Spurious Red and Gold-topped Banners

[Sussaxon]

A serious and informative explanation on the representation of the spurious red and gold-topped banners proclaiming to be "county flags" has been produced. This page highlights why the displaying of these banners outside of the councils' HQs is highly inappropriate. These flags seriously have no place at the Amex Stadium!!!

Our investigation has discovered that the, red banner, commonly mis-sold as the "East Sussex Flag", does in fact ONLY represent the group of 50 county councillors, collectively known as the County Council. It certainly does NOT represent the general public who live within its remit.

The same concept applies to the vast majority of current and former county councils, including the gold-topped banner of the former West Sussex County Council commonly mis-sold as the "West Sussex Flag".

A full detailed explanation can be found here...
www.sussexflag.wordpress.com/councilflags

 

[beorhthelm]

Our investigation has discovered that the, red banner, commonly mis-sold as the "East Sussex Flag", does in fact ONLY represent the group of 50 county councillors, collectively known as the County Council. It certainly does NOT represent the general public who live within its remit.

why not? are the councillors not themselves representivites for the public?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

why not? are the councillors not themselves representivites for the public?

But the councillors then emblazon their flag on most of the name places in East Sussex. That's wrong.

 

[Sussaxon]

why not? are the councillors not themselves representivites for the public?

Yes the councillors are representative of the public, but the public aren't members of the county council, that's the very important distinction! The fact that one has to ask permission to use the council's coat of arms, highlights that this does not represent you!

 

[beorhthelm]

But the councillors then emblazon their flag on most of the name places in East Sussex. That's wrong.

reading the link (good information, btw, that'll be the afternoon gone), i got the general gist (dont fly said flag), except this one point. the towns and villages of sussex are represented by the council, so it seems appropriate the councillors arms is present. yes, its modern day extension of feudalism, but not indicating we are subserviant to the councillors, rather under the authority of council institution they are elected to.

i recall some controversy a while ago about some authority renewing/changing signs and being told they couldnt because the patent for the arms had been revoked, so they couldnt use it. point being, use the arms on the signs isnt casually applied.

 

[Daffy Duck]

So at least my avatar is correct!

 

[Superphil]

I like the gold topped one.

 

[Sussaxon]

reading the link (good information, btw, that'll be the afternoon gone), i got the general gist (dont fly said flag), except this one point. the towns and villages of sussex are represented by the council, so it seems appropriate the councillors arms is present. yes, its modern day extension of feudalism, but not indicating we are subserviant to the councillors, rather under the authority of council institution they are elected to.

i recall some controversy a while ago about some authority renewing/changing signs and being told they couldnt because the patent for the arms had been revoked, so they couldnt use it. point being, use the arms on the signs isnt casually applied.

Putting the red shield on these signs greatly gives the impression to members of the general public that this shield personally represents them. This is wrong!

Why does local government need to be represented on these signs anyway? The current council has only existed 43 years. What about history, culture and heritage?! It'd be better to have nothing at all, like in western Sussex. Surely adding coloured shields to these signs is an added expense! With teaching and local care budgets being greatly reduced, is this extra expense which only highlights the 50 councillors that necessary I think not!

I've noticed the red shields on new signs getting even bigger, and even new signs popping up in tiny two house hamlets! Are the council really that far up their own @(5£?!

 

[Sussaxon]

I like the gold topped one.

"In general a flag should be flown for what it represents, it should never be flown only because one finds its appearance and colour scheme attractive. Often the greatest designed flags can be those of the most sinister groups. It is therefore absolutely crucial that one is totally aware of the true meaning behind the flag in which they are displaying."

 

[Tom Bombadil]

It never ceases to amaze me the inconsequential bollocks some people are obsessed with

 

[Notters]

Glad you've brought this up, I've been seeing the ESCC one in gardens etc and it's been hacking me off...

 

[Superphil]

"In general a flag should be flown for what it represents, it should never be flown only because one finds its appearance and colour scheme attractive. Often the greatest designed flags can be those of the most sinister groups. It is therefore absolutely crucial that one is totally aware of the true meaning behind the flag in which they are displaying."

Nah, I'll fly what I like, and no flag represents me as far as I am aware. It's a bit of fluttery cloth, used to designate something or other, I like the Albion badge flags, if anything represents me it's that one. Borders, counties, boundaries, countries; Constraints? Restraints? Be who you are, or want to be, fly whatever you like from your flagpole.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

reading the link (good information, btw, that'll be the afternoon gone), i got the general gist (dont fly said flag), except this one point. the towns and villages of sussex are represented by the council, so it seems appropriate the councillors arms is present. yes, its modern day extension of feudalism, but not indicating we are subserviant to the councillors, rather under the authority of council institution they are elected to.

i recall some controversy a while ago about some authority renewing/changing signs and being told they couldnt because the patent for the arms had been revoked, so they couldnt use it. point being, use the arms on the signs isnt casually applied.

