Key Points
- Birmingham City Council and Oxfordshire County Council launched High Court injunction proceedings against members of the nationalist group Raise the Colours.
- Councils alleged group members repeatedly put up Union Jacks and St George’s Cross flags on lampposts, roundabouts, and street furniture without permission.
- Local authorities reported safety hazards and criminal damage, stating contractors, council staff, and residents faced verbal abuse and intimidation while taking flags down.
- Local councils spent significant funds removing the unauthorised flags from public property.
- The High Court restricted named individuals and “persons unknown” from putting flags on highway structures, while group figures Ryan Bridge, Trudy Wells, and Ben Cullen gave undertakings agreeing to follow court orders.
Birmingham (Birmingham Express) November 2, 2026 – High Court injunction proceedings filed by local authorities against members of the grassroots nationalist campaign group Raise the Colours have highlighted an ongoing legal and operational dispute regarding the mounting of national flags on public infrastructure.
Local councils, including Birmingham City Council and Oxfordshire County Council, have sought injunctions to prevent individuals associated with the movement from unlawfully attaching flags to lampposts, highway signs, and traffic islands across municipal areas.
The court actions stem from months of widespread installations of the St George’s Cross and Union Jack on highway assets. Councils argue that the unsanctioned installations violate highway legislation, present road safety risks, and have subjected local authority staff, contractors, and residents to harassment and abuse.
Conversely, representatives of Raise the Colours maintain that their actions constitute a lawful display of national pride and unity.
What led to the High Court injunction proceedings against Raise the Colours?
As reported by Neha Gohil of The Guardian, local councils took formal legal steps following a sustained, nationwide campaign by Raise the Colours to erect flags across street furniture and highway assets.
The movement initially gained prominence by placing hundreds of flags on public lampposts in towns and cities across the West Midlands and Oxfordshire. Local authorities argued that these actions were conducted without planning permission or highways approval, creating immediate safety hazards and damaging council property.
As reported by Matthew Weaver of The Guardian, Oxfordshire County Council took key figures associated with the campaign—including Ryan Bridge, Trudy Wells, and Ben Cullen—to the High Court.
The council submitted evidence showing that despite issuing formal legal notices directing the group to stop, members continued to attach flags to public infrastructure.
The High Court subsequently issued injunction orders prohibiting defendants and “persons unknown” from placing flags on highway structures or encouraging others to engage in prohibited displays.
In court filings, local authorities detailed how council employees and contracted maintenance workers encountered severe hostility while attempting to remove the unauthorized material.
According to evidence presented to the court, staff faced verbal aggression, intimidation, and online targeted harassment when executing their statutory duties to maintain safe and neutral public spaces.
As reported by Neha Gohil of The Guardian, Cllr Tim Bearder stated that “This is not, and never has been, about the flag. The injunction helps protect our residents and our workforce and supports our responsibility to keep the highway safe.”
How did Raise the Colours respond to the council’s legal action?
Following the legal filings, organizers of Raise the Colours contested the scope of the local authority actions. As reported by Neha Gohil of The Guardian, group founder Ryan Bridge stated in an interview that the injunction was “horrendous” and argued that the legal challenge was intended to suppress public displays of patriotism.
As reported by Neha Gohil of The Guardian, Ryan Bridge stated that “These people have got too much time on their hands and they despise the likes of us. They don’t like the flag of their country.”
Despite raising objections to the injunction, key figures named in the proceedings submitted undertakings before the judge. Bridge, Cullen, and Wells formally agreed not to attach flags to public highway infrastructure, obstruct council contractors, or encourage third parties to commit similar acts on municipal property.
Background of the particular development
The dispute over flag installations on highway infrastructure began during the summer of 2025, when Raise the Colours initiated a nationwide initiative encouraging members of the public to display national flags in public areas.
While flag displays on private residential property are permitted under general planning regulations, national highways law strictly prohibits the unauthorized attachment of items to public utility poles, street lighting, and road infrastructure due to potential driver distraction, structural overload, and maintenance access issues.
Throughout early 2026, several local councils across the United Kingdom reported an increase in municipal costs associated with removing unauthorized items from public infrastructure.
Council figures released during court proceedings showed that local authorities spent tens of thousands of pounds mobilizing cherry-pickers and maintenance teams to remove flags from height-restricted light columns.
The escalation led councils to seek binding High Court injunctions, which carry penalties including fines, asset confiscation, or imprisonment for contempt of court if breached.
Prediction: How this development can affect local councils and local residents
This High Court injunction precedent is expected to significantly alter how local authorities across the United Kingdom handle unsanctioned displays on public infrastructure.
- For Local Councils: The successful securing of High Court injunctions establishes a legal framework for local authorities facing repeated unauthorized modifications to street furniture. Councils will likely utilize this judicial precedent to expedite enforcement actions against unsanctioned street installations, reducing long-term expenditure spent on repeated physical removals. However, local authorities may continue to face public relations challenges and resource allocation debates regarding the enforcement of highways legislation.
- For Local Residents and Communities: The legal outcome ensures that local highways authorities retain operational control over public spaces, mitigating potential road safety hazards caused by obstructed signs or unstable attachments to street lighting. For residents, the enforcement provides clarity regarding street maintenance standards, while establishing clear boundaries regarding the use of public infrastructure for unsanctioned group campaigns.
