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
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Ex-wife of super rich equity boss was fighting her celebrity antiques dealer fiance for their £2.7m 18th century London home when she fell to her death from tower block
A mother who fell to her death from a city centre apartment block was embroiled in a bitter legal fight with her celebrity antiques dealer fiancé over their £2.7million London home. Rachel O'Hare, 49, was suing her ex-lover Owen Pacey, 60, for ownership of the five-storey Georgian mansion, in the trendy area of Spitalfields, before she died. According to court documents seen by the Mail, she claims she paid for the property and it was rightfully hers. Ms O'Hare alleged that Mr Pacey, a former squatter and self-made antique fireplace expert who counts Mick Jagger, Naomi Campbell, Kate Winslet and Orlando Bloom among his clients, had locked her out of the luxury home. She says he stopped her from collecting her belongings, refused to pay any bills and threatened to 'trash' the interior, which is packed with beautiful artwork, ornate Italian chandeliers and expensive designer furniture. The couple, who split acrimoniously in May last year, were due to go head to head over the property at a High Court trial in the next few months. But just four days after the most recent hearing in the case, at Leeds Combined Court, on June 26, Ms O'Hare was found dead. The exact details of what happened during the costs and case management hearing are unknown, but on June 30 her body was discovered on the pavement next to an apartment complex, in Manchester city centre, where she was living. Police said there are no suspicious circumstances and an inquest into her death is due to open next week. In a statement to the court, Ms O'Hare claimed Mr Pacey persuaded her to buy the elegant 18th Century house, in Wilkes Street, east London, in their joint names, in June 2021. She took out a loan and also used the proceeds of her divorce settlement from ex-husband, Steve O'Hare, 50, a Cheshire-based millionaire investment manager, with whom she had three teenage children, to pay for it. At that time, she and Mr Pacey had been together for less than a year following a whirlwind romance after meeting at his high-end fireplace showroom, Renaissance, which is based in a former Victorian pub, in Shoreditch, east London. Legal papers seen by MailOnline show that when the former couple bought the house together in 2021, they both signed an agreement specifying that if one of them were to die, ownership of the house would pass to the surviving partner The documents, drawn up by the solicitors who had handled the purchase of the historic Spitalfields house, had offered Mr Pacey and Ms O'Hare two options: they could either each own a specified proportion of the whole property or they could jointly own the whole with full ownership reverting to the surviving partner if the other predeceased them. Because they chase the latter option, the documents, signed on 1st August 2021, mean Owen Pacey became the sole owner of the £2.7 million 18th property in London following Rachel O'Hare's sudden death. In a newspaper interview while they were still a couple, Mr Pacey claimed it was love at first sight when they first met. 'She bought a table,' he said. 'That was it, as soon as I saw her.' Ms O'Hare said Mr Pacey, who was brought up in a council flat in gritty Bethnal Green and left school at 14 with no qualifications, promised to pay her his share of the four-bedroomed property within two years, once he had sold the £1.2million maisonette above the shop that he owned. 'The first defendant (Mr Pacey) said he had no money to contribute when the property was purchased but would be able to pay the claimant for his share in due course,' legal documents said. To give her peace of mind, Ms O'Hare said Mr Pacey also agreed to put half of his fireplace business, worth around £5million, in her name until he secured the monies. She also claimed they agreed to share the cost of renovating the house – they spent £14,000 on radiator valves alone – and, if he didn't pay his share or they split, it would revert back to her ownership. Mr Pacey gave her paperwork to sign, which persuaded her he was arranging the legal formalities, and also sent her reassuring texts, saying: 'You are on the title deed either of the flat or shop,' she said. Steve O'Hare (left) is co-managing partner of Equistone Partners Europe. Tributes have poured in for Rachel (right) who co-founded a charity for victims of domestic violence Shortly before Christmas, in 2022, the couple got engaged and Mr Pacey did 'gift' Ms O'Hare a 50 per cent share in the three-bedroomed maisonette. He moved into the newly renovated Wilkes Street property and told a journalist: 'I used to dream about living in Spitalfields. To actually live there now – I've never been so happy.' But Ms O'Hare remained in Mere, Cheshire, with her three school-age children and 10 months later, in October 2023, the couple's 'turbulent' relationship started hitting the rocks. Ms O'Hare discovered Mr Pacey had never formalised her 50 per cent stake in his business and they began arguing regularly over money. She claimed she had ended up paying the lion's share of the house refurbishment when he failed to pay builders' fees. She also alleged Mr Pacey was 'controlling' and instructed lawyers to begin legal action against him. 'The relationship between the claimant (Ms O'Hare) and the first defendant (Mr Pacey) was turbulent,' Ms O'Hare's claim said. 'Incidents led to temporary separations and there was a final and unequivocal parting in May 2024. 'The claimant contends that the cause of the breakdowns was the first defendant's controlling and abusive behaviour, which led to the involvement of the police.' In a defence statement also submitted to the court, Mr Pacey denied persuading Ms O'Hare, a respected fundraiser who set up a domestic abuse charity providing toiletries for women living in refuges, to buy the house in their joint names. He said she did so because they were 'in love' and there was no discussion or agreement about him eventually paying for half of the house or transferring over 50 per cent of his business. 'The parties (Ms O'Hare and Mr Pacey) were going to get married and there was just no discussion about who owned what,' his defence document said. Mr Pacey, who once described being made homeless and forced to live in a squat in King's Cross after having his first flat repossessed in the 1980s as the 'most traumatic thing I've ever been through,' also denied being controlling. He said they had only argued seriously twice - both times when Ms O'Hare had been drunk, in Rye, Kent, in the summer of 2023 and the night before they were departing to New York in May 2024. He also denied not allowing Ms O'Hare access to the property, now estimated to be worth in excess of £3.2m, or not paying bills or threatening to trash it. He claimed he paid £70,000 towards the house renovation and provided most of the furniture from his shop. He had also installed six Italian marble fireplaces, worth £350,000, and claimed Ms O'Hare had organised glossy magazine features to show off and promote the 2,700sq ft house, which they planned to rent out for use in £1,000-a-day photo shoots. According to his statement, dated February this year, he wanted to get the maisonette and the Georgian home valued, so that he could buy her out of both properties. When approached by the Mail, Mr Pacey refused to discuss his legal dispute with his former fiancee except to say: 'I worshipped the ground Rachel walked on.' He added that Ms O'Hare had been suffering from poor mental health in the weeks leading up to her death and had recently been treated in hospital. Mr Pacey said: 'I'm suffering with my own mental health. I don't want to be here without her.'
Telegraph
14 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
15 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.
