There is something profoundly revealing about the latest row over England flags appearing on public lamp posts and railings. What began as a campaign dressed up as patriotic celebration has increasingly become a costly game of cat and mouse between councils and people determined to attach their flags to public infrastructure without permission.
Now councils are considering tougher legal action – including High Court injunctions which can ultimately expose persistent breaches to serious penalties.
And, frankly, it is about time.
This is not about whether someone loves the St George’s flag. It is not about banning patriotism, restricting national pride or objecting to people flying flags on their own homes. Councils themselves have made that distinction repeatedly.
It is about whether individuals should be allowed to appropriate publicly owned infrastructure, repeatedly ignore requests to stop and leave taxpayers footing the bill for removing their unauthorised installations.
Bristol City Council says it has already spent around £50,000 removing flags, excluding the additional staff time involved in inspections, administration and responding to complaints. Councillor Stephen Williams described the situation as a “cat-and-mouse” game, with flags removed by contractors only for others to put them straight back up.
In Somerset, the council says removing unauthorised flags will cost more than £2,900 between August 2025 and August 2026, while South Gloucestershire has adopted a policy of removing them.
These are not trivial sums at a time when councils are under enormous financial pressure and struggling to maintain basic services.
There is also a straightforward legal point that seems to have been lost amid the increasingly emotional arguments about patriotism.
Section 132 of the Highways Act 1980 makes it an offence, without the consent of the highway authority or another lawful authorisation, to affix a picture, letter, sign, or other mark to a structure or works on a highway. The legislation also gives highway authorities powers to remove unauthorised material.
In other words, the principle that public highway infrastructure cannot simply be commandeered by private individuals is hardly new.
The issue becomes even more serious where repeated activity creates obstruction, safety risks or confrontation with council workers.
Oxfordshire has already gone considerably further. In June 2026 the High Court granted an injunction following repeated unauthorised flag installations associated by the council with the group Raise the Colours. The council said the activity had created road and public-safety risks and that its workers and residents had faced abuse and harassment. A final injunction was subsequently granted following a further hearing in July.
Importantly, Oxfordshire has explicitly said that people remain free to display flags on their own private property. Its objection is to unauthorised activity on or around the public highway.
That distinction matters.
Nobody needs permission to be patriotic. Nobody needs a council licence to put an England flag in their window or fly one from their own garden where permitted.
But the moment somebody starts attaching objects to publicly owned lamp posts, railings, signs or other highway structures, the argument changes. They are using somebody else’s property – ultimately belonging to the public – without permission.
And if councils have to repeatedly send workers out to remove the same flags, taxpayers are effectively being forced to subsidise the campaign.
There is an even bigger principle here. If councils allow one group to cover public infrastructure with flags simply because it claims to represent popular opinion, what happens when another political or ideological group decides to do exactly the same?
Public infrastructure cannot become a free-for-all for competing political movements.
The answer should therefore be simple: fly your flag, celebrate your country and express your patriotism – but do it lawfully.
If someone repeatedly refuses to obey the rules, and a court order is obtained, then breaching that order should have consequences.
The law cannot mean anything if persistent offenders can simply treat enforcement as an invitation to start the game again.
Patriotism is a right.
Taking over public property isn’t.
