Labour council to remove ‘dangerous' British flags from city streets
Residents in Birmingham have installed hundreds of Union and St George's flags on the city's streets in the past fortnight in a 'patriotic outpouring'.
But the city council plans to remove them after claiming they could put the lives of pedestrians and motorists 'at risk' – despite them being 20ft off the ground.
'Placing unauthorised attachments on street furniture, particularly tall structures like lamp posts, can be dangerous,' the council said in a statement.
The Labour-controlled authority, which has been beset by bankruptcy and bin strikes in recent years, has now been accused of showing 'utter contempt for the British people'.
'This is nothing short of a disgrace and shows utter contempt for the British people,' Lee Anderson, the Reform UK MP, told The Telegraph.
'We should be flying our flags with pride. Our nation has a rich history of hospitality, generosity and innovation – something to be celebrated, not condemned.
'Any elected official who supports removing the British or English flags, restricting personal freedoms, or silencing free speech should be removed from office for betraying the very country they serve.'
Councillor Robert Alden, leader of the authority's Conservative opposition, added: 'Our national flags are nothing to be ashamed of. Seeing our flags flying gives us all pride in our shared history and achievements as a great nation.
'Birmingham City Council should be proud to fly them across the City. Labour rushing to rip them down is shameful.'
He said the council has not previously acted as speedily to take down other types of flags and 'flyposted' advertising on street lamps and traffic lights elsewhere in the city.
The plans to remove the flags came just a day after the authority lit up the city library in green and white to mark the 77th anniversary of Pakistan's independence from Britain.
Palestine flags have also flown elsewhere on the city's streets since the war in Gaza began in 2023.
The council last year announced a crackdown on the Palestine flags – which fly mainly in the predominantly Muslim east of the city – but has not succeeded in completely eradicating them.
The Government has previously issued guidance saying it wants 'more flags flown, particularly the Union Flag', as long as they are erected with 'the permission of the owner of the site'.
The British and English flags have been installed in suburbs in the south-west of Birmingham since the start of August by a group of residents – the 'Weoley Warriors' – who climb halfway up them with ladders and affix flags using cable ties.
Funded by £2,500 in public donations, the campaign is intended to show 'Birmingham and the rest of the country of how proud we are of our history, freedoms and achievements'.
Simon Morrall, a Conservative councillor for Frankley Great Park, said the flags were a 'clearly peaceful movement'.
'When the city council can't fix potholes, are closing down youth centres and selling off assets, all while fly-tipping piles up in our community and graffiti is out of control, then finding resources to remove Union flags sends the wrong message,' he said.
The suburbs now decked out in red, white and blue include Northfield, Weoley Castle, Bartley Green, Selly Oak and Frankley Great Park.
The campaign has been welcomed by local residents who warned there would be 'trouble, even riots, if they take them down'.
Hayley Owens, a 40-year-old former police officer, said: 'We are sick of having to apologise for being British. The flags have had such a positive impact on the community – people love them. There is nothing political about it.'
Dr Helen Ingram, a historian from Northfield, said: 'We are a small mostly working-class community, and these flags have reinvigorated our collective pride and community spirit. I doubt we will win this, but we will fight our hardest to show that we are British and proud.'
Birmingham City Council said it only opposed flying flags on publicly owned 'street furniture' and would not take the Union or St George's f
lag down from council housing or private property.
A spokesman said its policy was to remove flags, posters and signs of any kind from street lamps or traffic lights. They added that its programme to upgrade lamp posts to energy-efficient LEDs cannot continue if the flags are not removed.
The council spokesman said: 'People who attach unauthorised items to lamp posts could be putting their lives and those of motorists and pedestrians at risk. We are continuing to do this every week, and would ask that staff doing this work are allowed to continue this work unhindered.'
Birmingham's streets have been blighted by mounds of uncollected rubbish this year amid an ongoing bin strike by refuse workers.
The industrial action began in January after the Unite union claimed the council told the bin workers they would face pay cuts of up to £8,000.
