Plymouth Council Celebrates Flags While Threatening Community Displays

Flag Force Plymouth have accused Plymouth City Council of cynical political manoeuvring, after they unanimously passed a motion celebrating official flag-flying while maintaining enforcement threats against community-led patriotic displays.

The motion, titled "Flags in Plymouth," was crafted to present councillors as patriotic while simultaneously undermining grassroots 'flaggers' who attach displays to lamp posts without council permission.

Zero councillors voted against the carefully-worded motion during Monday's full council meeting, with Flag Force Plymouth claiming the proceedings revealed "predetermined hostility toward community-led patriotic expression."

Political Theatre Exposed

The motion, proposed by Councillor Chris Penberthy and seconded by Councillor Kevin Sproston, praised Plymouth as "a welcoming and patriotic city" and celebrated the council's own flag-flying on official buildings.

However, Flag Force Plymouth has condemned this as political theatre designed to claim patriotic credentials while threatening enforcement action against community flaggers.

"Councillor Penberthy boasted about the council flying national flags in various areas, this is simply an expected civic duty, not extraordinary leadership," Flag Force stated in their response. "This appears to be a transparent attempt to claim credit, while undermining community-led patriotic displays."

The motion notably avoided any commitment to support community flag displays, instead reaffirming the council's "support for the national government guidance on flag flying."

Claims of Selective Evidence and Bias

Flag Force Plymouth issued a scathing response accusing councillors of presenting misleading evidence during the debate that preceded the vote.

The group specifically criticised Councillors Jemima Laing and Sally Cresswell for citing resident emails expressing "concern" about flag displays while "conspicuously failing to mention any supportive correspondence."

"This selective presentation of evidence undermines the integrity of the debate," Flag Force stated. "Councillor Laing criticised flaggers for having an 'agenda' while cherry-picking which emails to reference in her own speech – a glaring example of the very behaviour she condemns."

Double Standards Allegations

Perhaps most damaging are allegations that the council applies different enforcement standards to community flag displays compared to commercial postings.

Flag Force claims Plymouth City Council "exercises discretion for other forms of fly posting" including advertisements for circuses, funfairs, and venues like The Depot, but "threatens enforcement against patriotic displays."

The group also highlighted apparent hypocrisy in councillors' criticism of nighttime flag installation, pointing out that "Plymouth Highways repainted two St George's mini-roundabouts under said 'cover of darkness'" - revealing what they call "double standards between the council and citizens."

Councillors Under Fire

Flag Force has issued detailed rebuttals to individual councillors' contributions during the debate:

Councillor Kevin Sproston faced particular criticism for his assumptions about flag supporters. When he suggested flaggers should contribute through community groups instead, Flag Force responded that this "ignores the possibility that these individuals may already be active community contributors."

The group also condemned Sproston's reference to "German, French and Japanese cars" driving over flag displays, calling his "attempt to use foreign made goods as a weapon rather contradictory" given the debate's emphasis on celebrating diversity.

Councillor Sally Cresswell was challenged over her criticism of nighttime installations, with Flag Force pointing out their members are "working professionals" and "parents to young children" who install flags when their schedules permit.

"Councillor Cresswell's suggestion that nighttime work indicates a lack of patriotism is both illogical and insulting to the many people who contribute to their communities outside traditional working hours," they stated.

Contradictory Votes Exposed

Perhaps most interesting was Councillor Steven Ricketts, who called flag displays "a beautiful, glorious thing to see" yet voted to support a motion that maintains enforcement threats against such displays.

Flag Force described this as "a contradiction that speaks to the political pressures within the chamber rather than genuine conviction."

"We're Patriots Too" Strategy Backfires

The motion appears designed to allow councillors to claim patriotic credentials while avoiding criticism for threatening enforcement action against community flaggers.

However, Flag Force's detailed response has thorougly exposed this strategy, arguing that genuine patriotism would support community-led displays rather than restricting them to official council buildings.

"We display our own national flags in our own country—this is not territorial expansion but patriotic expression within our rightful home," they stated, rejecting comparisons made by some councillors.

Threatening Emails Controversy

Councillor Laing's reference to "threatening emails" has been firmly rejected by Flag Force, who state they have sent "one email to the council explaining our position and offering dialogue to prevent future protests."

"If genuinely threatening emails exist, they did not originate from our organisation, and we would condemn such behaviour," the group stated.

Enforcement Threats Continue

Despite the patriotic rhetoric in the motion, Plymouth City Council now commits to reaffirm their "commitment" to their stance—which has included issuing statements warning of "enforcement action, including fines" against community flaggers.

Flag Force argues this creates a two-tier system where only official, council-controlled patriotism is permitted while grassroots displays face punishment.

Public Support vs Political Games

Flag Force Plymouth state that their displays enjoy "significant public support" and represent inclusive patriotism welcoming "all who call Britain home, regardless of their background or ethnicity."

They argue the unanimous council vote reflects political calculation rather than genuine public sentiment, noting that "zero councillors voted against this motion, with some reportedly leaving early to avoid taking a public position."

Moving Forward

Despite facing unanimous council opposition, Flag Force Plymouth vows to continue their mission while exposing what they see as political hypocrisy.

"The biased nature of yesterday's debate and the predetermined hostility toward community-led patriotic expression represent a disappointing failure of democratic discourse," they stated.

The group remains "open to constructive dialogue," but made it clear that "productive cooperation requires good faith engagement from both sides."

About this story: This report is based on Flag Force Plymouth's detailed response to Plymouth City Council's September 15, 2025 debate and the official motion document.

PlymLeaks has submitted Freedom of Information requests to examine the evidence presented by councillors and the council's enforcement policies, and will make further reports in due course.