If such an order is granted, anyone who defies it could face imprisonment, financial penalties, or the seizure of their assets.

Liberal Democrat councillor Stephen Williams described the situation as a frustrating cycle of removal and replacement.

He said: “Unfortunately we’re in a situation where our highways contractors have taken down hundreds of flags, they pretty soon go up again, so we’re in a cat-and-mouse situation.

Mr Williams also warned that fixing flags to lamp-posts poses a safety risk.

He added: “There is divided opinion about the meaning of people putting up flags on council lamp-posts or railings.”

The phenomenon dates back to the summer of 2025, when thousands of St George flags began appearing on street furniture in towns and cities across England.

Those responsible said they aimed to celebrate patriotism.

Elsewhere in the West of England, Somerset Council reported that the issue has cost local taxpayers upwards of £2,900 between August 2025 and August 2026, and indicated it would pursue “recovering costs for removal from those responsible”.

A council spokesman stressed that “many residents do not support these unauthorised public displays”, adding: “If we want Somerset to remain a welcoming and vibrant place then we need to ensure flags are used to foster belonging, not division.”

A spokesman for Somerset Council said it will look at “recovering costs for removal from those responsible”.

They added: “It’s important to remember that many residents do not support these unauthorised public displays.

“If we want Somerset to remain a welcoming and vibrant place then we need to ensure flags are used to foster belonging, not division.”

South Gloucestershire Council has adopted a firmer stance, implementing a dedicated removal policy and labelling unauthorised flags a “serious matter”.

Councillors Maggie Tyrrell and Ian Boulton said that while national flags can foster “vibrancy, pride and a sense of unity”, their “placement in unauthorised locations and recent campaigns and behaviours linked to the unauthorised display of flags have caused genuine concern among many residents”.

Wiltshire Council has opted not to launch a formal enforcement campaign, instead addressing each incident individually.

David Bullock, the council’s director of highways, said: “Our concern isn’t with the flags themselves, but with where they’re displayed.”

He noted that “flags, banners and bunting attached to lamp-posts, road signs, roundabouts or other highway infrastructure without permission can create safety risks for road users and pedestrians and may obstruct visibility”.

The authority emphasised its obligation to keep highways safe, unobstructed, and accessible to all users.

Bath and North East Somerset Council, meanwhile, has confirmed it currently has no intention of bringing in any measures targeting the hanging of unauthorised flags.

Flag Row: Britons Face Being Put in Prison for Putting Up England Flags

Britain’s growing row over England flags has taken a legal turn, with people who attach St George’s flags to public lampposts and other highway structures potentially facing imprisonment if they knowingly breach a court injunction.

The dispute has intensified after councils across England took legal action against unauthorised flag displays. Oxfordshire County Council has already secured a High Court injunction, while Birmingham has launched its own legal proceedings and Bristol is considering further action.

The developments have generated a wider debate over patriotism, public property, safety and the limits of local authorities’ powers.

But the legal position is more specific than some headlines suggest. There is no general law banning people from displaying the St George’s Cross, and the court orders do not prohibit people from owning or displaying England flags on their own private property.

Instead, the legal restrictions concern attaching flags to public infrastructure without permission.

The Oxfordshire court order

The clearest example comes from Oxfordshire.

The county council obtained a final High Court injunction in July 2026 following months of disputes over flags attached to lampposts and other highway structures.

The order applies to named individuals and “persons unknown” intending to carry out certain prohibited activities. It prevents covered individuals from attaching flags to highway structures, painting flags on highways, obstructing council workers removing flags, or harassing council employees and contractors involved in the removals.

The order currently runs until July 9, 2027, unless extended by another court order.

Most significantly, the council’s official explanation states that knowingly assisting with or permitting a breach of the injunction constitutes contempt of court. A person found in contempt may be imprisoned, fined or have assets confiscated.

That is the legal basis behind claims that people could face jail over putting up flags.

It is therefore important to distinguish between displaying a flag and breaching a court order.

A person putting an England flag in a garden, on a house or elsewhere with appropriate permission is in a fundamentally different legal situation from somebody knowingly attaching a flag to a public lamppost in circumstances covered by an injunction.

Why have councils intervened?

Local authorities have pointed to practical concerns rather than the national identity represented by the flags themselves.

Oxfordshire County Council said its legal action followed repeated unauthorised placement of flags on or near public roads. The council argued that the activity interfered with its responsibilities as highway authority and raised safety and obstruction concerns.

The issue became particularly visible during the growth of the “Raise the Colours” campaign.

The campaign has encouraged the display of England and Union flags in public places, with flags appearing on lampposts, roundabouts, bridges and other infrastructure.

Supporters have described the displays as expressions of patriotism and national pride.