The council declared effective bankruptcy in 2023 and has since been forced to make £300 million of budget cuts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
20 minutes ago
- Spectator
What's wrong with a St George's Cross flag?
Flags have become a contentious and defining issue of this year. You only have to witness the furore that has surrounded the increasing proliferation of the Progress Pride and Palestinian flags in this country to recognise this. So it was only a matter of time before that other increasingly common sight, flags denoting pride in Englishness and Britishness, should have been drawn into the fray. As reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning, Birmingham Council has ordered the removal of Union and St George's flags from lamp posts. In response to initiatives made by residents in the fortnight approaching VJ Day to install hundreds of the flags in the predominantly white British suburbs in the south-west of city, on Tuesday the Labour-run council announced plans to remove them, claiming that they put the lives of pedestrians and motorists 'at risk'. This has legitimately aroused accusations of double standards. Critics have pointed out that Palestinian flags have flown within impunity elsewhere on the city's streets since the war in Gaza began in 2023. 'This is nothing short of a disgrace and shows utter contempt for the British people,' Lee Anderson, the Reform MP, has said. Robert Alden, leader of the authority's Conservative opposition, has added: 'Our national flags are nothing to be ashamed of. Labour rushing to rip them down is shameful.' Yet, while showing eagerness to double-down on expressions of Englishness and Britishness, this week Birmingham council has been simultaneously celebrating the heritage of its sub-continent ethnic minorities. Last night it lit up the main library in the colours of orange, green and white to mark 79 years of India's independence, hours after showing the same courtesy to Pakistan. It was perhaps inevitable that on GB News last night the council was charged with a 'two-tier' approach to community relations. It's not an unreasonable accusation, given that this approach has been an increasingly common one taken by a Labour government and judiciary desperate to placate inter-communal tensions. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that that council is indulging in another form of asymmetrical multiculturalism. In other words, yet again we're seeing an arm of the state rejoicing in the cultures of minorities but being decidedly less forthright in celebrating the culture of this country's majority. The council's protestations that such flags pose a risk to safety will strike many as dubious, given that many of these flags are up to 25ft off the ground. This excuse is doubly unconvincing given that, beginning in August 2020 in Birmingham's gay village, rainbow-coloured street crossings in the style of the Pride Progress flag have been installed in the city. Yet these have been known to pose a threat to the blind and partially-sighted, as well as being confusing for police horses. The left has always been known to shirk from symbols of patriotism out of embarrassment and guilt, so the decision by the Labour-run body is true to form. But the council's proactive policy on representation of ethnic minorities has also taken place against a backdrop of the ascendency of sectarian politics in Britain. Labour is desperate to shore up its dwindling support among British Muslims, many of whom have been alienated by its less than outspoken stance on Gaza, and a minority of whom seem to show little loyalty or affection for this country at all. Labour is also mindful of the threat posed by the yet-to-be named splinter faction led by Jeremy Corbyn, a party that will cater for alienated ethnic minorities, the far-left and an idealistic graduate class. Most importantly, Birmingham's decision has taken place at a time British society is seemingly falling-apart at the seams, appearing to teeter on the point of outright disorder. In June, David Betz, Professor of War in the Modern World in the Department of War Studies at Kings College, warned that British cities were at risk of becoming 'feral' and could even descend into civil war in the next few years. This type of rhetoric is becoming increasingly common. In April, the Daily Telegraph's Tim Stanley issued the similarly foreboding