Bristol's Flag Controversy: Why Only Bedminster's Green Councillor Got To Explain Labour Hartcliffe's Symbols.
When higher-crime Bedminster explains why lower-crime Hartcliffe's symbols must go, Bristol Live printed only one side.
[Image: Bristol Live]
On January 20th I published data showing Bristol’s flag controversy inverted every claim made about it. Petitioners demanding removal lived in higher-crime areas than the communities they targeted. Bedminster East: 79 crimes in November 2025. Hartcliffe & Withywood where flags spread: didn’t crack the top 30.
Central ward, Bristol’s affluent Green centre: 747 crimes. No flags.
The next day, Bedminster councillor Ellie Freeman published 1,000 words in Bristol Live explaining her position. The flags started in her ward, spread to Hartcliffe, Filwood, Southmead. Police were called to Bedminster confrontations. Flags taken down, put back up.
Freeman spoke to “both sides” and concluded: “These people do not represent Bedminster.”
Bristol Live published her perspective unchallenged. No Bedminster residents who support flags were quoted. No Labour councillors from Hartcliffe, Filwood, or Southmead—where flags spread—were asked to respond.
Here’s how you dismiss your own constituents as unrepresentative while speaking for other wards too.
Freeman’s Journey (Both Sides Heard, One Side Published).
“The flags in Bedminster ward have dominated my ward work since September 9.”
Her ward. Her constituents. Some put up flags. Others opposed them. Police called to Bedminster confrontations.
Initial reaction: push for removal. Proud of Loveable Neighbourhood Care Bears and welcome messages.
Then the turn. People “felt left behind, ignored, protesting against the Government.”
She spoke to both sides. Working-class men, immigrants, mixed race families. All in Bedminster.
Then flags spread. “From Bedminster to Ashton Vale to Bedminster Down to Hartcliffe.” Five wards.
No mention she consulted Hartcliffe, Filwood, or Southmead residents about their flags.
But Freeman discovered flags “mean different things to different people.”
She “only saw the Union Jack as unity and peace until I learnt it was used during the Empire.”
Those who see it positively haven’t learnt yet. Who teaches them? Freeman. From Bedminster. About Hartcliffe’s symbols.
The Scale Problem.
Five South Bristol wards. 44 flags on one commute. Multiple flags per pole.
Not celebrating Rugby World Cups or Jubilees. “By staying up so long, they take away the impact they could have.”
Impact on council’s monopoly over flag celebrations?
The Harm Claim.
“We have seen a rise in racist and Islamophobic incidents.”
Correlation as causation. No data. No evidence flag-placers responsible.
Freeman witnessed hotel protests. “Know how scared those people felt.”
Moral witness. Counter-protester. Her wrestling never in doubt.
When Democracy Becomes Useful.
“Most of South Bristol voted for Green or Labour councillors.”
Electoral results determine legitimacy?
“Behind the flag operation is a small group determined to impose their views.”
After validating them as frustrated working-class voices, they’re now an imposing minority.
Freeman adds harassment claims: “Some have followed people home, put up threatening stickers, intimidated residents in Bedminster. One resident no longer walks to the local park because she does not feel safe.”
These are serious allegations. Bristol Live published them without seeking comment from anyone accused. No investigation mentioned. Just Freeman’s account, unchallenged.
Consultation (For Thee, Not For Me).
“At least the council asks before they put in a tree, or a crossing.”
Freeman discovers consultation matters. The council that ignored 54% opposition to East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood. The council with two ICO enforcement notices for refusing transparency requests.
But Freeman praises council consultation because she’s not speaking for the 54% ignored. She speaks for areas that agree with her.
“These people have not consulted their neighbours or asked the council. They have imposed these flags outside homes, schools and businesses.”
If imposition without consultation is wrong, what about council schemes imposed despite majority opposition?
Who Speaks For Bedminster? (Not The People Who Live There)
“These people do not represent Bedminster.”
Freeman is the Bedminster councillor. The flags started in Bedminster. Bedminster residents put them up. Other Bedminster residents took them down. Police called to Bedminster confrontations.
Freeman spoke to both sides in Bedminster, then concluded one side doesn’t represent Bedminster.
The flags spread to Hartcliffe, Filwood, Southmead. Labour wards. Freeman doesn’t represent those areas. No mention she consulted residents there about what their flags mean.
But she’s confident about the conclusion for all five wards: a small unrepresentative group imposing views.
Freeman: residents “begged this council to make their neighbourhood feel like the one we love again.”
Begged. Not demanded. Not exercised democratic rights. Begged.
This exposes Freeman’s framing—she positions residents as supplicants to the council’s benevolence, not citizens with democratic power.
Bedminster or Hartcliffe?
“These flags are not solving poverty, not creating jobs, creating division and fear.”
Neither are council schemes. But only flags fail the test.
Freeman ends satisfied: “I am glad to hear the council has listened and will be taking action to remove flags.”
The council has listened. To Bedminster residents uncomfortable with symbols in other wards.
Bristol Live’s Editorial Choice.
Bristol Live published Freeman’s 1,000-word statement in full.
No Bedminster residents who support flags were quoted—despite Freeman saying she spoke to both sides.
No Labour councillors from Hartcliffe, Filwood, or Southmead—where flags spread—were asked about their wards.
Just Freeman explaining why her constituents don’t represent her ward, and why flags in other wards should come down too.
This is how you dismiss your own constituents as unrepresentative. Speak to both sides. Publish one. Frame it as balanced because you “wrestled” with complexity before reaching the conclusion you started with.
Which makes me wonder what she did with the remaining fifty-nine minutes of that hour.
Green In Every Sense.
Freeman spoke to both sides in Bedminster. Heard frustrated voices. Then concluded they don’t represent Bedminster. Both sides of West Street, perhaps?
She’s either genuinely unable to see that dismissing your own constituents while claiming to listen to them is a contradiction, or she’s ideologically committed to positions where listening means validating the side you already agree with.
Either way, it’s green. The colour. The party. The unripeness.
The flags will come down. Freeman will be praised for wrestling with complexity. The Bedminster residents she dismissed as unrepresentative won’t get Bristol Live interviews.
And Hartcliffe, Filwood, Southmead—where flags spread—learned that Labour councillors don’t get asked what their communities think. Green councillors from other wards explain it for them.
Bristol Live helped teach that lesson by asking only one side to explain what communities they don’t represent were thinking.
That’s ventriloquism.
And the dummy doesn’t get to answer back.
About This Series
This article builds on “Bristol’s Flag War: When the Crime Data Destroys Your ‘Community Safety’ Narrative” which documented how petitioners from higher-crime areas demanded flag removal from lower-crime working-class wards using safety justifications the data contradicted.
The Almighty Gob documents Bristol City Council accountability through Freedom of Information requests, meeting minutes, and pattern recognition. No mainstream media backing. No party funding. No lobbyist donations. Just one bloke with documents and three questions: Is it practical? Is it logical? What’s the likely outcome?
Since May 2024: 88 articles on Bristol Data. Two ICO enforcement notices documented. Multiple tribunal rulings covered. Zero apologies for refusing to pretend chaos is order.