Critics, meanwhile, have questioned whether public infrastructure should be used for political or nationalist campaigns and have raised concerns about the impact on minority communities.

The Guardian reported that the campaign began gaining prominence in Birmingham last summer and subsequently spread to other parts of the country.

Birmingham enters the dispute

The controversy has now reached Birmingham.

Birmingham City Council applied to the High Court for an injunction aimed at preventing people from attaching Union Jack and St George’s flags to public infrastructure.

The application reportedly names several individuals and also seeks restrictions against unidentified people who might engage in similar activity.

The council has argued that its staff and contractors have faced harassment, intimidation and obstruction while attempting to remove unauthorised flags.

The Guardian reported that Birmingham residents had previously criticised the council over what they saw as insufficient action concerning the proliferation of flags.

The legal proceedings could therefore establish another important test of how councils deal with unauthorised displays on public property.

If an injunction is granted and subsequently breached knowingly, contempt-of-court consequences could follow.

That does not mean that every person who puts up an England flag automatically faces prison.

Bristol’s “cat-and-mouse” problem

Bristol has also become part of the national debate.

According to reporting by The Independent, Bristol City Council has spent approximately £50,000 removing flags from public infrastructure. Councillors described the situation as increasingly resembling a “cat-and-mouse” contest, with contractors removing flags only for others to appear again.

The council has been considering whether to seek a High Court injunction similar to the order obtained in Oxfordshire.

The legal argument again centres on unauthorised use of public infrastructure rather than a general prohibition on national flags.

That distinction matters because England flags remain widely displayed throughout the country, including on homes, businesses and at sporting events.

A national symbol at the centre of a legal dispute

The St George’s Cross has a long history as the national flag of England and is commonly associated with sporting events, particularly football.

Its widespread display increased significantly during the recent campaign encouraging people to “Raise the Colours”.

For supporters, the flag can simply represent England and national pride.

For others, the circumstances in which it is displayed can carry different political or social meanings.

Local authorities have generally focused their legal arguments on the location and method of display rather than declaring the flag itself unlawful.

This is why the current dispute is fundamentally different from a national ban on the St George’s Cross.

Could someone really go to prison?

Under the Oxfordshire injunction, the answer is legally possible in circumstances involving contempt of court.

The council explicitly states that a person who is notified of the order and knowingly assists in or permits a prohibited breach may face imprisonment, a fine or asset confiscation.

The Independent similarly reported that breaching the Oxfordshire injunction can result in imprisonment, a fine or seizure of assets.

However, the existence of that penalty does not mean prison is an automatic punishment.

Contempt proceedings involve the courts, and the circumstances of the alleged breach would matter.

The central issue would be whether the relevant individual was subject to the order or otherwise covered by its terms, knew about the restrictions and deliberately breached them.

This is why descriptions suggesting that Britons are simply “being jailed for flying the English flag” leave out an important part of the legal context.

The politics of the flag row

The dispute has nevertheless become politically sensitive.

Some politicians and campaigners have portrayed council attempts to remove flags as evidence that national symbols are being discouraged.

Others argue that councils have a responsibility to control public infrastructure and ensure that roads and street furniture are used safely and lawfully.

The Guardian reported that Oxfordshire council workers had faced abuse or intimidation while removing flags, an issue that formed part of the wider background to the legal action.

These competing perspectives have helped turn what began as a dispute over street decorations into a broader argument about national identity and public space.

The legal cases do not, however, determine whether displaying the St George’s Cross is patriotic, political or controversial. They address specific questions concerning public infrastructure, unauthorised attachments and compliance with court orders.

What happens next?

The Oxfordshire injunction provides the clearest current legal framework.

It remains in force until July 2027 unless the court extends or changes it. The council says it will monitor compliance and take action against individuals or groups who breach the order.

Birmingham’s case could create another important development if its application succeeds.

Meanwhile, Bristol is considering its own legal response after repeatedly removing flags from public infrastructure.

The wider controversy is unlikely to disappear while England flags continue appearing on public structures.

For supporters of the displays, the issue is about the right to express national pride.

For councils, the issue is about control of public assets, highway responsibilities, safety and compliance with the law.

For the courts, the immediate question is narrower: whether individuals are obeying legally binding orders governing what can be attached to public infrastructure.

That distinction is crucial.

Britons are not generally prohibited from displaying the St George’s Cross. The prison risk arises where a person knowingly breaches a specific court injunction or commits contempt of court.

As more councils consider legal action, the England flag dispute is therefore becoming less a question about the flag itself and more a test of how far individuals can go when expressing themselves on public property.

The outcome of the continuing court battles could establish how councils across England respond to unauthorised flag displays in the years ahead.