words: 'I now fear Britain is heading for open sectarian conflict, possibly war, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.' Both the emergence and profusion of flags which are proxy indicators for tribal membership and sectarian affiliation – the Palestinian flag also serves as symbol of progressive internationalism for the liberal white middle-class – and moves to suppress them are indicative of the fractious nature of British society today. No wonder a traditional left-wing attitude to the St George and Union flags is gradually shifting from shame and embarrassment towards fear, given that these icons are associated with growing indigenous resentment and restiveness, not to mention a surge in support for Reform at the polls. And that, ultimately, is what strikes terror into the hearts of the establishment today.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
House of Lords does not need ‘Putin apologists like Farage', cabinet minister says
A cabinet minister has dismissed Nigel Farage 's call for the prime minister to allow him to nominate peers to the House of Lords, saying Parliament will not benefit from more 'Putin apologists'. Defence secretary John Healey said the Reform UK leader wanted to fill the upper chamber with 'his cronies', and accused his party of being 'conspicuously absent' from debate on the Ukraine war. In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, Mr Farage had said that a 'democratic disparity' in the Lords needed to be addressed. Reform has four MPs and controls 10 councils in England. When asked about the party leader's demands, Mr Healey said: 'The same Nigel Farage who called for the abolition of the Lords… now wants to fill it with his cronies. 'I'm not sure that Parliament's going to benefit from more Putin apologists like Nigel Farage, to be honest.' Asked whether that accusation was 'a bit strong', Mr Healey told LBC: 'Look at what he's said about Russia, look at what he's said about Putin in the past. 'At this point, when maximum pressure needs to be put on Putin to support Ukraine in negotiations, when the maximum condemnation of Putin is required from someone who is sitting down with Trump in Alaska but turning up the attacks on Ukraine, it needs all voices. 'And I have to say, the voice of Reform is conspicuously absent in any of our discussions and any of our defence debates about Ukraine and about Russia.' The minister urged Mr Farage, the MP for Clacton, to start 'weighing in alongside us and the other parties in the House of Commons' in condemning the Russian president. Reform's deputy leader Richard Tice accused the Defence Secretary of 'an absurd smear'. 'Is Mr Healey suffering from a touch of August sunstroke?' he said. During the general election campaign last year, Mr Farage was criticised by leaders from across the political spectrum for suggesting the West provoked the Ukraine war. He also said he disliked the Russian president but 'admired' him as a political operator because 'he managed to take control of running Russia', in a BBC interview. Mr Farage has repeatedly denied that he supports Mr Putin and said he is clear that the Russian leader is to blame for the war. The Reform leader has previously called for Lords reform, writing in an article for the Telegraph in February that 'a smaller chamber is needed'. In his letter to the Prime Minister, first reported by the Times, Mr Farage said: ' Reform UK wishes to appoint life peers to the upper house at the earliest possible opportunity.' In what he described as a 'modest request', he said it was time that Reform was represented in the unelected second chamber. 'My party received over 4.1 million votes at the general election in July 2024. We have since won a large number of seats in local government, led in the national opinion polls for many months and won the only by-election of this parliament,' he said. Political appointments to the Lords are made at the discretion of the Prime Minister, who is under no constitutional obligation to elevate opposition figures but will sometimes ask other leaders to nominate individuals. In December, Sir Keir appointed 30 new Labour peers, including his former chief of staff Sue Gray – which Mr Farage said at the time showed the ruling party's 'lofty ambition' to abolish the Lords had 'fallen by the wayside'. The Conservatives appointed six new peers, while the Liberal Democrats appointed two.
