At work we have a section on our intranet that let's us read some of the days news stories. It was while reading one of these I fear I might of had a knee-jerk reaction and taken offence without thinking it through. The artical relates to the Metropolitan police saying that it's officers aren't aloud to wear small union jacks on their uniforms in support of the troops fighting abroad as it might cause "offence". I found myself getting angry at this, what's offensive about someone wearing a badge? I know they're police and all that but they're also British citizens and should be aloud to express their support if they wish. I really can't think of anyone taking offence to the Union Jack apart from extreamists, be it from Ireland, the middle east or anywhere else and I don't really think they have a right to complain. I can't help thinking that this is another example of the British government stopping someone from doing something incase it causes offence when there's no valid reason for there to be any. Now I'm open to your views, if you think I'm wrong and there is a logical reason why this would cause offence then I'll listen. Like I said, I'm worried I had a knee-jerk reaction without thinking it through.
Knee-jerk reaction
- Thread starter Caninus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't feel angry (dead inside you see) but I do think it's quite pathetic, and a perfect example of why nobody takes Britain seriously any more.
As far as I am concerned, anyone working for this country in uniform (Fire-fighters, Police, Military but they already do) should have the Union Jack on it as standard, albeit a small one on the top of the arm or something.
As far as I am concerned, anyone working for this country in uniform (Fire-fighters, Police, Military but they already do) should have the Union Jack on it as standard, albeit a small one on the top of the arm or something.
Since police are supposed to be unbiased I suppose that anything that shows any degree of support for anything shouldn't really be there (unless it's for religious reasons like Sikh police wearing turbans)
Huh..... And yet our officers drive around with those bumper stickers on there cruisers all the time.
As lost Clause said there to be unbiased and some people would think that these officers would be cracking down on anti-war protesters (Hey there in every country.)Also some people might find it intimdating. (There are those people squemish enough that they see it as the officer saying "Support out troops or else!")
Besides you don't need a badge to support youre troops.
As lost Clause said there to be unbiased and some people would think that these officers would be cracking down on anti-war protesters (Hey there in every country.)Also some people might find it intimdating. (There are those people squemish enough that they see it as the officer saying "Support out troops or else!")
Besides you don't need a badge to support youre troops.
Well it could be argued that they are, since the invasion and subsequent war in Afghanistan has caused a massive boost in poppy production.robert632 said:
Aside from that (not in the mood get get into an arguement) it does seem a bit silly to ban the patches for people such as policemen since they work in and for England. At the same time it is easy to see why it would not be allowed since the police are a neutral and detached party from the military and wars. Since this is the case then it should not matter that their uniform does not include something which is a statement of personal views.
Actually I agree that police officers shouldn't be allowed to wear any political symbols, and I think the Union Jack is a political symbol even within Britian. I don't think it's fair to label anybody who doesn't like it as extremists. The concept of Britishness is a contentious one, and there are many people in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales as well as minority communities in England that aren't altogether comfortable with it. The police should be agents of the law, not of the state.