Pride rainbows taken off police cars after court ruling
Northumbria Police has also told its officers and staff they cannot attend a Gay Pride march in uniform this weekend, in a move that could set a precedent for other forces.
Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine ordered the removal of all diversity-based symbols from police cars and vans after a judge rebuked her force over its lack of impartiality.
Northumbria was taken to court by a gender-critical lesbian who said it was wrong for officers to take part in events that promoted gender ideology.
Now, in a letter seen by the Telegraph, the force has confirmed it is withdrawing all visible support for this year's Northern Pride.
Going even further, Ms Jardine, who is LGBT+ communities lead for the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), said all of Northumbria's police vehicles would have Pride livery removed.
The letter stated: 'This work has commenced but may take a short amount of time. No vehicle carrying Pride, Progress and/or transgender colours and/or insignia will be deployed at the Northern Pride march and there are currently no vehicles with this livery deployed operationally.'
The letter made clear that officers and staff would not be allowed to attend the march wearing uniform or anything else that identifies them as being associated with Northumbria Police.
In addition the letter stated that while there would be a police stall at the event, there would be 'no Pride, Progress or transgender colours/insignia on display'.
It is not clear whether Ms Jardine's approach will now be mirrored by other forces, but her role in the NPCC means her position is likely to carry some weight.
The move comes after Linzi Smith, 34, a gender-critical lesbian from Newcastle, brought a case against Northumbria Constabulary, arguing that it had been wrong to allow uniformed officers to actively participate in an event that promoted gender ideology and was supported by transgender activists.
In his ruling, the judge, Mr Justice Linden, said it was important that police forces were not perceived as taking sides in contentious social debates.
He said: 'The fact that the officers had publicly stated their support for transgender rights by taking part in the 2024 march would be likely to give the impression that they may not deal with the matter fairly and impartially.'
The judge was clear that his comments were only a reflection on the force's conduct during last year's march and it was unclear what Northumbria Police's approach would be for this year's event, which is due to take place in Newcastle on Saturday.
The founder of Fair Cop, an organisation which was set up to remove politics from policing and supported the legal challenge, welcomed the move and said hopefully other forces would now follow.
Harry Miller said: 'There was never any place for contested livery on a police van, and we are relieved that the Chief Constable has finally seen sense.
'The message it gave was stark, brutal and overtly political: comply, shut up, or risk facing the consequences.
'A healthy democracy requires rigorous debate, and a police force which remains unstintingly vanilla. Our hope is that chief officers throughout the UK will take note of the positive action by Vanessa Jardine and follow suit.'
Following the High Court ruling, Gavin Stephens, chairman of the NPCC, said forces were working through the details of this judgment.
He added: 'We are also working with the College of Policing on broader guidance which will help local forces make decisions around participation in events to maintain their impartiality.
'Policing values all our communities and will continue to police in a way that aims to build trust and confidence, including among those who have less confidence in our service.
'This is the cornerstone of good policing and especially neighbourhood policing. Our desire to ensure we recognise and provide good policing for all communities will remain unchanged.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Elite police unit to monitor online critics of migrants
An elite team of police officers is to monitor social media for anti-migrant sentiment amid fears of summer riots. Detectives will be drawn from forces across the country to take part in a new investigations unit that will flag up early signs of potential civil unrest. The division, assembled by the Home Office, will aim to 'maximise social media intelligence' gathering after police forces were criticised over their response to last year's riots. It comes amid growing concern that Britain is facing another summer of disorder, as protests outside asylum hotels spread. On Saturday, crowds gathered in towns and cities including Norwich, Leeds and Bournemouth to demand action, with more protests planned for Sunday. Angela Rayner warned the Cabinet last week that the Government must act to address the 'the real concerns that people have' about immigration. But critics on Saturday night branded the social media plans 'disturbing' and raised concerns over whether they would lead to a restriction of free speech. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'Two-tier Keir can't police the streets, so he's trying to police opinions instead. They're setting up a central team to monitor what you post, what you share, what you think, because deep down they know the public don't buy what they're selling. 'Labour have stopped pretending to fix Britain and started trying to mute it. This is a Prime Minister who's happy to turn Britain into a surveillance state, but won't deport foreign criminals, won't patrol high streets, won't fund frontline policing. 'Labour are scared of the public, Labour don't trust the public, Labour don't even know the public.' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, said: 'This is the beginning of the state controlling free speech. It is sinister, dangerous and must be fought. Reform UK will do just that.' In a further sign of dissent over the Government's approach to social media, campaigners claimed on Saturday that posts about anti-migrant protests in the past week had been censored because of new online safety laws.
