As someone outside of England, I'm really confused by this. Why would displaying your national flag be considered racist? Is the English flag commonly NOT displayed by people? Would displaying it be considered unusual in some way? I really don't get it.

Speaking as someone who is non-White, non-British, non-English etc (even if some people regard me as a "banana" - "yellow on the outside, white on the inside", this is completely unbelievable!

Of course the flag is going to end up "misinterpreted" if all but racists are forbidden from displaying it. All this does is abandon a symbol with a proud history to those who would misappropriate it! This directive also appears to have a mind-bogglingly racist implicit assumption that black prisoners are not English. I'd also like to see what would happen if any attempt were made to ban the wearing of the flags of the other UK countries...

---

by Sandia
As someone outside of England, I'm really confused by this. Why would displaying your national flag be considered racist? Is the English flag commonly NOT displayed by people? Would displaying it be considered unusual in some way? I really don't get it.

---

Because the flag sometimes gets worn or brandished by white supremacists/extremists in the way that such types always try to wrap themselves in the flag. I guess the key difference between England and the US is that the latter has a strong tradition of openly displaying pride in the national flag by all sections of society, not just the racists, whereas the rest of English society tends not to do so.

Can't help thinking that things like the charity drive are the right way forward: reclaiming the symbol from the extremists who seek to claim it for their own!

During the last world cup a number of local councils asked people to remove Union Jack + England flags from their windows as they were considered to be symbols of racism. I find it very sad that people cannot display the flag of their own country WITHIN their own country without it being deemed racist.

The stupid thing is that if the councils had asked people to remove other flags from windows the councils themselves would be accused of racism.

Now there's a thought... I am *so* not a football fan but I feel very tempted, next time there's a major England match on, to put up a St George flag to see if anyone knocks on my door to accuse me of being a white supremacist...

I doubt they will. We've had a St George's Flag up for several major tournaments without problem. A small kernel of truth in these stories is often massively overplayed and misrepresented to fuel fear of the phantom fascist lefty. (Is there anything less intimidating that a lefty councillor!)

When I saw this story in the paper, they actually went on to quote a prison official as saying that officers are not allowed to wear *any* unofficial pins/badges on their uniforms.

There are instances of our national flag being classed as racist/Nationalist etc by idiots, but I really don't think anyone takes it seriously.

---

by Sandia
As someone outside of England, I'm really confused by this. Why would displaying your national flag be considered racist? Is the English flag commonly NOT displayed by people? Would displaying it be considered unusual in some way? I really don't get it.

---

Same kind of problems that are associated with the Confederate flag in America, except that hooligans loosely associated with football (soccer) use it too.

The Confederate flag isn't a national flag though. It's a regional flag that represented asome pretty vile ideas. So I can understand someone thinking a person flying a Confederate flag might be making a racist statement. I couldn't think of any instance wherein flying an English flag in England would be taken in a negative way.

---

by Kate
When I saw this story in the paper, they actually went on to quote a prison official as saying that officers are not allowed to wear *any* unofficial pins/badges on their uniforms.

---

I can support this idea, I think a uniform should be a uniform and when it's a profession such as the prison service, the police or the army, then I don't see why they should expect to be allowed to personalise their uniform.

It's part of their job to look exactly like their peers, uniform means uniform.

Likewise but then why the need to make the comment about "minintepretation" of the flag? That becomes irrelevant if the issue is simply one of maintaining uniform regulations.

Uniform is uniform. However does the uniform code specify exactly what tiepin you are supposed to wear, or just that you are supposed to wear a tiepin? (or none at all).

We did have some problems at my school (a long time ago) with some Alto lefty tree huggers who sew the flags on their bags over the summer holiday when on a huge camping trip with a group of international scouts. When school started some of them got beaten up by a group of Turkish youths because lefty tree huggers were "extreme right fascists"?!? Well if you can't distinguish a alto tree hugger from an extreme right fascist you are probably blind..... so most likely they were just looking for a fight (which was their normal gig anyways). After this the school banned the dutch flag on clothes etc. That same week a big part of the Turkish students started wearing the Turkish flag on their school bag which of course wasn't banned by the school as that would be racist and could cause hosility...... it is a sad world we live in.

