaza slams Israel bid to choke off its funds
An organization that alleged Israeli troops used Palestinians as human shields in Gaza accused the Foreign Ministry on Sunday of "endangering democracy," following a Haaretz report that the ministry had asked the Netherlands to freeze funds to the group.
Acting on instructions from the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, the Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands, Harry Knei-Tal, met last week with the director-general of the Dutch Foreign Ministry and complained about the Dutch embassy's funding of Breaking the Silence.
The group said Sunday that the ministry and the establishment were conducting a "witch hunt...only a part of which was exposed in the Haaretz report," that it claimed was testimony to the "erosion of democratic culture in the State of Israel."
Breaking the Silence added: "The attempts to silence voices from Israeli civil society are dangerous. As opposed to reports, the IDF has never denied the [validity of the] testimonies and it and the foreign ministry's virulent reaction... only strengthens the position of the testifying soldiers, who are not willing to be exposed."
"It looks like the ministry draws ideas from shady regimes, in which those who point out internal failures are considered traitors."
http://www.henrymakow.com/_jay_rockefeller_left.html
Interesting Facts.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100613
Interesting.
PEOPLE ARE SICK OF ZIONIST CLAPTRAP AN ENDLESS HOAX
Could an 'Entebbe-style' raid have saved British hostages?
As negotiations faltered, a daring plan inspired by the Uganda hostage crisis was considered to free the men seized in Iraq five years ago
In July 1976, Israeli commandos rescued hostages held for a week aboard a hijacked Air France plane at at Entebbe airport in Uganda
British officials briefly believed that the Britons kidnapped in Baghdad in 2007 were being held in Iran and considered a commando raid to free them.
http://judicial-inc.biz/entebbe.htm
http://www.judicial-inc.biz/97dirty_business_of_organ_traffick.htm
Discusting.
http://judicial-inc.biz/87simon_trent.htm
SICK?
http://www.judicial-inc.biz/97security_bank_corp_looted.htm
ITS EASY WHEN YOU KNOW HOW?
Where are the BNP accounts for 2008? They haven't been published yet on the Electoral Commission website. Does anybody know what's happening? Even Sinn Fein has had their accounts put in on time, I see they employ 73 people, all on the gravy train. How many on the BNP's?
This statement has just been made by the head of the Electoral Commission.
Regulatory Action :
The British National Party and the party’s Regional Accounting Unit were both granted an extension to the deadline for submitting their statements of accounts. Both have failed to deliver their accounts within the extended deadline so the party will be fined a minimum of £500 and the accounting unit will be fined a minimum £100, this figure will increase if the accounts are more than three months late.
Peter Wardle Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission said:
“Political parties play a crucial part in our democracy. But, now more than ever, voters need to be confident that party funding is transparent and that parties will comply with the law.
“While we are disappointed that the British National Party and its accounting unit have failed to submit their accounts on time, I’m glad to see that the majority of the large parties and accounting units have understood the need to ensure their accounts are submitted to us by the deadline set. Transparency about party finances is one of the key factors that can help public confidence in politics.”
http://www.natvan.com/american-dissident-voices/adv022093.html
Interesting.
off theme again but here is the dismal BNP Stockport MBC by-election result for Reddish North ward.
--------------------------------
Reddish North By-Election Result 2009
The Returning Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council declared the result for the Reddish North Ward By-Election held on Thursday 23rd July 2009.
Reddish North Ward By-Election ResultsNames of Candidate and Party Number Of Votes Recorded
Bennett P. (BNP) 195
Beverley N. (Lib Dem) 303
Butler G.J. (Con) 403
Price G. (UKIP) 342
Wilson D.S. (Lab) 1,218
Majority 815
% Poll 23.5%
Result Lab Hold
----------------------------------
You can view the result at :
http://www.stockport.gov.uk/content/councildemoc/elections/electionresults/reddishnorthbyelection09?a=5441
The B.N.P got 7.9% of the votes cast. Unbelivably the majority of those who voted chose Labour. Fatham that.
Almost eighty percent of registered voters thought there was no point in voting. They are quite right.
Richard Chadfield
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Lbl/Lbl-VitalFactsYouNeedToKnow.html
Interesting.
MISS ENGLAND -HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
Vote shock hits beauty pageant
MISS England organisers last night admitted they were reviewing their own rules after it emerged Miss Oxfordshire voted for herself more than 1,000 times.
Student nurse Zoiey Smale racked up 2,013 votes from the public – who voted with text messages – to be propelled into the beauty contest’s final 15.
The 20-year-old steamed to the top of the popularity board – more than 1,000 votes ahead of her nearest rival. The competition had 54 contestants.
Last week Miss Smale said she felt “cheated” after she was beaten to the crown by Rachel Christie, the niece of former Olympic sprinter Linford Christie.
But a probe by organisers has discovered half of the votes were made late at night from Miss Smale’s own mobile phone.
Angie Beasley, director of Miss England, said: “She did vote for herself over 1,000 times.
“I think it’s about 1,013 times she voted and it cost about £1 a vote.
“This has never happened before and we were very, very shocked to hear that she had done this.
“We found out that she had been using the mobile phone that she entered the competition with, to vote for herself.
“The phone calls were very close together. It was on and off for about a month, mostly late at night.”
TEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEEEEEEEEEE and a TEEHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I see the BNP lost Sadie's old seat in Brinsley by-election in Broxtowe Council, the candidate was local nit wit Nina Brown, the woman who let that fat, pervert, steroid filled, bastard Reynolds and the others from Griffin's goon squad into Sadie's home to take her computer and other personal property. We are dealing with utterly treacherous shitbags in this party!!!
Post a Comment