Red-Robbo

There is no case law where defacing a flag is a hate crime in the UK. However, under certain circumstances, say burning a union flag on the Cenotaph, such actions could be considered incitement to a breach of the peace and therefore be illegal. Putting different colours on a football shirt would not fall under this definition.

With Bowen and Foden, you have a much more mobile, pacey England.

Funnily enough there was some bearded chap who did have it in his manifesto not that long ago, but all the sort of "proper blokes" who define themselves as patriots didn’t vote for him.

Certainly isn't historic. I attended loads of England games in the 70s and can't remember seeing many of them then. Think it crept into terrace culture in the 80s. I have zero issue with them though. It totally makes sense that they'll be at England games Equally I don't have a problem with them not being on the shirt as lots of England's kits didn't carry flags in the past. The three lions - the FA's symbol - has been the one ever present.

Don't mistake BO for testosterone, mate.

On Radio 4, Shilton referred to "the red, white and blue of the England flag"

Nike have even brought out a special edition for the likes of Lewis and others worried that the flag has gone gay due to wokeness,,,

Having worked on a contract for a very large company involved in sportswear design, I know that design teams are always looking at ways to spin things and using the cuff colours used in '66 on this rather tucked away - can't say I ever noticed it during games - flag design is just the sort if thing they love coming up with and they justify their fees through such tinkering. I'm as traditionalist as the next man, but when you realise that having a small flag on the collar only began in 2002, I can't get worked up about this. Let's face it there wasn't a flag on the England kit in '66 nor in various other classic tournaments. It's a modern imposition, so I don't care about it. Now, if they'd have ****** about with the Three Lions ...

Myth busters: the first story about the flag is not supported by any historical evidence but seems to have arisen in the 20th Century. Just call me Mr Snopes.Com

As exemplified by N Farage demanding Nike change the cross back to its original colours. Just a quick reminder of the flag Ukip used when he was leader...

Fair enough, although I think some posters fixated on the colour of the cross on the back and suggested it was disrespectful or (in one case) illegal. I haven't bought a replica kit for years as I don't think they do much for the more mature figure.

Yes, but let's remember why this became a topic of conversation in the first place. It was condemned not as a bit of graphic art but for being "woke". And you can like or dislike the kit - I'm personally not keen on anything with Nike ticks so prominent - but it manifestly isn't "woke". Unless people consider the 1966 England training camp as "woke".

The US kit doesn't feature the flag as such - and in fact most international kits don't - but they did wear this badge at the World Cup, which caused a minor meltdown from the usual suspects.

I don't think even those two pillocks care about how this minor feature on a football shirt looks. They made a fuss about it because they - and some of their short-sighted disciples - assumed the colours were chosen as some sort of homage to LGBTQ+ people. They now look stupid as it's been made clear why those particular colours were chosen, but it's embedded in the mindset of the kneejerk culture war frothers that they have to double down on everything and can never admit they've made a mistake - even when they obviously have.

Except it isn't. For us a start that flag is three horizontal bars, not a cross. Also, the Nike design has red in it and a dark blue, neither of which are in the bisexual flag. The Nike design doesn't have pink either, which is in the bisexual flag. So, in short, the only thing it has in common with the bisexual flag is mid-blue and purple.

If they've bent the rules in the Championship it doesn't seem fair to benefit their Premier League rivals by docking them points in that division. Surely easier just to get them to forfeit some of their last games in the second tier. starting, oh I don't know, next Friday perhaps...

He may not even have existed. Interesting that in addition to England and six other countries, St George is also the patron saint of farmers, syphilis, sheep, lepers and boy scouts. Make of that what you will.

Maybe have a read of this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49263379

Well, not really, as Turks didn't live in what is now Turkey in the 1st Century. He was probably Greek speaking - you'll note Geogios is a very popular Greek name - but was actually born in a town now in Israel. Let's not go there...

The simple answer is the Order of the Garter adopted St George in the 14th Century and thereafter he became associated with Royal events etc. But he wasn't the patron saint of England until 1552 when Edward IV made him it. I guess the feeling was having a King who'd been assassinated (Edmund) as patron saint sent out the wrong vibes in Tudor times! People associate it with the Knights Templar during the Crusades, but their symbol is a Maltese Cross not a "Greek Cross" as used in the flag of England. The vast majority of Templars would've been French at any rate. France had approximately seven times the population of England during the 13th Century. None of this has anything to do with the Nike England shirt of course, but it's an interesting diversion, and may give pause for thought for those blokes who always turn up to England matches dressed as Genoese men at arms. For no apparent reason.

If you're going to quote the story about Genoa and Richard the Lionheart's fleet sheltering there, that is likely a myth. No contemporary account confirms that or indeed that "English knights"(most of whom would've been Gascons not English) ever wore the St George cross during the Crusades. The first mention of English soldiers having a cross on their shields comes a century after the last Crusade, during the Baron's War and that was just a simple + not linked to St George. St George didn't become the patron saint of England until 1552 (St Edmund had been that during Medieval times) and the St George flag wasn't used by English army and naval forces until the 17th Century.

Folk knows what all these cultural war warriors thought prior to 2002 when our shirts never featured a flag....

I'm not an opposition party but I want an election asap because the "good news: is still piss weak - and is tempered by other stuff the Tory press keep quiet, such as the most UK business closures since the World Financial crisis, and record debt levels, as weĺl as vastly more incoming red tape on imports from April. I want competent people in charge, not shysters and offshore-based disaster capitalists. My last word on this thread on this. (However the fact remains, the timing of the election is a legitimate story that any news outlet would report on and, as it has to come soon, speculate over. The Kate stuff is meaningless fluff, as are all other royal stories. Mindless chewing gum for the mind for those easily distracted from real life)

People DO want to know if we have 2 months more or as much as 10 months of the little shyte, so I'm going to respectively disagree that it isn't something people are interested in. As for "getting a scoop", Sunak and his closest advisors will decide and usually get the GCS to draft a release to all media ahead of Sunak's meeting the King to get him to sign state papers formally dissolving Parliament. It's not a "scoop" matter.

Pulis would've signed him.