BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 Union Flag surely? It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that “the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag”. https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/ I think it's pretty clear that the picture is of a flag on a ship but even if it's not ......"The claim that the term Union Jack properly refers only to naval usage has been disputed, following historical investigations by the Flag Institute in 2013." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack A bit off topic, entirely my fault. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 Even if its only by one person. GS, I'm not getting embroiled in this yet again; but there are probably only two people in this world who dispute the facts that I uncovered in 2010; I'll leave you to work out who they might be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that “the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag”. https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/ I think it's pretty clear that the picture is of a flag on a ship but even if it's not ......"The claim that the term Union Jack properly refers only to naval usage has been disputed, following historical investigations by the Flag Institute in 2013." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack A bit off topic, entirely my fault. Jack or Flag the one in that paricular Hawaiian Flag appears to be upside down 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 GS, I'm not getting embroiled in this yet again; but there are probably only two people in this world who dispute the facts that I uncovered in 2010; I'll leave you to work out who they might be. I dont see how this article is vindication though. Admittedly i only skimmed it but it seems to suggest its the same people then and now and that appears not to be true to me. Hey ho. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 Jack or Flag the one in that paricular Hawaiian Flag appears to be upside down I realise that you find it very difficult to admit when you're wrong let alone apologise; but I have given you two references clearly stating that the flag of the United Kingdom may properly be described as the "Union Jack"; so the least you could do is say you accept that, rather than equivocating. As you say, the depiction of the Hawai'ian flag that I chose has the Union Jack upside down, for which my humble apologies. I'll ask my friend Governor Ige, to deal with the culprits if they can be found. Meantime here's a nice one with a palm tree in the background with the Union Jack the correct way up. I hope you like it. And a couple of words in Hawai'ian. Mahalo and Aloha. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 GS, I'm not getting embroiled in this yet again; but there are probably only two people in this world who dispute the facts that I uncovered in 2010; I'll leave you to work out who they might be. You didn't uncover them BH, the auditors did, at least from what that article says. That is some extreme journalistic license there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 You do love a name drop BH 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) You didn't uncover them BH, the auditors did, at least from what that article says. That is some extreme journalistic license there. I can see where you get that impression from my AGM statement which indicates that the auditors confirmed the facts. I issued a fuller version on 26 September 2010, which IIRC was published here and from which I quote: "At a meeting with the auditors that I attended on 4 August 2010 along with the Treasurer, Christine Somerville and the Treasurer elect, Alison Mueller, Christine stated (in response to my question) that sometime between September and November 2008, two cheques were issued to RST by followfollow.com totalling £2,690. These cheques bounced. The monies were not fully repaid (bar £30 still outstanding at the financial year end) until March 2010. This means that followfollow.com had a free loan of Trust monies for the best part of 18 months...... In fact none of the debt had been paid off by 5 April 2009. (the end of the previous Financial Year)" (phrase in italics added now). I was not the Secretary at that time. Had I been the Secretary in April 2009 I would have sought the explanation at that time. For final clarification, the draft accounts that were presented in August 2010 (for the year ended in April 2010, showed a debtor of £2,690 but no explanation; I sought that explanation, which was given as stated above. The reason I had to seek the explanation was that as per my AGM Statement "That loan was outstanding in whole or in part during most of our last two financial years. This was known to the Chair, the Vice Chair and the Treasurer but the Board were never informed." Lastly (I hope) this all happened 7 years ago and I would agree that any link to the current situation is tenuous at best. I only referred to it because BD drew it to my attention, for which I am grateful; but I don't think it has much if anything, to do with Dave King defying the takeover panel. Edited April 17, 2017 by BrahimHemdani To clarify "the draft accounts that were presented" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 You could give me 52 if you like but you'll have more success sticking them up your f&king arse. Deary me, still can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, so you have to resort to abuse; and a happy Easter to you too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 You do love a name drop BH At least I don't resort to abuse and admit when I'm wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.