So maybe there is an association with racists etc, that just means we should use the flag more often as than the association is unfounded as the majority of the wearers wouldn't be the "racists" and the extreme rights would have to find another symbol

The flag is a symbol and something you should be proud of as it symbolises the whole nation and therefore should be treated with respect. When I worked as an intern for the military I came in early a few days just to watch them do the morning ritual and raise the flag at the compound, which is pretty impressive..... but darned early

Thought I'd provide a link to the full BBC article and not just the opinion piece:

Flag Wearing

In reply to Sandia, Brits don't use any flags to the extent that most Americans do. That's not just the Union flag or the St George's Cross, but also the Welsh Dragon or St Andrew's Cross. The flags tends to come out for major sporting events and (though increasingly less so) major state events. That's not an issue of national pride, because you'll find this true of most European nations. It's just not part of our culture.

There has been an issue since the 70s of organizations like the National Front trying to associate themselves with the flag. After all, there's nothing new in Racist organizations trying to portray themselves as 'true patriots'. However, since the whole Brit Pop deal, and Geri Halliwell appearing in a Union Flag dress, this seems to have slipped away, certainly from the Union Flag, and from the St George's flag as well. But everyone once in a while a story like this appears to cause a storm in a tea cup.

Also worth mentioning (O pedant that I am) that England has not been a nation for some centuries. Not since the act of union. Our nation is the United Kingdom, our nationality British. England is a region of that nation, nothing more.

---

by Jayjay
Our nationality British. England is a region of that nation, nothing more.

---

Could someone please explain that to the other "regions" as well... *looks hard at the Scots *

---

by Jayjay
In reply to Sandia, Brits don't use any flags to the extent that most Americans do....That's not an issue of national pride, because you'll find this true of most European nations. It's just not part of our culture.

---

Yeah, I know. I have a very close friend from Germany who just laughs when we walk around and she sees the American flags in front of people's houses. She says, "What, are they afraid they'll forget what country they're in?" I've always found it silly, but to each his or her own.

---

by JayJay
However, since the whole Brit Pop deal, and Geri Halliwell appearing in a Union Flag dress, this seems to have slipped away, certainly from the Union Flag, and from the St George's flag as well.

---

Now, I'm going to have to look this up. I don't think I know the difference between the Union flag and the St. George's flag.

---

byJayJay
Also worth mentioning (O pedant that I am) that England has not been a nation for some centuries. Not since the act of union. Our nation is the United Kingdom, our nationality British. England is a region of that nation, nothing more.

---

Another thing I don't quite get. I understand what the UK is, and I know all of the "countries" that are part of it. I think I also understand what Britain is, or was. But England is a region, not a country? That threw me. I see Kate beat me to the idea above. But my first thought was, what about Scotland. They don't consider themsselves a country, just a region of the UK? That really surprises me. Complicated stuff, isn't it?

---

by SandiaNow, I'm going to have to look this up. I don't think I know the difference between the Union flag and the St. George's flag.

---

Wikipedia explains it best. I would put the illustration here, but I can't get the hang of imgs on T21...

---

by Sandia
Now, I'm going to have to look this up. I don't think I know the difference between the Union flag and the St. George's flag.

---

St George's is white with a red cross, very Scandinavian, and is the English flag. The Union flag combines the English, Scottish and Irish flags (apparently the Welsh were just plain conquered and not there by union...) creating a combination of white, red and blue crosses and saltire (diagonal) crosses. This is the flag of the UK.

---

by Sandia
Another thing I don't quite get. I understand what the UK is, and I know all of the "countries" that are part of it. I think I also understand what Britain is, or was. But England is a region, not a country? That threw me. I see Kate beat me to the idea above. But my first thought was, what about Scotland. They don't consider themsselves a country, just a region of the UK? That really surprises me. Complicated stuff, isn't it?

