Flags raised by patriotism campaigners removed by London council
Tower Hamlets in east London said it would take down the St George's flags 'as soon as possible' after they were put up in recent days as part of the 'Operation Raise the Colours' patriotism campaign that has been gathering momentum online.
It come days after Birmingham council ordered the removal of hundreds of Union and St George's flags flying from street lampposts in the city, which were raised in the past fortnight in a 'patriotic outpouring'.
The Labour-run authority claimed the flags put the lives of pedestrians and motorists 'at risk' despite being up to 25ft off the ground.
But Lee Anderson, the Reform UK MP, was furious, telling The Telegraph: 'This is nothing short of a disgrace and shows utter contempt for the British people.'
British or English flags have been raised on streets across England including in Swindon, Bradford, Newcastle and Norwich.
Now Tower Hamlets council, which is run by the pro-Gaza Aspire Party, has confirmed it will remove any St George flags from council property including lampposts 'as soon as possible'.
A spokesman told The Telegraph: 'We are aware members of the public have been putting up St George's flags on various structures.
'While we recognise people wish to express their views, we have a responsibility to monitor and maintain council infrastructure.
'Where flags are attached to council-owned infrastructure without permission, they may be removed as part of routine maintenance.'
Lutfur Rahman, the mayor of Tower Hamlets, ordered the removal of Palestine flags from council buildings and lampposts in March 2024 after Jewish families said the 'oppressive and intimidating' symbols made them feel unwelcome in the borough for the first time.
Critics accused the council of 'two-tier bias' because the Palestine flags were not taken down for months after popping up in the aftermath of the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, accused Tower Hamlets council of 'absurd national loathing'.
He told The Telegraph: 'Tower Hamlets council have allowed Palestinian flags to be publicly displayed on lampposts but not the flag of our country.
'This absurd national self-loathing must end. This is yet more two-tier bias against the British people. We must be one country united under the Union flag.'
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, asked: 'Why would we leave [Palestinian flags] up and take down flags that represent one of the countries of the UK?'
Critics pointed out that Palestinian flags have flown elsewhere on the streets of the city, where 29.9 per cent of residents are Muslim, since the war in Gaza began in 2023.
Suella Braverman, a former home secretary, said our national flags 'are a great source of pride and patriotism', adding that 'they should be flown from as many places as possible as often as possible'.
Government guidance first published in 2021 states: 'Flags are a very British way of expressing joy and pride.'
It goes on to say that: 'The Government wants to see more flags flown, particularly the Union flag.'
The guidance warns however that flags must not 'obscure, or hinder the interpretation of official road, rail, waterway or aircraft signs, or otherwise make hazardous the use of these types of transport'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
24 minutes ago
- ITV News
As Europe's leaders head to Washington, Trump could shift to favouring Russia
They are travelling with a mood of collective concern — presidents, prime ministers, and a secretary general, descending on Washington today in a flotilla of flag-draped planes, uneasy that this is what it takes to help ensure their path towards a fair deal isn't thrown off course. As one European official told ITV News: "If we assume that Trump only hears the last person in the room, we should make sure that we are the last people in the room." For the United States, this is a moment of growing alignment — yes, alignment. But not with Britain, Germany, or France, as you might expect. Because, as European leaders travel to the White House with the transatlantic alliance on Ukraine sounding shaky - and their declarations of allegiance at times insincere - it's Washington and Moscow that emerged from Anchorage on Friday showing signs of agreement. Donald Trump is, in some ways, echoing Vladimir Putin's framing of the conflict at least as much as Volodymyr Zelenskyy's. And Putin has already set the trap: to portray Europeans and Ukrainians as the true obstacles to peace. On Friday, he warned Europe not to 'torpedo progress.' Yesterday, Kirill Dmitriev — a Kremlin negotiator and one of Putin's closest allies - went further, tweeting that 'European and British warmongers/saboteurs are in full panic mode. They should not stay in the way of Peace,' punctuating his message with a dove emoji. This was Russia draping itself in the robes of peacemaker, its critics cast as potential saboteurs. For European leaders, the danger isn't subtle - a narrative in which Putin gets to play statesman while they are painted as the wreckers. It's Donald Trump who Moscow hopes will buy that story. But what was agreed in Anchorage is still unclear, besides an agreement that Ukraine should be able to receive security guarantees like those it would receive if it was a member of Nato, the specifics are unclear. Trump himself was evasive on Friday: 'There's no deal until there's a deal.' What has since emerged is that Putin demanded Ukraine withdraw from Donbas — the Donetsk and Luhansk regions — as the price of ending the war, while offering a freeze along the rest of the frontline. Trump signalled willingness to back a plan that would see Russia handed not just occupied areas, but unoccupied Ukrainian territory too, in return for what he could