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Time to sack ‘activist' judges, says Robert Jenrick
Robert Jenrick makes for an unlikely radical. The shadow justice secretary stands at just 5ft 8in and has a gentleness in manner that belies his tub-thumping rhetoric. A list of ministerial briefs during the Tory government years that includes taxes, local government, planning matters and migration does not necessarily scream revolutionary. Yet as the Conservative Party attempts to feel its way back to relevance in the wilderness of Opposition, Jenrick is emerging as one of its most challenging thinkers in the House of Commons. His explicit declaration that the only way to tackle the small boats crisis was pulling the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was put at the centre of his Tory leadership campaign last summer. Jenrick lost that race, beaten by Kemi Badenoch in the final two. But now Badenoch, who dismissed the position at the time as too hastily declared, looks set to formally adopt the stance at her party conference in the autumn. A natural progression This month a trip to Calais to see the efforts some migrants are taking to cross the English Channel, with dramatic footage of what he saw posted on social media, has proved the launching point for another eye-catching – and potentially provocative – proposal. It is time to make it much easier to sack 'activist' judges. 'I come to this from the simple principle that judges are there to uphold the law which is made by Parliament,' explains Jenrick, talking through his new idea with The Telegraph and also taking stock a year on from his party's hammering at the election. 'If judges want to enter the political sphere themselves, then they should stop being judges and go into politics. We have to have a situation where judges who act politically and bring their own personal politics into their job as a judge are held to account and frankly, can be removed.' The thinking is, for Jenrick, a natural progression of his arguments on the ECHR. Abandoning the ECHR and reforming Britain's human rights would make it markedly harder for people who reach Britain illegally to fight deportation on family grounds, as his argument goes. But then it would be time to reform the judiciary. Are judges really acting on personal politics rather than the law? Absolutely, Jenrick says: 'I have exposed a number of examples of this, judges who have in the past tweeted highly political, partisan messages. 'Judges who, in the past, have been trustees of charities which are highly partisan. I think that is bringing the historic independence of our judiciary into serious disrepute, and we've got to change that.' So what exactly is Jenrick proposing to do about it? Two things: Tighter checks for partisanship on appointment and a more robust system for removals if political meddling is proved. The first is all about a creature of Sir Tony Blair's invention: The Judicial Appointments Commission. Before his 2005 Constitutional Reform Act, the appointment of judges effectively lay in the hands of a politician – the Lord Chancellor. But the Blair reforms gave the power to a newly created body of independents. Jenrick believes the body is flawed. As part of a wider policy review he is exploring putting the appointments back in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, though final conclusions are yet to be decided. As for a better system for removing judges, the current set-up is a complicated web of responsibilities. For senior judges, both houses of Parliament must vote them out. For lower courts, a recommendation of removal after an investigation into wrongdoing is needed. All this may be setting off alarm bells for some. Theresa May's confrontation with the Supreme Court after it ruled MPs had to approve the triggering of Brexit is still seen by the party's moderates as a miscalculation. Surely this is all a step towards greater politicisation of the judiciary? Jenrick argues the opposite – the moves are needed to weed out judges who are already acting on their partisan instincts. 'In some areas our judges are among the most respected in the world, like in the commercial courts,' he says. 'But in others, like immigration tribunals, the independence of the judiciary is being brought into disrepute. 'There's no point extricating ourselves from activist judges in Strasbourg only to be beholden to activist judges here.' The new proposals are a mark of how far Jenrick, once considered a loyal Cameroon, has travelled in the last decade on the Conservative spectrum. No clearer is this seen than on immigration. Jenrick has called Boris Johnson's loosening of the border after Brexit, which saw annual net migration peak at 900,000, 'probably the worst public policy decision of my lifetime'. He resigned as immigration minister from Rishi Sunak's government in December 2023 calling for a tougher Rwanda deportation policy. (He says now removal to third countries is still an essential part of the solution to the small boats challenge.) And the rhetoric deployed has become markedly more punchy. 'I want every single illegal migrant in this country to be deported', Jenrick says. 