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
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Woman who harassed Dubai businessman who she had one-night stand with after meeting in a nightclub is facing arrest after no-show in court
A woman who was ordered to pay £25,000 damages after harassing a Dubai businessman she had a one-night stand with is facing arrest following a no-show in court. Cynthia Chia, 38, was ordered to pay the five-figure sum, for both harassment and libel, to energy trader Idowu Ogunkanmi, 44, after she launched a 'horrific' campaign of harassment and falsely accused him of raping her. She met the father of three in a London nightclub in 2015, and they had a one-night stand before Mr Ogunkanmi flew back to Dubai, where he lives and works. The High Court heard earlier this month that in the following months, Chia subjected him to a 'sustained, relentless and vindictive' campaign of harassment that lasted almost nine years. A restraining order was imposed on Chia, and she was due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court for breaching it twice, but failed to turn up. Prosecutor Rizwan Amin said: 'On March 23, Chia is alleged to have posted images of Mr Ogunkanmi on social media. 'She later spotted Mr Ogunkanmi on a street, when she approached and called him out by name, and then proceeded to insult him.' Mr Amin said the same offence happened again on May 3. Magistrate Simon Burke ordered a warrant for Chia's arrest. The High Court was told Chia falsely claimed Mr Ogunkanmi drugged her, raped her and bribed police officers to destroy evidence against him. She also made a series of untrue online posts about him. Speaking exclusively to MailOnline earlier this month, Mr Ogunkanmi said: 'When I met her she seemed perfectly normal. For someone to be that persistent for so long on a lie, I pray for her. There's definitely something wrong with her, I don't know what it is. 'I met this person for less than 12 hours, that was it... to me that's been the scariest part.' Mr Ogunkanmi says he was left 'traumatised' and 'shocked' by the allegations, explaining: 'I think she is a very hateful and troublesome person and she lied for so many years about something like that, reposting the same thing. 'There were so many accusations: rape, stealing her kids, conniving with the Met Police, getting her pregnant. It was all just baseless accusations. The accusations were beyond belief. I only ever met her once in my life. 'She probably thought I had a lot of money and was looking to extort me. Because I refused to be extorted, she started this hateful Instagram campaign on me and her friend. 'It's unbelievable that anyone could come up with these kind of things.' Mr Ogunkami says he is relieved by the legal victory but believes he should have been awarded more 'as it does not fully account for the depth of damage to my reputation and well-being'. He also said social media companies have a greater role to play, adding: 'Anyone can just go to the internet now or Instagram, create a fake post and say anything about anyone and Instagram will keep it there. I don't understand it. 'There are people who could have committed suicide. You could lose your job, you could lose your family just by someone out there creating these remarks about you.' Court documents show the pair met when Mr Ogunkanmi asked one of Ms Chia's friends, Prisca Okoye, to pass on his number to her. They partied together at the Steam Bar in the Hilton Hotel, Paddington, west London, and proceeded to have a one-night-stand at his room later that night. Mr Ogunkanmi then flew back to Dubai the following day and despite only meeting once, they stayed in contact. However, by early 2016 their relationship exploded when Ms Chia accused him of having sex with Ms Okoye which they both denied. It was at this point that Ms Chia then began to repeatedly confront Mr Ogunkanmi about allegedly having sex with her friend - including threatening to 'destroy' him and asking him to send her thousands of pounds. Mr Ogunkanmi, who admits he continued to speak to her about other matters, says he transferred her £250 which he believed was to cover her phone bill. However, the intimidating messages from Ms Chia then escalated with her threatening to tell his friends and repeatedly calling his workplace, sometimes more than 100 times a day, the court heard. Distressed by the harassment, Mr Ogunkanmi returned to London in May 2016 to report Ms Chia to the Met Police. She was arrested and quizzed over the allegations in June that year before being