I think you make a good point, but I'd personally prefer to see the historic flag of Sussex on our place names.

 

[Sussaxon]

It never ceases to amaze me the inconsequential bollocks some people are obsessed with

Well if someone dictated that Brighton & Hove Albion were represented by red and white stripes instead of the traditional blue and white stripes, everyone on here would be up in arms!!! Is that "inconsequential bollocks"??

The same principle applies here, however this time its the emblem that represents the people and the county. It's about local identity.

 

[BN9 BHA]

Nah, I'll fly what I like, and no flag represents me as far as I am aware. It's a bit of fluttery cloth, used to designate something or other, I like the Albion badge flags, if anything represents me it's that one. Borders, counties, boundaries, countries; Constraints? Restraints? Be who you are, or want to be, fly whatever you like from your flagpole.

I think [MENTION=29098]Sussaxon[/MENTION] likes his flags as much as you like your football shirts.

 

[Sussaxon]

Nah, I'll fly what I like, and no flag represents me as far as I am aware. It's a bit of fluttery cloth, used to designate something or other, I like the Albion badge flags, if anything represents me it's that one. Borders, counties, boundaries, countries; Constraints? Restraints? Be who you are, or want to be, fly whatever you like from your flagpole.

Of course you can like a flag but it doesn't mean you would fly it. I rather like this gold-toppedbanner myself in terms of design, I like its subtle and simple design which distinguishes between a county council and the traditional county. I would however not fly it, because of what it represents.

I may like the design of Crystal Palace's current away shirt, but I most certainly would NOT wear it, because it represents Palace!

Think of it this way then, East Sussex County Council have a football team, "East Sussex Governors FC", they play in red shirts. This is a private club and permission needs to be sought to wear their red shirts. The community of Sussex has another separate football team, a public football club,"Sussex Saxons FC", they play in blue shirts.

Some of the Sussex Saxon supporters are wrongly thinking and sometimes incorrectly told that the red shirts of East Sussex Governors are the shirts of their club! Not only this but they're wearing these shirts without permission from The Governors.

I'm simply informing the supporters of Sussex Saxons, "you realise you're actually wearing the red shirts of the East Sussex Governors?". If you really want to support the Sussex Saxons, then wear the proper blue shirt to games!

I don't think it's that controversial to inform the public the truth.

 

[Sussaxon]

Here's an example of the very reason I keep making people aware of what these coats of arms actually represent.

This is the result of foolishly believing the first result of a Google search "Sussex coat of arms".



We now have a banner featuring the coat of arms granted in 1975 to 70 County Councillors, collectively known as West Sussex County Council. It strictly and exclusively represents the 70 men and women who sit in the council chamber. This coat of arms has nothing to do with the population under this council's remit, and it most certainly doesn't have anything to do with Brighton & Hove Albion.

You may think, "Well he's being picky", but who in their right mind would represent the nation and population of the U.K. with the emblem of the Houses of Parliament?!?! No one! It's the same analogy here. It would be seen as idiotic. Of course, you'd use the Union Jack instead.

It saddens me to think much of the local population still don't have a full grasp of local symbols and emblems. It's a great shame that more people aren't educated on this subject and take it more seriously as I thought Sussex was meant to be a proud county with a strong identity?!

 

[BN9 BHA]

Here's an example of the very reason I keep making people aware of what these coats of arms actually represent.

This is the result of foolishly believing the first result of a Google search "Sussex coat of arms".

View attachment 86099

We now have a banner featuring the coat of arms granted in 1975 to 70 County Councillors, collectively known as West Sussex County Council. It strictly and exclusively represents the 70 men and women who sit in the council chamber. This coat of arms has nothing to do with the population under this council's remit, and it most certainly doesn't have anything to do with Brighton & Hove Albion.

You may think, "Well he's being picky", but who in their right mind would represent the nation and population of the U.K. with the emblem of the Houses of Parliament?!?! No one! It's the same analogy here. It would be seen as idiotic. Of course, you'd use the Union Jack instead.

It saddens me to think much of the local population still don't have a full grasp of local symbols and emblems. It's a great shame that more people aren't educated on this subject and take it more seriously as I thought Sussex was meant to be a proud county with a strong identity?!

I saw the photo of some young lads holding that flag, I didn't actually know what the crest represented.

 

[*Gullsworth*]

I saw the photo of some young lads holding that flag, I didn't actually know what the crest represented.

Perhaps the owner of the flag wanted to represent West Sussex (councillors)

 

[BN9 BHA]

Perhaps the owner of the flag wanted to represent West Sussex (councillors)

Have you seen the full photo of the boys holding the flag? They all look about ages 14-16, seems an odd choice for lads of that age.
The photo was taken outside Worthing station, so maybe they did want some sort of West Sussex crest on their flag.