'Not just those who came across on small boats, but the ones who are coming across on the back of lorries or who've flown into our country and claimed asylum at the airport having chucked their passport down the toilet at Heathrow.' So how exactly would that work? If the Tories won back power in 2029, is he suggesting finding the 100,000-plus people set to have arrived without permission under Labour – many more if you count back further than that – and kicking them out? Yes is the answer, assuming they are yet to be granted legal asylum. 'We're going to have to marshal all the resources of the British state,' Jenrick says. Strong-arming other countries into accepting deportations, possibly by giving them less visas. is one way he would hope to make it happen. 'We've pussy-footed around this issue, frankly, for far too long', he says on that. It all sounds a bit Trumpian, doesn't it? 'I respect the fact that he's managed to secure the southern border,' says Jenrick of the US president, who he backed last year. Donald Trump's immigration crackdown has shown you can have 'a big impact very quickly'. There are moderate Conservatives who privately, and not so privately, wince at Jenrick's rebirth as tribune for voters' anger at the mass scale of immigration. In the eyes of some critics there is a word for it. 'Xenophobia', as the Today programme Thought for the Day host put it on Thursday, sparking frontpage headlines as well as a retraction and an apology from the Radio Four bosses. So is he xenophobic? 'Look, I think that's just an absurd attack,' he fires back with incredulity. 'And it is comments like that that have attempted to shut down the legitimate debate in this country for far too long.' To those who argue his rhetoric risks fuelling hostility towards immigrants, Jenrick has a similarly firm rebuttal: 'It's not my language that's fuelling anger and division in this country. It's the disastrous policies that we've had as a country for most of my adult lifetime. I'm not going to be squeamish about taking on these issues. Millions of people in this country are crying out for politicians to call it out and say it like it is.' Those with a keen political ear may well hear in Jenrick's patter an echo less of President Trump than a populist insurgent closer to home: Nigel Farage. The support surge for Reform UK has been jaw-dropping. Two years ago the party was hovering around 6 per cent in the opinion polls. Now, with Farage, the old scourge of the Tories back at the helm, it is hovering around 30 per cent, way out in the lead. Does Jenrick understand what is driving people towards Reform? 'Yeah, look, probably more than anyone in the Conservative Party I've been painfully honest about the mistakes of the last Conservative government. We let people down and I'm very sorry for that. We made promises on some of the biggest issues facing our country, like immigration, and then failed to keep them. 'I think Reform is a symptom, not a cause. It's the failure of the Conservative Party that has allowed Reform to rise. Nigel Farage and Reform speak for millions of people. I share that anger and frustration that those people feel. What the Conservative Party has to do now is be honest about what it got wrong, listen to the public and, in time, bring forward serious answers to the challenges that are facing the country.' The tone – one of shared frustrations with Reform voters, not of vilification – is notable. It is seen again when Jenrick is asked whether it would be politically wise for the Conservatives to leave the door open to an election pact with Reform. 'Well, we've been very clear on that. Kemi has said that there won't be a deal or pact with Reform, and, for his part, Nigel Farage has said the same.' Yes, that is a statement of fact. But what about Jenrick's opinion? Does he think the door should be kept open? 'Well, there isn't an opportunity to do that,' he demurs again. 'I don't think that's likely.' The position is much softer than that of the current Conservative leader, who has been explicit that she would not strike a deal with Farage ahead of the next election. Westminster wonks will note there is nothing in his comments that could be thrown back were a Tory leader in the years ahead to agree to a pact – say, one Robert Jenrick? Among political swamp-dwellers obsessed with musing on the party leaders of the future, the question of whether Jenrick still longs for the Tory crown is a common talking point. Evidence frequently cited includes his tendency in the last year to stray into the policy briefs of colleagues with his interventions. It did not go un-noted that his Calais exploration came in the same week another senior Conservative did a near identical trip – Chris Philp, who as shadow home secretary actually leads on migration policy. How does Jenrick, 43, reflect on his ultimately unsuccessful tilt at the leadership last summer? 'It feels like ancient history now,' he says. 