The Union Flag is not a licence to break the law.
Nor does wrapping yourself in the St George’s Cross magically transform criminal convictions, unlawful activity or extremist associations into patriotism.
That is the uncomfortable reality behind the increasingly aggressive flag campaign that has spread from the Midlands and Essex into Dorset.
One of the men who has become known as “Flag Man” is Craig John Kitts, a leading Raise the Colours campaigner from Essex.
And the public record surrounding Kitts is extraordinary.
Kitts has pleaded guilty to assault by beating after an incident involving a woman. He has also previously been convicted of theft, handling stolen goods, driving while uninsured and driving while disqualified. These are convictions, not rumours or political smears.
Yet Kitts has presented himself as a campaigner supposedly concerned about protecting women and children from migrants.
The contradiction speaks for itself.
Kitts was also a key figure in the protests surrounding the Bell Hotel in Epping, where asylum seekers were housed. According to Byline Times, he helped establish anti-immigration Facebook groups and was an administrator of Epping Says No alongside members of the Homeland Party, a group described by the Guardian as a fascist political party that splintered from Patriotic Alternative.
Kitts has denied being far-right. But his documented associations deserve scrutiny.
Byline Times reported that Kitts publicly praised Homeland Party figure Callum Barker, calling him “Epping’s lion”, while Barker was reported to have spoken at Bell Hotel demonstrations from the back of Kitts’ van.
This is not simply about flags.
It is about what is being attached to them—politically, ideologically and, in some cases, literally.
In Dorset, the controversy has taken another turn.
Flags have appeared on public lampposts and other highway furniture. But Dorset Council’s own policy makes the legal position clear: unauthorised signs can be removed from the highway, and Section 132 of the Highways Act 1980 makes it an offence to affix a sign, picture or letter to the surface of the highway or to a structure on or under it.
That means a public lamppost is not somebody’s personal flagpole.
A person cannot simply decide that because they like a particular flag, they have acquired the right to climb a ladder, attach it to public infrastructure and leave it there.
And if the installation creates a danger to highway users, Dorset Council has additional powers to remove it under Section 149 of the Highways Act.
That matters because the flag campaign has increasingly blurred the line between political expression and deliberate confrontation.
The danger is that once campaigners convince themselves that public infrastructure is theirs to commandeer, others may conclude that they too are entitled to use that infrastructure for their own political messages.
The result is not patriotism.
It is a race towards political anarchy.
The national flag belongs to everybody. It does not belong to Flagman, Raise the Colours, Reform, the left, the right or any other political movement.
And nobody has the right to turn public lampposts into partisan billboards simply because they believe their cause is righteous.
There is another revealing dimension to the wider movement.
Ryan Bridge, founder of Raise the Colours, was charged in September 2026 with 14 offences, including alleged threatening and abusive behaviour, racially aggravated offences and common assault. He is due before Oxford Magistrates’ Court in November. These remain allegations and Bridge is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Oxford County Council has already obtained a High Court injunction relating to the placing of flags near highways, citing safety risks, trespass and obstruction. Birmingham City Council is pursuing similar legal action.
So the pattern is becoming difficult to ignore.
A movement that claims to stand for law and order is repeatedly colliding with the law.
A campaign claiming to defend Britain is prepared to appropriate Britain’s public infrastructure without permission.
And individuals at the heart of the movement have faced serious criminal proceedings and convictions.
Nobody needs to hate Britain to object to that.
Indeed, the opposite is true.
If the rule of law means anything, it means the same rules apply to everyone — including people carrying British flags.
Patriotism is perfectly legitimate.
Political protest is legitimate.
Displaying a flag on your own property is legitimate.
What is not legitimate is assuming that patriotism provides a special exemption from the law.
The message to Dorset should therefore be simple.
The flag is not above the law.
Neither is Flagman.
And neither is anybody else.
