[kreuzberger]

Aye, the case is now sub judice and, dependent upon where the trial is held, his "occupation" could sway a jury.

[davidjay]

Aye, the case is now sub judice and, dependent upon where the trial is held, his "occupation" could sway a jury.

I don't suppose any jurist won't make the connection.

[Abernathy]

“Raise the Colours” is of course nothing more than a calculated racist far-right provocation, their protestations of it being merely a spontaneous demonstration of national pride and patriotism a blatant, Trump style lie (which a fair few hard-of-thinking dimwits buy into (“what’s wrong with being proud of the national flag?” ) . But the cheapo flags, where they still remain, are of course now looking tatty, dirty, and raggedy , and to many (well, me at any rate), it simply looks bloody silly. When you stop and think about it, attaching loads of flags to lamp-posts just is an inherently bloody silly idea. .

I’d go further. Rather than encouraging and generating national pride, it seems to me that hanging flags everywhere actually devalues the flag. If it’s everywhere, it’s unremarkable, and even irritating.

So I’d say that “Raise the Colours” has actually failed in its objectives - even its principal one of being a racist provocation. Yes, people were provoked, but mostly the reaction has been to dismiss these wankers as knuckle-dragging idiots. They’ve drawn attention to themselves by dint of their idiocy. That there has been violence and intimidation perpetrated by the flag wankers has only made it worse.

[Oboogie]

I’d go further. Rather than encouraging and generating national pride, it seems to me that hanging flags everywhere actually devalues the flag. If it’s everywhere, it’s unremarkable, and even irritating.

It definitely devalues. If something is omnipresent as these tossers intend it loses impact and becomes meaningless and mundane.
Flagshagging is something I associate with totalitarian regimes, not democracies - the notable exception being the USA (even pre-MAGA).
It's not a British tradition to have flags everywhere - international sporting events, Royal events and World War 2 anniversaries used to be the only occasions you'd see flags out, it had meaning. If a building was flying a flag it conveyed information - it's some kind of civic office, a town hall, council offices, something military perhaps - it served a purpose.

NB I am talking about Great Britain, I'm fully aware that what I've said doesn't apply to Northern Ireland where the two communities have different flagshagging traditions - although I'd argue that the motivation to exclude 'the other' is similar.

[davidjay]

I would say that Raise the Colours has succeeded in its primary aim - Ryan Bridge and a few others have made serious money.

[Watchman]

What intrigues me about these patriots and defenders of English values, culture, and traditions; when a group of travellers pitch their caravans on the village green (a dog whistle the Mail loves to use), there's no "call to arms", no emails/tweets saying set fire to their caravans....I put it down to these SAS trained patriots being shit scared of some hard little fuckers.

[RedSparrows]

“Raise the Colours” is of course nothing more than a calculated racist far-right provocation, their protestations of it being merely a spontaneous demonstration of national pride and patriotism a blatant, Trump style lie (which a fair few hard-of-thinking dimwits buy into (“what’s wrong with being proud of the national flag?” ) . But the cheapo flags, where they still remain, are of course now looking tatty, dirty, and raggedy , and to many (well, me at any rate), it simply looks bloody silly. When you stop and think about it, attaching loads of flags to lamp-posts just is an inherently bloody silly idea. .

I’d go further. Rather than encouraging and generating national pride, it seems to me that hanging flags everywhere actually devalues the flag. If it’s everywhere, it’s unremarkable, and even irritating.

So I’d say that “Raise the Colours” has actually failed in its objectives - even its principal one of being a racist provocation. Yes, people were provoked, but mostly the reaction has been to dismiss these wankers as knuckle-dragging idiots. They’ve drawn attention to themselves by dint of their idiocy. That there has been violence and intimidation perpetrated by the flag wankers has only made it worse.

The fact they're tatty, half-attached, uncared for, speaks volumes.

Symbolic act of pathetic 'defiance' and resentment, followed up by... what? Care? Continuity? Consistency?

My foot.

[davidjay]

How many more people have to die, and how many more violent incidents have to occur, before RtC is proscribed?

[Oboogie]

How many more people have to die, and how many more violent incidents have to occur, before RtC is proscribed?