present as peace. Whether Ukraine freezes the conflict or cedes land outright is more than a technical distinction; in practice, it is the difference between a country catching its breath or being permanently diminished. Last week, Trump assured Europeans that Moscow had made concessions which, it turned out, were never on the table. That ambiguity is exactly why Europeans are wary of Trump negotiating with Putin alone — and equally unwilling to leave Trump and Zelenskyy alone, mindful of the Oval Office humiliation in February when Trump berated the Ukrainian president in front of cameras. No European leader is prepared to risk a repeat of that scene. Meanwhile, Washington's tone has softened. Where the administration once threatened severe consequences if no ceasefire was reached, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Sunday that fresh measures would take time to bite and would only drive Russia from the table. The result: no new punishment for Putin, no clear cost for saying no. He left Alaska without agreeing to a ceasefire, but with a photo op, a red carpet, and a round of applause — prestige without compromise. It was against that backdrop that Zelenskyy and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen appeared together yesterday. Their message was blunt: Donetsk will not be handed to Russia, because Putin has failed to take it in twelve years of fighting. Talks cannot take place while Russian missiles still fall — 'it's impossible to negotiate under the pressure of weapons,' Zelenskyy said. This was a clear attempt to fix the terms of debate before heading to Washington. Two kinds of unity now shape this moment. The anticlimax in Alaska revealed the American president drifting closer to the Russian one. Washington could now reveal another — Europe's leaders rallying behind Ukraine not as bystanders, but as counterweights.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Queensland police go to court in bid to stop Story Bridge pro-Palestine protest march
The Queensland police service will take protest organisers to court in an effort to halt a planned pro-Palestine march over Brisbane's Story Bridge this weekend. Justice for Palestine Magan-djin (Brisbane) have advertised plans to march over the bridge at 1pm on Sunday – replicating similar protests that occurred earlier this month in Sydney and Melbourne. Spokesperson for Justice for Palestine Magan-djin Remah Naji said the group is expecting at least 7000 people to attend the rally. The Queensland police oppose the march on public safety grounds. 'Under provisions of the peaceful assembly act, police will lodge documentation with Brisbane magistrates court for a decision to be made with respect to the notice of intention to hold a public assembly,' a spokesperson for the Queensland Police Service said. The matter is yet to be given a date of listing. A cycling group was denied the right to march or ride over the bridge earlier this year at a hearing at the magistrates court on public safety grounds. Naji said the march organisers had already briefed lawyers and were ready for a legal fight. 'We're very much willing to defend our fundamental right to peaceful assembly. If they want to go down this path, we're ready,' she said. Police in New South Wales sought to deny legal protection to a planned protest over the Sydney Harbour Bridge earlier this month – but that bid was overturned by the NSW supreme court at the 11th hour. Police say 90,000 people marched across that iconic structure, organisers put the figure at closer to 300,000 – regardless, the scale of the turnout ranks the protest as historic and the day went ahead without major incidents. In Melbourne on the same day, in contrast, pro-Palestine protesters were met by a wall of police in riot gear behind barricades and backed by a row of mounted officers and riot squad vans when they sought to cross the King Street Bridge. Justice for Palestine Magan-djin conducted mediation with Queensland police on Monday morning. QPS presented two options to the protest group for locations other than the bridge. A spokesperson for the QPS confirmed that mediation had taken place on Monday morning 'however an agreement could not be met'. Naji didn't rule out violating a court injunction if the magistrates court ruled against them, saying it would be a decision for the group collectively. She said the bridge is a central part of the protest because the urgency of the situation in Gaza 'This ongoing livestreamed genocide demands visibility. It is not enough for us to do the usual routes,' Naji said. She said the aim of the march was 'to apply the maximum pressure on our government'. Justice for Palestine Magan-djin has been holding regular protests in Brisbane for the last 22 months since the escalation of the conflict in Gaza after Israel responded to Hamas' attack on 7 October 2023 with a full-scale invasion, bombardment and blockade of aid in the Gaza Strip. More than 60,000 people have been killed in Gaza - mostly women, children and elderly people – since the war began, according to Palestinian health officials. -With additional reporting by Joe Hinchliffe
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Gaza's journalists are talented, professional and dignified. That's why Israel targets them