bailed on the condition that she did not contact him or contact his colleagues. But just six weeks later, Ms Chia texted one of his colleagues, saying Mr Ogunkanmi 'will spend the rest of his life in jail.' However, this was only the start. Mr Ogunkanmi's world would come crashing down when Ms Chia then accused him of raping her in September 2016. He returned to London for a voluntary police interview in October 2017 and was subsequently cleared when detectives told him that no further action would be taken over the rape allegation. But by January 2018, she started to bombard him with calls again before setting up multiple Instagram profiles - with names including cindylicious11 and u_smell-nice-witch - where she would post defamatory statements, the court heard. In the flurry of posts, she repeatedly accused him of being a 'rapist' and shared his name and photo publicly. She also alleged that he had paid police officers and medical staff to destroy evidence. Launching a lawsuit against Ms Chia, he claimed that the impression of the posts from a member of the public would be that he was a 'rapist' and that he had paid authorities to 'alter or destroy the evidence in the course of a criminal investigation against him.' Ms Chia continued to share defamatory posts on Instagram over several years between January 2018 and at least December 2021. On December 31, 2021, where she shared a photo of his face and claimed he had 'drugged, raped and impregnated' her. In September 2022, the harassment continued on Twitter, now X, where she repeated the allegation that he was a rapist. She then made an Instagram account with the username rapist_trying_to_avoid_justice where she again shared photos of his face and published eight defamatory posts. Amid the bombardment of false allegations, she also claimed he had abused her child, tagging the Met Police, Dubai Police and National Crime Agency. Mr Ogunkanmi sued her for defamation amid her online claims that he was a rapist, drugged her, bribed police officers and medical staff to destroy evidence, conspired to pervert the course of justice and abused her child. He said the impact 'would have on his reputation are obviously so severe as to pass the threshold of serious harm on their face'. His lawyer, Mr Symes, submitted that his client should have been awarded £120,000 for the harassment and defamation - however the judge ruled Ms Chia would only be ordered to pay £25,000. Mr Ogunkanmi also sued Ms Chia over harassment following her repeated calls to him and his workplace as well as threatening damaging messages to his family and friends. Ms Chia did not appear in court and was not represented. Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre said she 'has not engaged at all with the proceedings', which resulted in a default judgment being ordered. The judge therefore only had to rule the amount of damages to award against Ms Chia and whether any injunctive relief was required against her. Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre ruled: 'It is important for general damages in a defamation action to vindicate the Claimant's good name and it should be clear, from this judgment, that there is no truth at all in the defamatory posts. 'The fact that the Mr Ogunkanmi had a consensual sexual encounter with Ms Chia does not reflect 'a kernel of truth' and in no way justifies the horrific campaign of harassment, abuse and defamation that he has been subjected to for over nine years. 'The posts were clearly malicious which may be considered an aggravating factor and one for which a degree of compensation is due for injury to feelings. 'In light of all the circumstances of this case, weighing up the gravity of the allegations, the backdrop of years of harassment, malicious intent and a failure to engage on the part of the Defendant against the very meagre evidence of harm, particularly in this jurisdiction, and the limited distribution of the libel, I award a global figure of £25,000 in damages for both the harassment and the libel.' The court also heard that 'arising out of her obsession with Mr Ogunkanmi, she has 'physically attacked Ms Okoye several times in public'. Ms Chia was convicted of common assault in February and sentenced to 10 weeks in prison with a restraining order for five years. The judge also ruled that injunctive relief was 'justified' to protect Mr Ogunkanmi's reputation and his right to a private life. The judge added: 'It is clear that such injunctive relief is a necessary and proportionate measure to put a stop to the ongoing attacks on the Claimant.'
