Flag lady raising the standards in her village
For the last 30 years, wherever she has lived, Sue Wiles has had a flag pole in her garden.She is known as the "flag lady of Stapleford" - the village in Cambridgeshire she now calls home."I don't feel I'm making a statement flying a flag but I like to be patriotic," she said."I like to keep people amused and I know people notice my flags when they drive along the road."The 82-year-old always has one of her 20 flags flying when she is at home.
Her flags include well-known national ones like the union flag, the St George's flag and the stars and stripes of America, along with quirkier options. "I've been flying the Ukrainian flag a lot so much I am now on my fourth one," she said.But she also has ones for Christmas and other special occasions."I made three during lockdown. I made a 'Thank you NHS' flag and when the Queen gave a pep talk I made one that said: 'Never give up, never despair.'"She also made one following the Queen's address on the eve of lockdown which read "We will meet again"."I had a lot of reaction. I would look out the window and nearly every time somebody was on the pavement taking a picture," she said."People put notes through the door saying: 'Thank you so much for flying the flag and keeping us jollied along.'"You have to keep on the ball though because there are royal birthdays when it is appropriate to fly the union flag."
Has flag flying become too political?
The flying of flags has become a talking point with several local authorities restricting the number being flown outside council buildings.This week the Conservative MP for Romford, Andrew Rosindell, held a special debate in parliament encouraging more authorities to follow suit."The flying of identity-based political banners especially those representing what is sometimes only a slim, exclusive and often exclusionary subset of a particular interest group of social movement is often seen as implicitly endorsing a specific view point" he said"If a town hall chooses to fly a banner for one group of people it would surely be obliged to fly one for another group and another group and so on. In doing so it will inevitably appear to be endorsing every cause identity and political campaign"And this week councillors at West Northamptonshire Council, which is run by Reform UK, approved new protocol which will see only the union, St George's and Northamptonshire flags regularly flown, alongside the occasional military flag.Some people have expressed their disappointment that Pride and Windrush flags will no longer be flown.The council said it would "continue to give its backing to a busy and varied local community events calendar".
Conservative-run Suffolk County Council has also limited the number of flags it flies. A Suffolk County Council spokesman said: "In the past we've flown a variety of flags on a fairly ad hoc basis. "We didn't have an agreed schedule or anything like that. We've wanted more rigour for some time.Meanwhile, for Mrs Wiles, there can never be too many flags. "I don't think councils should restrict the flags they are flying."Obviously we don't want to have hundreds of flags but to restrict them to two or three would be very sad," she said. "To use flags to make a political point I think would be a great mistake in my opinion."I think people like to see public building flying flags. Maybe that would encourage more people to have their own flag pole."
BBC Politics East will be broadcast on Sunday, 29 June at 10:00 BST on BBC One in the East of England, and will be available after broadcast on BBC iPlayer.Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: As MSPs head for the beaches, a question... Would we REALLY be any worse off if they just didn't come back?
Imagine it is May 2021, a few weeks on from the Scottish parliament election, the sixth such poll held since devolution began. Only this time it's different. This time, Holyrood doesn't reconvene. No presiding officer is elected, no oaths taken, no committee conveners appointed. The parliament lies empty. It goes on like this for weeks, then months, until it becomes apparent that MSPs will never show up. The reason for their absence is unimportant. Maybe they've secured more gainful employment as a travelling circus, a major career change insofar as it would involve travelling. In every other way, however, there is continuity. Schools stay open, the NHS groans on, police still investigate your tweets, and councils empty your 15 wheelie bins sporadically while charging rates that would force the Emir of Qatar into a payment plan. All remains as before, budgets are allocated to services, but the 2021-26 parliament never sits and never passes legislation. Question: can you think of a single way in which you would have been worse off under this scenario? I ask because MSPs have just packed up their offices for summer recess, the last before the forthcoming Scottish parliament election, which must be held by the first week of May 2026. But as the politicians root around for their buckets and spades, I've been digging through the record of this parliamentary year and indeed the entire session, which is what prompted my little thought experiment. Because this parliament is surely the most insubstantial and inconsequential since the dawn of devolution. A do-nothing assembly that, on the occasions when it rouses itself to action, confirms the wisdom of its original instinct. It is this parliament which brought forward the final draft of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, rammed through Holyrood in a marathon run of late-night sittings shortly before Christmas 2022. Women's rights campaigners and legal scholars cautioned that its plans for self-identified gender changes would fall foul of Britain-wide equalities legislation, not least when it came to single-sex spaces. Parliament would not