'Criminal' flag-raising causing alarm and distress, court told

Members of an anti-migrant group have erected flags in Birmingham in a "criminal" way that causes "danger, injury, alarm and distress", a court has been told.

The city council is seeking an emergency injunction against members of Raise the Colours, who have flown thousands of union jacks and St George's flags from lamp-posts and bridges in the city.

Jonathan Manning, representing the authority at the city's High Court hearing, said people had reported feeling "significantly less safe" following a series of violent and threatening incidents, including one man who suffered a broken leg when hit by a cherry picker.

Ryan Bridge, founder of Raise the Colours, said in a statement he would fight the action, adding it was against the European Convention on Human Rights.

The day-long hearing outlined the position of the council, which argues the group has been acting unlawfully for a year as part of its Stop the Boats campaign.

The intention of the injunction is to stop flags and other attachments being placed on lamp-posts, street furniture and highways locations without authority, which is already a criminal offence.

Manning said there had been numerous incidents of erratic driving connected to Raise the Colours, including cherry pickers blocking pavements and angry confrontations with residents.

One man reported being kicked in the shins and elbowed in the face by group members, while another was poked in the chest and shouted at when he walked past them at a pub.

In a witness statement read out in court, councillor for Moseley, Izzy Knowles, said she found the group "intimidating and provocative" when she tried to engage them as they erected flags in the village.

A group of seven men and one woman surrounded her and began livestreaming her on their phones, she said, before they made derogatory remarks about her clothing.

Manning also quoted a letter to Parliament from MP Al Carns, who said he had been contacted by more than 120 residents with concerns about the group's actions.

Between 20 and 30 supporters attended court earlier, several wearing Raise the Colours shirts and hoodies.

At the last hearing before high court judge Emma Kelly, eight men were named in the injunction.

But Manning said the case is now against two named people, Bridge and Ben Cullen, and "persons unknown" - a series of defendants who have not yet been identified by the claimant or court.

People opposing the group's actions and councillors had been subject to "significant amounts of abuse online", Manning said.

Messages sent to one councillor read: "Disgusting [expletive] traitor you should be hung" and "move to the Middle East seeing as you love it so much".

Council contractors and highway workers had also been verbally abused, he told the court.

However, Manning said the council was not seeking to "penalise expressions of opinion while leaving other flags flown".

The application sought to prevent all flags being flown without council permission, including any Palestinian and Pride flags attached to street furniture unlawfully, he said.

"The council's position on all flags is the same, [people are] required to ask the council for consent," he told the court.

"If granted, [it] can be attached in a way agreed with the authority in safe manner, if refused, [it] can't be.

"We are not seeking to prioritise the views of some members of the community above others."

Manning said an injunction was required as the group's activities were ongoing and would not stop without one.

The court was shown several social media videos of Raise the Colours members, each of which featured Bridge.

In the final video, he said to the camera: "We will never stop, I will never stop... until them boats stop."

The court adjourned until 2 November when it will hear from Bridge's lawyer.

In a statement to the media, Raise the Colours said barrister Liam Wells would be challenging the council's position and that the injunction interfered with Bridge's rights "protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights".

"Today's hearing raises important questions concerning the proper limits of an injunction which affects freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and the public display and promotion of national flags," the group said.

It said that the defence would be asking for the judge to refuse the injunction because "the legal threshold has not been met" and "that the proposed order is excessively broad".

Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.