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Lucy Letby colleague wins legal case over hospital visits probe
A former colleague of Lucy Letby has won a High Court claim against the NHS trust where he works over an investigation into what he knew about the killer nurse when he arranged for her to visit another as Dr MN because he testified at Letby's first criminal trial, he said the trust, which also cannot be identified, breached his contract because of how it proposed to investigate consultant had formerly worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital on the same neonatal unit as Letby - who is serving 15 whole life terms for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six Justice Sheldon ruled in the doctor's favour at the High Court earlier. The court was told that after moving to another hospital, Dr MN had arranged for several supervised visits for Letby to the new hospital in late 2016 and early had told his trust's deputy chief medical officer about his involvement in the trial and how he was involved in supervised visits for Letby at the trust's chief medical officer prepared a draft letter saying he was content Dr MN "had no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Letby at the time of the visits", Mr Justice Sheldon wrote in his judgment.A few days later, however, the trust received a complaint from a mother of a baby who had been treated by Dr MN which alleged he shared confidential information about her son with Letby by email and Facebook. 'Term of contract' The trust then told Dr MN it wanted to investigate him over what he knew about Letby when she visited their MN said the trust breached its employment contract because it wanted to appoint someone other than its chief medical officer to oversee the judge ruled: "It is a term of Dr MN's contract of employment that the case manager should be the medical director, in this case, the chief medical officer, for the matters that are the subject of the present investigation."Letby, 35, who has always maintained her innocence, lost two bids last year to challenge her convictions at the Court of Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, is reviewing her convictions. Earlier this month, prosecutors revealed they were considering bringing further charges against her following the deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at hospitals where she worked. Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
BreakingNews.ie
2 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Gavin Pepper agrees to abide by certain orders but denies filming finance firm boss's son
Dublin city councillor Gavin Pepper has told the High Court he is prepared to abide by orders prohibiting him from attending or filming outside the homes of staff of credit servicing and asset management firm Pepper Finance Corporation. Cllr Pepper, an independent who was elected in the Ballymun/Finglas area, has denied he shot footage for social media outside Pepper managing director Ian Wigglesworth's west Dublin home or of the businessman's son, who has special needs. Advertisement He told the court he and his partner have a child with special needs themselves and had every sympathy with someone in the same situation. He also said that when he was outside the Wigglesworth home, he did not engage with Mr Wigglesworth's son, and it was the child who approached him while he was talking on the phone to his partner. On Tuesday, Mr Wigglesworth and Pepper were granted an interim injunction preventing the councillor from attending the Wigglesworth home or filming and watching him and his family or from publishing home addresses of Pepper employees. That application was made ex parte - meaning only the Wigglesworth/Pepper side was represented - and on Thursday Mr Pepper appeared himself, saying he wished to be given time to get legal representation. Advertisement Cllr Pepper, who is also a taxi driver, of Plunkett Green, Finglas, Dublin, was also required to remove social media posts which contain footage of videoing which took place outside Mr Wigglesworth's home. Brian Conroy SC, for Mr Wigglesworth and Pepper Finance, said Cllr Pepper has a well-established association with the far right and social media posts promoting far-right ideas. Mr Conroy said that while Mr Pepper had since Tuesday agreed to some of the orders, he did not seem prepared to delete certain social media posts or not attend homes of other Pepper employees. Cllr Pepper told Mr Justice Brian Cregan he was prepared to comply with most of the orders made on Tuesday, but he said a number of allegations had been made against him which were not true, including that he had recorded the Wigglesworth family. Advertisement However, certain orders now sought in relation to deleting posts would interfere with his role as a democratically elected representative and his constitutional right to free speech. He needed time to get legal representation, he said. Mr Conroy said his side was particularly concerned in relation to certain posts already up in relation to Mr Wigglesworth and his family. These and other posts were clearly threatening and crossed the line in relation to freedom of expression, counsel said. His claims about Mr Wigglesworth's son "rang hollow" when there was one video in which Cllr Pepper is clearly outside the Wigglesworth home and there is clear identification of a minor who is a member of that family. Advertisement Asked by the judge if he was prepared to abide by the order not to attend outside the homes of other Pepper employees, he said he was. Asked if he was prepared to take down four specific posts, Cllr Pepper said he wanted time to challenge it "because they are making out that I am a bad guy". He did not believe "anything I said was defamation". The judge said he had an absolute right to express any 'understandable grievances about vulture funds", but the business was saying some of the posts clearly crossed the line. Pepper Finance Corporation do not think they can be called a vulture fund, the court heard. Cllr Pepper agreed to a suggestion by the judge that he would take down the posts until the case returns before the court in October, when he will also have a chance to get a solicitor to argue his case in that respect. Advertisement Business Couple allege Pepper Finance is pursuing them over... Read More He also said he did not accept that he was some sort of bad person, and he thought looking for extra orders in this way was unfair before he got representation. The judge said he would have the opportunity to address what he felt was tarnishing his name and an unfair portrayal of him so far when he swears an affidavit. The judge said he would make an order in relation to taking four posts of June 12, July 24, 25 and 27 within seven days of making the order. He also made similar orders on Tuesday in relation to other Pepper employees. The orders must be complied with within seven days of them being formally made. He also gave both sides liberty to apply to the vacation courts should anything arise between now and October.