'I was pleased to be appointed shadow justice secretary and have thrown myself into that role.' A neat pivot away from the question. Videos, roughly shot and designed to fly on social media, have become a hallmark of his last year. Jenrick, eyes on the camera, walking and talking at pace. Jenrick's 'takedown' of Lord Hermer, the Left-leaning Attorney General. And, most famously, Jenrick rushing to challenge people forcing through London Underground barriers without paying. That last video certainly cut through. Critics ridiculed him, claiming he was cosplaying as a police officer. Political wise heads – including some on Labour benches – praised him, saying he had forced into light a piece of petty criminality that infuriates punters. Jenrick's team has stats to back up their case. The video posted on his X feed has been viewed 15 million times. There was also a 55 per cent jump in penalty fare notices issued by Transport for London the month after it came out, suggesting a nerve was struck. So the videos aren't gimmicky? 'Well, I think it's obviously having an effect, isn't it? I mean, social media is clearly important. Most people under the age of 40 are getting their news on YouTube, on TikTok, on X. So the political class has got to change the way it communicates with the public.' That theme – doing things differently, getting away from Westminster and the old policy approaches and messaging touchstones that the electorate appears to have lost faith in – has become the new Jenrick mantra. The origin story which voters may increasingly hear about is one that begins with his hard-working parents: Jenrick's father Bill, who left school aged 16 to be an apprentice, and his mother Jenny, who went to school with Sir Tony Blair's future wife Cherie Booth and became a secretary at Littlewood's. 'Both my parents came from working class backgrounds in Manchester and Liverpool,' Jenrick says. 'They moved to the Black Country just before I was born and started a small business around our kitchen table with a white van parked in our drive.' The childhoods of leading British politicians often enter the Westminster lexicon – see Sir Keir Starmer's references to his father the toolmaker. Jenrick does make clear he does not consider himself working class, given the success his dad eventually enjoyed launching his own fireplace fitting company. From his mother, Jenrick also inherited faith. 'I believe in God,' he says. 'I go to church. My mum instilled that in me. She grew up in a very religious family.' Church trips are not every Sunday, however. His American wife, Michal Berkner, 51, is Jewish. He jokes his three daughters – Marina, 14, Sophia, 12, and Lila, 10 – are free to make up their own mind when they get older. His summer consists of daily runs. It was Ozempic which helped Jenrick visibly slash his bulk last year – 'It did the trick. I was overweight, it got me started and I'm grateful to that' – but he is off the stuff now. 'It's a great drug for people who are in a similar situation, but I've now moved on to the good old-fashioned way of losing weight and staying trim.' As for parliamentary recess reading, Jenrick is not one for pool-lounger page-turners. A Certain Idea of France: The Life of Charles de Gaulle, by Julian Jackson, is his book of choice right now. Aides say he is taking inspiration from how De Gaulle hauled back his country from its malaise in the 1960s. Throughout the hour-long conversation one particular R word keeps cropping up – not Reform, but radical. The country must be 'radically' overhauled, he says. Policy solutions must be 'radical'. The Tories must become a party of 'radical' change. It becomes clear Jenrick sees the entire British political and governmental system creaking at the seams, at risk of breaking apart as political disillusionment turns from apathy to anger. 'I like to say that we are living through an interregnum, the period between two political orders,' he says near the end of the interview, like De Gaulle's France or Britain in the 1970s before Margaret Thatcher. 'We've got a small number of very big things very badly wrong in my adult lifetime: mass migration; asymmetric multiculturalism; over-regulation; the rise of quangos and a big, unaccountable state; the financialisation of housing and failure to build; a collapse in confidence in our institutions like museums and schools; net zero that's de-industrialised our country and is impoverishing many working people. 'I could go on. It feels to me as if that political order that has existed for most of my adult life is now fundamentally broken.' One day could he be the person to fix it? There has been whisper around Westminster in recent weeks that the out-there gambler's bet – if such things are allowed in politics after the furore over Tory wagers last year – would be Jenrick becoming the next prime minister. The argument goes: Badenoch may not make it to the 2029 election as Tory leader; Jenrick is the favourite to replace her; Labour's current unpopularity is set to get worse thanks to Jeremy Corbyn's new outfit. Then a small uptick in support for the Conservatives, at the expense of Reform, could be enough to see them left as the biggest party in a messy election result split six ways. That leads to the question hanging throughout the interview needing to be asked: Does Jenrick still harbour hopes to lead the Tories one day? 'There is a leader of the Conservative Party,' he says. Which is not a no.