listen and then received the ultimate slap-down when Scottish Secretary Alister Jack made history and became the first holder of his office to block a Holyrood bill. The Scottish parliament fumed but the Court of Session sided with Mr Jack. MSPs had no cause for pique. Most showed themselves to be singularly incurious when it came to gender legislation, satisfied to regurgitate the dubious talking points of taxpayer-funded lobby groups rather than doing their jobs as legislators. Pursuing self-ID was a Nicola Sturgeon pet project, but it was also necessitated by her reckless decision to bring the Greens into government, handing ministerial power to an anti-capitalist doomsday cult that hitches its yurt to every policy fad on the go. This included the deposit return scheme, a thoroughly reasonable notion in theory, until Lorna Slater got her hands on it and drove it into the ground, alienating small businesses along the way. And in return for the votes of these ego-warriors, sensible, long-standing Scottish Government positions had to be jettisoned. An undertaking to fully dual the A96, a notorious accident blackspot, was diluted down to the weakest water. Despite the inclusion of an environmentalist party in Scotland's government, St Andrew's House missed target after target in its loudly proclaimed quest to cut emissions. Eventually, Holyrood scrapped annual and interim targets altogether. Failure has been a hallmark of this parliament. Take the PISA report confirming that performance in maths, science and reading continues to slump and Scottish schoolchildren lag behind their English counterparts in all three. Take the attainment gap, the closure of which Sturgeon asked to be judged on. It has widened, but that cannot be pinned on the former First Minister alone. It was the duty of parliament to hold her to account, but this parliament could not rise to its obligations. In this session, Holyrood has seen three First Ministers (so far) and neither Sturgeon, nor Humza Yousaf, nor John Swinney could be said to have feared parliament very often. All three warrant a share of the blame for the post-Covid NHS recovery that never materialised. For the habitually missed emergency care and cancer treatment waiting times. For the shame of elderly people forced to part with their life savings to pay for hip and cataract operations. Holyrood, the guardian of the people's interests, has attached no meaningful political price to this dire record. The same can be said of the Ferguson Marine fiasco, a slow-motion catastrophe that a more diligent and effective parliament could have stopped in its tracks. Yet as with so many of the topics at issue, MSPs, and we're talking specifically about Nationalist MSPs, chose to put party before country and keep their mouths shut. They saw their remit as that of parliamentary clapometers, there to make noise but not trouble. Taxpayers, especially those who rely on islands transport, bore the brunt of their cowardly partisanship. That word right there – 'partisan' – might just be a one-word summation of Holyrood's problem. Too many of its members regard themselves as components of a political bloc instead of elected representatives tasked with challenging, scrutinising and checking executive power. Recall how Nationalist MSPs rallied round Michael Matheson after he tried to bill the taxpayer for his holiday iPad use. A more basic test of fidelity, whether it is owed to parliament or exclusively to party, there could not be. And dozens of MSPs failed it. Holyrood is a parliament in which parliamentarians are in the minority. There is very little reason to expect things will improve in the eight months that remain when MSPs return from summer recess. This session will end with as much distinction as it has conducted itself thus far, and of what comes next we can only guess. Donald Dewar promised so much of Holyrood but even if he had been more circumspect, what we've got could only be a source of acrid disappointment. Who can say if things would be better had devolution never happened, but it's hard to imagine they could be any worse. This column began with a thought experiment, and it ends with another. Imagine you were given the opportunity to return to September 11, 1997, the day of the Scottish parliament referendum, retaining full knowledge of what has happened in the quarter century since Scots voted for legislative devolution. You head to your polling station, go into the booth, and poise your pencil over the paper. This time around, you know what's coming. The paucity of ambition, the dearth of delivery, the inevitability of failure. Much will not get better, some things will get worse, and the poor and vulnerable will pay the price. There will be mediocrity, ineptitude and cliquishness. The thinly veiled resentment towards its own people of a provincial elite that yearns only for the approval of international elites. A culture of secrecy, an aversion to scrutiny, and a closed-ranks hostility to anyone who speaks out of turn. This will be a parliament in which truth and conscience are in constant submission to party and power. The ballot before you asks you to choose between two options: 'I agree that there should be a Scottish parliament' or 'I do not agree that there should be a Scottish parliament'.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom
Broadcasters must give airtime to claims that biological men are women when covering trans issues, Ofcom has said. The media regulator warned GB News in a letter seen by The Telegraph that it could not treat the controversy as settled, despite the landmark Supreme Court victory for women's rights campaigners in April 2025. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act, the word 'woman' means a biological woman rather than a person's self-identified gender. As a result, women-only spaces have a legal right to be protected. However, Ofcom has said that the judges' ruling does not mean the matter is 'settled'. In the past, the regulator has said that it considers it 'settled' that climate change is real and a man-made phenomenon. Therefore, in situations discussing climate change, broadcasters do not have to provide an opposing view such as a climate change sceptic. GB News wrote to Ofcom asking it to confirm that the ruling had settled the matter of the definition of a woman by saying it was defined by biological sex and not gender identity. The station also asked the regulator to confirm that television companies would be able to refer to people such as sports stars solely by their biological pronoun. But Ofcom said the Supreme Court only ruled on the definition of a woman in terms of the Equality Act and not on its meaning in other contexts. Believe sex can change The decision suggests broadcasters will continue to have to present both sides of the debate: those who believe there are only two sexes and those who believe a person's gender identity can change their actual sex. Ofcom's response also suggests that broadcasters should use a person's preferred pronoun. In its letter, GB News wrote: 'We would be grateful if Ofcom could confirm that in light of the Supreme Court judgment, it is now a settled matter that the terms 'man', 'woman' and 'sex' can only be understood to mean biological sex, biological woman and biological man and, as a consequence, it is also a settled matter that a 'trans woman' is not a biological female, and a 'trans man' is not a biological male.' It added: 'Following the Supreme Court judgment we are of the view that (provided there is no deliberate intention to cause harm or offence), contributors should generally be able to use biological pronouns.' In its reply, Ofcom said that it could not agree with the broadcaster's 'dogmatic' pronouncements. It said it did not follow the premise that assumes 'the judgment should also be understood to have effectively 'settled' wider debate about the appropriate meaning, usage and effect of such terms in all contexts outside the scope of the Equality Act, including in broadcast programmes in which issues relating to sex and gender-based rights are discussed generally'. It added: 'The judgment does not purport to do so.' Requires nuanced decision-making The letter went on to say that Ofcom 'does not consider that it is helpful or appropriate to endorse the dogmatic propositions' made by GB News, adding that it worked on a case-by-case basis because such issues 'require nuanced decision-making'. 'Our assessment will of course also take account of all applicable Convention rights, including the broadcaster's and audience's rights to freedom of expression, as well as the latitude for editorial discretion which uncontroversially accompanies the exercise of those rights on issues of significant public interest.' A spokesman for the regulator said: 'Ofcom is a post-broadcast regulator. 'In line with the rights of broadcasters and audiences to freedom of expression, our rules allow broadcasters editorial freedom to choose how to cover issues in their programmes subject to the Broadcasting Code. 'Our assessment of whether content complies with the Broadcasting Code is always fact-specific and takes into account all relevant contextual factors, requiring nuanced decision-making, and not a 'one size fits all' approach.'
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Starmer condemns 'appalling hate speech' at Glastonbury - as organiser says anti-IDF chants 'crossed a line'
The prime minister has criticised chants of "death to the IDF" during a Glastonbury performance on Saturday, while festival organiser Emily Eavis said they had "very much crossed a line". Responding on Sunday to rap duo Bob Vylan's set the day before, Sir Keir Starmer said: "There is no excuse for this kind of appalling hate speech." In the same statement, the prime minister repeated his previous argument that the Belfast rap group Kneecap should have been removed from the line-up after one member was charged with a terrorism offence. "I said that Kneecap should not be given a platform and that goes for any other performers making threats or inciting violence. "The BBC needs to explain how these scenes came to be broadcast." On Sunday, Ms Eavis, whose father Michael co-founded the festival, posted her response to Bob Vylan's performance. "Their chants very much crossed a line and we are urgently reminding everyone involved in the production of the Festival that there is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence," she wrote. She said that while "as a festival, we stand against all forms of war and terrorism - we will always believe in - and actively campaign for - hope, unity, peace and love", adding a performer's comments "should never be seen as a tacit endorsement of their opinions and beliefs". Eavis added: "With almost 4,000 performances at Glastonbury 2025, there will inevitably be artists and speakers appearing on our stages whose views we do not share." The rappers' set was streamed live on the BBC on Saturday, showing one of them shouting the slogan into the mic, with some of the crowd joining in. They also performed in front of a screen that claimed Israel's actions in Gaza amount to "genocide". Posting on Instagram on Sunday, drummer Bobby Vylan doubled down by repeating elements of the chant alongside a picture of himself. The Israeli embassy posted on X in the hours after the set saying it was "deeply disturbed by the inflammatory and hateful rhetoric". It said the slogan used "advocates for the dismantling of the State of Israel". The post on X added: "When such messages are delivered before tens of thousands of festivalgoers and met with applause, it raises serious concerns about the normalisation of extremist language and the glorification of violence." In a separate post on X on Sunday, Israel's foreign ministry published graphic footage following the attack by Hamas on the Nova festival in Israel on 7 October 2023. The message directly appealed to those at Glastonbury who joined in the chants. "On October 7th, Hamas terrorists murdered hundreds of innocent partygoers at the Nova festival. For those at the Glastonbury festival who need a reality check, let this footage serve as a reminder to what you are supporting." Meanwhile the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) said it will be formally complaining to the BBC over its "outrageous decision" to broadcast the performance. Avon and Somerset Police said they are looking at whether a criminal offence was committed. "Video evidence will be assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation," the force said in a post on social media. Bob Vylan's set may have pushed things too far Bob Vylan, a punk-rap duo known for their politically charged lyrics taking on racism, fascism, police brutality, toxic masculinity, inequality and more, performed on the festival's third biggest stage, West Holts, with a capacity of about 30,000. They played to their own fans but no doubt thousands who had turned out to secure their place for the controversial Irish-language rappers Kneecap who followed. After the Bob Vylan performance was aired live, clips quickly flooded social media - shared by those supporting the band and condemning them. "The BBC didn't cover Kneecap's set at Glastonbury Festival over Free Palestine chants, so Bob Vylan, who BBC covered, stepped in," posted the Celebrities4Palestine account alongside a clip on Instagram, also shared by Bob Vylan. The IDF comments on stage may well have been made regardless. Or did Kneecap's "cancelling" by the BBC, as some people saw it, encourage other acts to speak out even more? Police are investigating both performances. Kneecap's Naoise O Caireallain, who performs under the name Moglai Bap, at one point mentioned "a riot outside the courts" over his bandmate Liam Og O hAnnaidh's (Mo Chara) upcoming second appearance on a terror charge, before clarifying: "No riots, just love and support, and support for Palestine." With its history of activism, Glastonbury has always championed free speech. But it seems Bob Vylan's set may have pushed things too far. It's fair to say that here at Glastonbury, for most of the 200,000 people on site this weekend, it is still all about the music. The majority did not see these sets and many are not even aware of the criticism outside Worthy Farm. Today is the final day of artist performances, with acts including Olivia Rodrigo, Rod Stewart and the Prodigy on the bill. But instead of the magic of the most famous festival in the world, both organisers and the broadcaster are now facing more questions about Bob Vylan and, to a lesser extent, Kneecap, as criticism mounts. Bob Vylan went on stage just ahead of a performance by Kneecap, the Irish rap band that the prime minister and others called to be removed from the Glastonbury and other festival line-ups over alleged on-stage endorsements of terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Ultimately, the BBC decided not to broadcast Kneecap's set live, but have since made it available to watch on catch-up on iPlayer. One of its members, Liam Og O hAnnaidh, was charged with a terror offence in May after being accused of displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah at a gig. His bandmate Naoise O Caireallain told Glastonbury crowds on Saturday they should "start a riot outside the courts", before clarifying: "No riots just love and support, and support for Palestine." O hAnnaidh - also known as Mo Chara - wore a Palestinian keffiyeh scarf for their set and told fans he was a "free man". Questions over why BBC broadcast chants The government's culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has spoken to BBC boss Tim Davie for an "urgent explanation" about what steps were taken around the Bob Vylan set. Speaking to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips on behalf of the government, Health Secretary Wes Streeting described the chant as "appalling" and a "shameless publicity stunt". "The fact that we saw that chant at a music festival - when there were Israelis at a similar music festival who were kidnapped, murdered, raped, and in some cases still held captive," he said in reference to the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack at the Nova music festival. He added that while "there's no justification for inciting violence against Israelis… the way in which Israel's conducting this war has made it extremely difficult for Israel's allies around the world to stand by and justify". "I'd also say to the Israeli embassy, get your own house in order, in terms of the conduct of your own citizens and the settlers in the West Bank," he told Phillips. Meanwhile, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch reposted a clip of the Bob Vylan set describing it as "grotesque". "Violence against Jews isn't edgy. The West is playing with fire if we allow this sort of behaviour to go unchecked," she said on X. Lucy McMullin, who was in the crowd for Bob Vylan, told Sky News: "When there's children and civilians being murdered and starved, then I think it's important that people are speaking out on these issues. "However, inciting more death and violence is not the way to do it." A BBC spokesperson confirmed the Bob Vylan stream will not be made available to watch on its iPlayer. "Some of the comments made during Bob Vylan's set were deeply offensive," their statement said. "During this live stream on iPlayer, which reflected what was happening on stage, a warning was issued on screen about the very strong and discriminatory language. We have no plans to make the performance available on demand."