Leader Live
27 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Car expert explains what speed will trigger a speed camera
However, many drivers are unaware of how speed cameras actually work – with several myths being widely believed across the UK. Though regardless of how much you know about speed cameras, with speeding fines ranging from fixed penalties to points on your licence and even court appearances the best advice is to not risk it. (Image: KevinHolt/Getty) Speed cameras work using radar or road markings to monitor a vehicle's speed and capture evidence of any offence. While older cameras used film, most modern devices are fully digital and can even track your average speed over many miles. These digital systems record: In some cases, they even capture a clear image of the driver and passenger. Contrary to common belief, there's no universal '10% + 2mph' rule baked into law. Experts from explained: ''The idea that you're safe doing 35mph in a 30 zone is one of the biggest myths we hear. 'Technically, you're liable for a fine the moment you go even 1mph over the limit.' While the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) does recommend a '10% plus 2' margin to allow for officer discretion, this is not a legal threshold and can vary depending on the enforcement area or the officer reviewing the case. RAC advice adds: 'The law states that you are liable for a speeding fine as soon as you exceed the limit, so if you're doing 31mph in a 30 limit or 71mph on a motorway, you're breaking the law and could receive a fine. 'It is well worth remembering this is totally dependent on the officer who catches the speeder, and it is up to that officer whether to fine the offender or not. 'The best advice is to not speed full stop.' Here are some other common speed camera myths: No. There are no laws about visibility, so nothing is stopping an officer from operating in the dark. But they don't often choose to do this and maintain that being visible acts as a deterrent in its own right. Go Safe Casualty Reduction Officer, Gareth Thomas said: "Legally, we don't have to be visible. I could camouflage myself if I wanted to - but it's all about being fair, education and preventing an accident. Even if I parked my van and went for a walk somewhere, it would deter people from speeding right away." If drivers choose to flash to warn others about a speed van, they could be in breach of the law. Under section 89 of the Police Act 1997 it is an offence to "wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his/her duty". However, Gareth says while it is an offence, it is very difficult to prove. He said: "It doesn't bother me that people flash to warn them of the speed van - I just want to educate people and the van to act as a speed deterrent." It all comes down to the circumstances within which you were caught speeding, and how much you were more than the limit. The minimum penalty for being caught speeding on the UK's roads is a £100 fine. But Gareth explained in some circumstances, police can offer the option of attending a speed awareness course - an alternative to a fine and penalty points. Gareth, said: "An accredited course is far more likely to improve driver behaviour and consequently make our roads safer. "Courses are available to drivers who respond quickly to the 'notices' and who were driving at no more than 10 per cent, plus 9 mph above the posted speed limit." So for example, anyone travelling over 86mph on a motorway would not be offered the awareness course. Those who don't have a clean licence at the time of the office, or if you have been on the course in the last three years, it is unlikely you will be offered the awareness course as an option.