---

Texas was once separate from the United States. As was California and Hawaii and many other states. Later, through conquest or acts of union, they became part of the USA. Now Every state, as far as I know, has its own flag, its own culture and own history, but no one would refer to Texas as a country. Except a few militia types, maybe. Same goes for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and remaining colonies, like Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands. Their are some who support an end to the union, and would consider their own region a country, but technically they'd be wrong. Dosn't mean they won't secede in the future, but right now their nation is the UK (and as a Republican, I hate that name... ).

Thanks to "the Host" for the Wikipedia link. I looked up the flag myself, but the Wikipedia article explains it very well. The Union flag is the one I knew. I didn't know its history though. It's interesting to see how it combines the flags of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

In answer to JayJay, the analogy between the states of the U.S. and the countries that formed the United Kingdom doesn't really work because they're veyr different entities. As I understand it, the United Kingdom comes out of the union of pre-existing, sovereign nations. The states of the United States were not pre-existing, nor were they sovereign entities, with one or two exceptions.

Hawaii was an independent monarchy up until the late 1800s when American and European interests deposed the queen and the U.S. annexed the islands. Texas was an independent country on paper for a very short time. But the fact is that American settlers went to Texas in droves when it was part of Mexico, started a rebellion that separated Texas from Mexico, then declared themselves an independent republic solely for the purpose of asking the U.S. to annex them as a state.

The deal is that the 13 original states (the ones that had been British colonies) created the national government and then came up with a formula to add additional states. Everything outside of those original 13 states was, as you say JayJay, added by conquest or purchase. But the land was added as just big chunks of territory. It wasn't organized into states--at least at first.

The U.S. government created a formula in the 1780s to deal with new territory. They knew American settlers were heading out into this new land and would probably want to associate themselves in some way with the U.S. So they provided a formula. The law said that if a group of settlers reached a population of 60,000 and they were able to organize a government, write a constitution, fix boundaries, and vote to become part of the U.S. they could become a state--with the approval of the U.S. Congress. So as different chunks of territory got organized in this way, they applied for statehood and became new states. So the states are just political divisions specifically created for governing various areas of this vast territory in North America that Americans spread out over. They have no history beyond that.

There are many important regional cultures in the U.S., but they're not generally associated with state boundaries. Some cultures cross several states--like that of Appalachia. Some are contained within a state--such as the Cajuns and Creoles of Louisiana. But that's just an accident of where the boundary was drawn and the fact that the most dense concentration of French settlers in the U.S. ended up in the lower Mississippi valley, giving Lousiana a very French cultural background.

True, every state has its own flag, song, and on and on. But I don't think they mean very much. If you asked the people of New Jersey--the state in which I live--to identify the state flag, I don't think many people could do it. It's just a weird thing. States are political entities that were created in order to give orderly government to a vast territory. They have become much more, no doubt. And they do have their own identities. But I wouldn't equate the union of states here with the union of actual nations. It just doesn't rise to that level.

Well, I didn't want to go on and on about this. But I think that ship has sailed...

Wow, the history of Texas reminds me of the Free City of Danzig, although that did belong to Germany before being made a separate state under the Treaty of Versailles. Back to Wikipedia:

'The Free City was represented abroad by Poland and was in a customs union with Poland. The railway line that connected the Free City with Poland was administered by Poland. The separated military post within the city's harbor Westerplatte, formerly a city beach, was also given to Poland. There were also two post-offices, one municipal and a second Polish.

'In 1933 the Nazi Party won the May election. However, they received only 57 percent of the vote, less than the two thirds required by the League to change the Free City's constitution. The government introduced laws that were anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic (Catholics were widely identified with Poles).

'Beginning in 1939 the Free City's Nazi government engaged in persecutions of Poles, including the expulsion of all Polish students from the Technical University. It then voted to be annexed by Nazi Germany on September 2, 1939, the day after the German invasion of Poland, and was incorporated into the province of Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen. The annexation was illegal from the point of view of the Free City's constitution. Two areas of the city were defended by forces opposed to the annexation: The Polish Post Office in Danzig until September 2, and Westerplatte until September 7. The defenders of the Post Office were subsequently executed.'

I wonder if many Texans would see the parallel?