Up to you but they're more significant than Daily Mail readers.

[Link]

And there is the problem, because for one thing, what is deemed 'harmful' is now dependent on whether the 'victim' is a member of a protected group or not and if they simply claim to be 'harmed.'
That is clearly a prejudicial system. It also allows the government to use the law to silence objection, complaint or even debate in regard to immigration and other minority issue.

The idea that you can be directly harmed by words is absurd in itself. It is also totally bonkers that the Police have to waste time on such nonsense when crime has reached epidemic levels, largely courtesy of some of the very same protected groups.

You will no doubt come back with some spin or word juggling, but the true state of Britain in 2024 is clear for anyone with eyes.

Your denials only confirm what we already know.

The intention to cause harm or distress is no longer a factor in Scotland. The new law criminalises words or behaviour that are deemed ‘insulting’, and the prosecution need only prove that stirring up race hatred was ‘likely’ rather than ‘intended’.

Ah the overly verbose partisan conservative at it again

This reaction is simply a lazy pile on after postage stamp cross gate. If any of you had bothered to look at various countries Olympic apparel (winter and summer) over the last 20 years you’d see a wide range of variation year on year, veering from conformist to abstract and everything in between. Some staying faithful to traditional elements and colours, some not.

In other words - this constant reinvention is nothing new, has been happening for quite some time, and in an increasingly commercial and brand/merch driven world absolutely essential to drive revenue.

You all seem to have completely forgotten the 2012 Team GB branding, which veered between white light blue, purple and dark blue to red, crimson and white depending on application. Check out the recent Winter Olympics kits as well, while you’re at it.

All sports technical wear and beyond has long departed from the ‘put a flag on it and do that every year’. These items have to appeal to the casual wearer as a semi-fashion item as well as being marketable and brand distinctive.

It’s a commercial cycle. Nationalism takes a back seat to brand these days. Traditional > reinvention then back round again.

Ideological storm in a teacup.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

And while we’re at it, although I disliked the weird purple / red Cross combo on the recent Ingerlund shirt, I didn’t personally read that as a nod to the much loved LGBTQ+ community. Quite a few other colours in there. Wouldn’t be very diverse of them if it was intentional now would it?

Also - remind yourselves who the main target consumer is.

I think as usual the explanation is much simpler - the designers wanted to do something different for completely surface aesthetic reasons. And to sell more kits.

All this carry on makes it seem like they changed the actual flag.

It’s not even the main badge on the shirt.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (04 Apr 2024 9.49pm)

Edited by SW19 CPFC (04 Apr 2024 9.52pm)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

You need to understand the difference between the styling of a sports kit and the national flag.
The former can be subject to as much artistic imagination as one cares to inflict on it, but the latter is either the national flag or it is not.

It cannot be that difficult to understand surely.

The reaction could have something to do with the fact that the country seems to be being undermined from all directions right now.

That might make even the least nation proud individual a little sensitive.