The first time I met Al Jazeera's Gaza team lead, Tamer Almisshal, was in July last year. His team had already buried two journalists, Hamza al-Dahdouh and Samer Abu Daqqa. The rest, he told me, were hungry. They were also dealing with trying to get hold of protective gear, threats from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the killing of family members. Ismail al-Ghoul hadn't seen his wife and child in months and was missing them intensely. Hossam Shabat, Mohammed Qraiqea and Anas al-Sharif were asking for time to secure food in the morning before they could start reporting. Today, they are all dead. I spoke with various members of the Gaza team while writing a profile of Gaza's veteran reporter Wael al-Dahdouh, who lost his wife, three of his children and grandson. All spoke of their work as a duty that needed to be carried out despite the risks. Three members of that team have since been killed in a chain of assassinations. Each time I sent condolences, the response was always that the coverage would not cease. 'We are continuing,' the Gaza editor told me last week, after he lost his entire Gaza City team in the targeted strike that claimed the lives of Sharif, Mohammed Nofal, Ibrahim Thaher and Qraiqea. 'We will not betray their message, or their last wishes.' As these killings dazed the world – and the response to them became mired in unproven and in some cases risibly implausible claims that some of these journalists were militants – little has been said about the calibre of journalism in Gaza. How fluent, articulate and poised its journalists are under impossible circumstances. How much they manage to capture horrific events and pain on a daily basis, in a journalistic Arabic that they have perfected to an art, while maintaining a professional, collected presence on camera. How much they manage to keep their cool. I struggled often to translate their words into English, so rich and expansive is their expression. Even Sharif's final message, a text for the ages, loses some of its power in translation. In it, he addresses those who 'choked' our breath, but the word he uses is closer to 'besieged' – evoking not just physical asphyxiation but the silencing of a surveilled people's voice. What strikes me when I speak with journalists in and from Gaza is how evangelical and heartbreakingly idealistic they are; how much journalism to them was a duty even if it meant certain death. All who have been killed had a choice, and those who are still alive and reporting still do. Sharif said he had been threatened several times by Israeli authorities over the past two years. Al Jazeera told me that he was sent a warning by Israeli intelligence and told to stop reporting. When he refused, his father was killed in an airstrike. When Ghoul took over from Dahdouh early last year, Dahdouh told him that it was a dangerous job, and no one would fault him for leaving his post and returning to his wife and child. Ghoul refused, and was decapitated in a targeted strike. What the Israeli government is trying to do with these killings is not just stop the stream of damning reports and footage, but annihilate the very image of Palestinians that these media professionals convey. The credibility, dignity and talent that Gaza's journalists exhibit to the world in their reports and social media posts has to be extinguished. The more Gaza is a place that is teeming with militants, where there are no reliable narrators, and where Israel's justifications for killing and starvation cannot be challenged by plausible witnesses, the easier Israel can prosecute its genocidal campaign. A recent investigation by +972 Magazine and Local Call identified the sinisterly named 'legitimisation cell', a unit of the Israeli military tasked, in the words of the report, with 'identifying Gaza-based journalists it could portray as undercover Hamas operatives, in an effort to blunt growing global outrage over Israel's killing of reporters'. According to the investigation's sources, the effort is 'driven by anger that Gaza-based reporters were 'smearing [Israel's] name in front of the world''. Central to this effort is Israel's ability to rely on western media to treat its claims as somehow plausible, despite the fact that time and time again, it has made claims that turn out not to be true. Emergency workers who were killed because they were 'advancing suspiciously', according to the IDF, were said to be found in restraints with execution-style shots. The claim that Hamas was systematically stealing aid, which is used to justify blockade and starvation, was contradicted by sources within the Israeli military itself. It is Hamas that is shooting Palestinians queueing for aid, Israel has said, not us. Eventually, this behaviour deserves to be called what it is: systemic deception that forfeits your right to be a credible authority. And still we are told that Israel has killed a journalist, but here is Israel's claim that the journalist was a militant. You can make up your mind. The resulting ambiguity means that even if these claims cannot be verified, they are imbued with potential truth. Do you see how that works? The truth is that journalists in Gaza have been colossally failed by many of their colleagues in the western media – not just in terms of how their killings are reported, but in how the entire conflict is described. Figures of the dead and starving in Gaza are often described as coming from 'Hamas-run' ministries, but you don't see the statements coming from Israeli authorities caveated as serially unreliable, or the phrase 'wanted by the international criminal court' attached to the name Benjamin Netanyahu. Meanwhile, the word of Palestinian journalists is never quite enough – not until foreign media (who are not allowed into Gaza) can give the final gold-standard judgment. They are cast out of the body of journalism, their truth buried along with them. In Gaza, however, there will always be someone brave and clear-eyed who continues the coverage. Who puts on a press flak jacket that makes them a target. They continue to bear, alone, the responsibility of bringing the world the reality of events in Gaza, even as their voices and breaths are besieged. Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist
