
Off-duty officers in Pride event told not to wear items linking them to police
High Court judge Mr Justice Linden said his ruling on Wednesday related only to the 2024 event and that it was up to the force to decide how it approaches Saturday's parade.
Northumbria Police has now confirmed uniformed officers will not be permitted to take part and said any of those who are off-duty and do participate must not visibly identify themselves as being officers or members of the force through clothing, flags, or accessories.
In an update on Friday, the force also said any participating off-duty officers must not 'express support for political aims (e.g. changes to law or policy) or opposition to other lawful views'.
On-duty attendance 'is only permitted where it forms part of the official policing response', the force said.
In a statement it said the approach was 'designed to maintain public confidence in our impartiality, while also respecting our employees' individual rights under the European Convention on Human Rights'.
It added: 'This guidance is not about limiting personal expression, but about ensuring that when our people represent Northumbria Police, they do so in a way that is fair, balanced, and impartial to all communities.'
Lindsey Smith, who describes herself as a 'gender critical' lesbian, took legal action against Northumbria Police over its decision to allow officers to participate in the Newcastle Pride in the City event last July, in which she also participated.
Lawyers for Ms Smith told the High Court that the officers' involvement breached impartiality rules, and that the decision to allow them to take part was unlawful, although barristers for the force opposed the challenge, claiming the decision, made by Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine, was within her 'discretion'.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Linden said Ms Smith is opposed to 'gender ideology', which she believes is 'wrong and dangerous' but has been 'embraced' by the organisers of the event, Northern Pride.
While Ms Smith agreed that the event should be policed, she objected to officers 'associating themselves with the views of supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists by actively participating', the judge said.
Last year's event saw uniformed officers march with some carrying flags which included Pride colours alongside police insignia, and others wearing uniforms with the word 'Police' in Pride colours.
There was also a 'static display' staffed by uniformed officers, which displayed a Progressive Pride flag, which includes representation of transgender and non-binary people, people of marginalised ethnicities and those living with Aids, the judge said.
A police van with the colours of the transgender Pride flag painted on its sides was also present, the court was told.
Northumbria Police said it will have a community engagement display at Northern Pride this weekend, adding that it believed a complete withdrawal of police engagement from such events 'would be a retrograde step and damage trust and confidence amongst members of LGBTQ+ community'.
The force added: 'We want to ensure everyone knows that we are absolutely here for them when they need us.'
The LGB Alliance charity called on the rest of the UK's police forces to follow suit on the withdrawal of uniformed officers from such events and to put in place measures around the participation of off-duty officers.
The charity's chief executive Kate Barker said: 'Since our founding, LGB Alliance has been working with police and crime commissioners to raise our supporters' concerns about partisan policing that favours gender activists over LGB people.
'We will continue this work until the UK's remaining 42 forces follow the lead of their colleagues in Northumbria, and stop endorsing a movement they do not understand.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
10 hours ago
- Telegraph
Our immigration rules are collapsing under legal activism and political cowardice
Is it too much to ask for 24 hours without a fresh immigration scandal? After the Afghan refugee leak, you'd be forgiven for thinking we'd hit peak dysfunction. Yet, like a bad horror movie franchise that doesn't know when to end, it has already lurched back with something even more grotesque. As if the Government deliberately keeping us in the dark about the scheme weren't enough – and that the refugees weren't vetted – it has been revealed that once the scheme was launched, ministers almost immediately lost control of who would arrive. Initially, the Defence Secretary wanted to restrict the criteria for 'family' to spouses and children; yet the UK Courts, predictably extending the European Convention on Human Rights so thin the leather could scare hold, repeatedly expanded the eligibility criteria. And then High Court judge Mrs Justice Yip has provided a ruling that, if the principle is extended to asylum claimants outside the scheme, could see a much larger number of people arrive to Britain every year than previously expected. In a case brought against the Foreign Office by an Afghan national already residing in the UK, she ruled that family members did not need to have a blood or legal relationship to the applicant, stating that; 'the word 'family' may mean different things to different people and in different contexts. There may be cultural considerations … there is no requirement for a blood or legal connection.' If 'family' means different things to different people, then some took it as a free-for-all; the average arrival brought eight relatives with them under the scheme, with one accompanied by a staggering 22 family members. Mrs Yip is just the latest in a line of judges who've developed a nasty habit of massively expanding immigration criteria through the courts against the express limitations placed by Ministers. Earlier this year Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor allowed a Palestinian family of six to settle in the UK under the Ukraine Family Scheme – despite them not qualifying – by invoking their Article 8 right to family life, overriding both the scheme's limits and Parliament's clear intent. It is increasingly questionable whether we can actually call Britain's immigration system a system at all. The system implies a sense of control, or order; what is actually happening is that Britain's immigration rules are collapsing under a trifecta of legal activism, bureaucratic complicity and political cowardice. Whether or not you agree or not with the need for it, the Afghan scheme was always going to be targeted. But even an attempt to design a limited scheme is seen as nothing more than another opportunity to challenge the right of politicians to set limits in the first place, and create an unbounded migration route; thus migrants have a right to a 'family life' enshrined in law, but the word 'family' no longer has a fixed meaning. When one man can bring twenty-two others on the basis of a personal definition, what we have is not a loophole but an invitation.

The National
12 hours ago
- The National
Police pulled from Glasgow Pride over 'impartiality' concerns
The decision comes after the High Court ruled that Northumbria Police breached its duty of neutrality by allowing officers to participate in a Pride event in uniform. In response, Police Scotland has confirmed that no officers will take part in the Glasgow Pride march in uniform, a reversal from previous years where police presence was seen as a symbol of support and inclusivity. READ MORE: Martin Compston says Unionist abuse made him stop independence posts Deputy Chief Constable Alan Speirs stated: 'We will continue to engage closely with event organisers, although no officers will participate in forthcoming events in uniform.' He added: 'We continue to review the UK High Court judgment on Northumbria Police's participation in Newcastle Pride 2024 and its implications.' 'We will ensure Police Scotland's response to events continues to be in line with our values and code of ethics, providing a professional and impartial service which upholds the human rights of all.' In 2023, dozens of officers were paid to take part in Pride events, with many visibly supporting LGBTQ+ communities by marching with flags and signing inclusive banners. Chief Superintendent Lynn Ratcliff was among those who supported the initiative, saying she wanted her division to be the 'most inclusive area in Police Scotland". However, after this week's legal ruling, even planned lower-level engagement like community stalls has been cancelled. The Scottish Police Federation, which represents frontline officers, supported the decision while reaffirming its values. General Secretary David Kennedy said: 'We proudly support the principles and values of the Pride movement ... but participating in any march while on duty, including Pride, can give rise to questions around neutrality.' He added: 'Officers who wish to take part in Pride events in their own time should be supported and encouraged to do so.' READ MORE: NHS Fife staff 'faced violent threats' amid Sandie Peggie tribunal Critics argue that the move reflects growing political pressure on public institutions to distance themselves from progressive causes. According to Mail Online reports, Kath Murray, of gender-critical think tank Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, described police participation in past Pride events as 'institutional capture.' For many LGBTQ+ advocates, the absence of uniformed officers marks a significant setback in the effort to build trust, safety, and equality in policing. ScottishTrans have been contacted for comment.


Scottish Sun
12 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Police Scotland ban uniformed officers from taking part in Pride march
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) SCOTTISH cops have been banned from marching in pride parades while on-duty. An LGBT+ march will be held on the streets of Glasgow today, but unlike previous years there will be no uniformed cops taking part. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 4 A pride parade will be held in Glasgow today Credit: Getty 4 Uniformed cops will not be taking part Credit: Tom Farmer - The Sun Glasgow 4 The march decision followed a ruling from the High Court Credit: Tom Farmer It comes after an English police force was found to have "breached impartiality" by the High Court. Northumbria Police's Chief Constable was found to have acted unlawfully by allowing uniformed cops to take in part in last year's Newcastle Pride. It was argued officers taking part in the parade could harm the force's impartiality if a dispute kicked off between gender-critical and trans rights supporters. After the ruling, Scottish cops are now not marching in the event today in Glasgow. It is understood uniformed officers were already not taking part in the parade, but the court ruling saw force chiefs ditch plans for information stalls had been ditched. Officers will still be able to attend the pride parade if they are off duty. Deputy Chief Constable Alan Speirs told the Daily Mail: "Police Scotland has vast experience in policing events and in the coming days we will continue to do so in a professional, engaging, and proportionate manner. "Glasgow's Pride will be no different and we will continue to engage closely with event organisers, although no officers will participate in forthcoming events in uniform. "We continue to review the UK High Court judgement on Northumbria Police's participation in Newcastle Pride 2024 and its implications. "We will ensure Police Scotland's response to events continues to be in line with our values and code of ethics, providing a professional and impartial service which upholds the human rights of all." NYC Pride ends in chaos after teen girl shot in the head near Stonewall Inn hours after 50 hurt by bear spray attack The Scottish Police Federation (SPF), which represents rank-and-file cops welcomed the decision. SPF General Secretary David Kennedy said they support the values of pride but said officers taking part in any kind of march could harm the force's objectivity. He said: "The SPF proudly supports the principles and values of the Pride movement, including equality, inclusion, and the right of all individuals - regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity - to live free from discrimination and prejudice. "Participating in any march while on duty, including Pride, can give rise to questions around neutrality and may impact perceptions of police objectivity. "Officers who wish to take part in Pride events in their own time should be supported and encouraged to do so, and we welcome efforts to facilitate this wherever possible. 'Supporting Pride and supporting operational clarity are not mutually exclusive—we believe both can, and should, co-exist."