Proscribed for what exactly? Hanging flags on lampposts is a violation of the Road Traffic Act, I doubt anyone's going prove that's terrorism in court.
Billy Allison has been charged with murder, but we don't know the details of the case, was it a political act (which it would need to be to be classed as terrorism), or was it just a drunken thug kicking off in a pub?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9365119eyqo

[Andy McDandy]

It's Max Cady in Cape Fear. Just doing my thing, not my fault if you're getting annoyed.

[davidjay]

How many more people have to die, and how many more violent incidents have to occur, before RtC is proscribed?

Proscribed for what exactly? Hanging flags on lampposts is a violation of the Road Traffic Act, I doubt anyone's going prove that's terrorism in court.
Billy Allison has been charged with murder, but we don't know the details of the case, was it a political act (which it would need to be to be classed as terrorism), or was it just a drunken thug kicking off in a pub?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9365119eyqo

The recent Stirchley van assault, on top of others there. The ongoing Shrewsbury problems. Numerous other incidents. They exist to cause intimidation and provocation.

[Oboogie]

The recent Stirchley van assault, on top of others there. The ongoing Shrewsbury problems. Numerous other incidents.

Which of those incidents do you think could be proven in court to be an act of terrorism under the terms of the Act?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents

They exist to cause intimidation and provocation.

Of course they do, we all know that. But you try proving it. What do they actually do which is different to what thousands of other people do?
The Union Jack and Cross of St George are the national emblems of the UK and England, they are not hate symbols, there's nothing illegal about displaying them in public.
There's a World Cup coming up, the Cross of St George (and the Saltire) are going to be everywhere, hung out of windows and on cars etc - is that intimidatory and provocative? Of course not.
The only legal difference between the actions of the football fan and Raise the Colours is where they hang their flags, attaching them to lampposts is a violation of the Road Traffic Act - not terrorism. Painting roundabouts is vandalism not terrorism.
I'd love to see the wankers shut down, but they're not going to be proscribed unless they are caught carrying out or planning an act of terrorism.

[davidjay]

I would argue that their recent activity is getting close to the definition of terrorism.

[Watchman]

As a collective they may not be “terrorists”, but if they were looked at individually, there will be some very unpleasant persons.

[Boiler]

There are deeply unpleasant individuals in all walks of life though.

[Oboogie]

As a collective they may not be “terrorists”, but if they were looked at individually, there will be some very unpleasant persons.

For absolute clarity, I think they're a bunch of violent racist cunts, I suspect we would struggle to find any of them that we would consider 'decent'..
I was responding specifically to David's query about why they have not been proscribed. As far as I'm aware the only organisations which have been proscribed are those which are "terrorists" as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000 or those who incite racial hatred and/or violence. The criminal justice system currently takes the view that Raise the Flags, as an organisation, do not meet either criteria, hence they are not proscribed.

[Boiler]

And those right wing groups that have been proscribed make RtC look (almost) harmless.

[Abernathy]

It might be reasonable to consider whether "Raise the Colours" is or is not similar enough to the proscribed as terrorist Palestine Action to merit the same treatment.

They've not caused damage to any RAF planes, but they have perpetrated deliberate acts of vandalism on thousands of public lamp-posts and mini roundabouts.

[Boiler]

Not even in the same league. Last time I checked, lamp standards and roundabouts had no defence capability.

[Oboogie]

It might be reasonable to consider whether "Raise the Colours" is or is not similar enough to the proscribed as terrorist Palestine Action to merit the same treatment.

They've not caused damage to any RAF planes, but they have perpetrated deliberate acts of vandalism on thousands of public lamp-posts and mini roundabouts.

It wasn't just the RAF base, PA also broke into a private business with the intention of vandalising it and assaulted one of the arresting officers with a weapon (a sledgehammer).
The Terrorism Act definition says terrorism is action involving "serious violence" against the person and/or "serious damage" to property "for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."

I'm not sure that daubing a red cross on a miniroundabout is really in the same league as spraying paint into a jet engine causing millions of pounds worth of damage. Certainly the CPS don't think so.