The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Beware the blizzard of lies: US advice on how to handle Farage's Trump tactics
Truth, the progressive California politician Hiram Johnson once said, is the first casualty of war. His oft-cited remark was supposedly made in 1918 in reference to the first world war, which had by then caused millions of human casualties. More than a century later, truth is again caught in the crossfire, this time as a casualty of 21st-century culture wars. If Donald Trump is the high priest of disinformation, then Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, is showing signs of being a willing disciple, if his behaviour in the UK this week is anything to go by. Farage has proposed sending prisoners abroad – including to El Salvador, where the Trump administration has sent hundreds of deportees and suggested sending US citizens. He also suggested an extensive police recruitment drive and prison-building programme all while cutting health and education spending. The parroting of Trump's policies by a UK populist has not gone unnoticed in the US. And for those who have studied the president's modus operandi, there is one particular tactic the British public should be braced for: the blizzard of lies and false statements that frequently overwhelms his opponents. The Trump experience, they say, contains sobering lessons for Farage's critics. US pro-democracy campaigners says Trump has become even harder to factcheck since his first term, thanks to a combination of factors including looser social media content moderation and a reluctance among some media owners to stand up to his intimidation. The Washington Post, which tracked more than 30,000 lies or misleading statements from Trump during his presidency, lost subscribers and public trust after its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, reportedly vetoed an editorial endorsing the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president. 'It's become more difficult because there's less commitment from those who are in the best position to do the factchecking,' said Omar Noureldin, a senior vice-president for Common Cause, a non-partisan group. 'Seeking the truth here comes with costs and risks.' Complicating matters is the loss of trust in institutions, with many consumers relying on social media platforms for news. 'Even the best factchecking can be unpersuasive, because we're not just facing an information crisis here, but also a trust crisis in the American information ecosystem,' Noureldin said. Media watchers say the political environment has become so deeply polarised that factchecking can even have the counter-productive effect of further entrenching misplaced beliefs. 'From a lot of research, we're reaching the conclusion that factchecking hasn't been as effective as one would want,' said Julie Millican, the vice-president of Media Matters for America, a media watchdog. 'One reason is that information and disinformation spreads faster than you can check it. It takes a lot longer to factcheck something than it does for it go viral. 'But the other thing is factchecking can backfire. People so distrust institutions that factchecking can validate the misinformation in their minds and make them more inclined to believe the lie they believed in the first place.' A 2022 report from Protect Democracy suggests this is the result of a deliberate strategy of authoritarian regimes. 'Disinformation is spread through coordinated networks, channels and ecosystems, including politically aligned or state-owned media,' the report said. 'The goal is not always to sell a lie, but instead to undermine the notion that anything in particular is true.' Further complicating the problem in the US has been Trump's appointment of allies to key government agencies that have traditionally served as sources of accurate and reliable data for factcheckers. A case in point is Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has engaged in anti-vaccine theories. As Trump's pick for health and human services secretary, he is in charge of the country's vast health bureaucracy. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'Factchecking wasn't working very well in the first place, but now you can't even get access to the facts that you need be able to factcheck as well as you used to,' said Millican. The outlook seems bleak, but campaigners say that does not make the problems insurmountable. One answer is to invest in independent, non-partisan research. A prime purpose would be to increase media literacy among young people, who primarily get news from platforms such as TikTok which can be subject to disinformation tools such as AI-manipulated videos. The aim is to teach consumers how to spot doctored footage. 'Media literacy is extremely important and something that should be invested in and taught at a young age,' said Millican. Another solution is the development of 'pre-buttal' strategies to inoculate the public against disinformation, in effect getting the truth out first. Media Matters for America and Common Cause used this approach during last year's presidential election, partly by producing videos designed to counter anticipated false narratives surrounding voting procedures in certain areas. Also important, said Shalini Agarwal, special counsel at Protect Democracy, is calling out the demonisation of vulnerable groups, such as immigrants, as soon as it happens. A crucial role is played by media, even as Trump intensifies his assault on journalists as 'fake news' and tries to exclude certain established outlets from press briefings. 'It's really important when there are opportunities for one-on-one briefings and there are multiple reporters,' Agarwal said. 'Part of it is a sense of collective action. Often, whoever is speaking at the podium won't give a straightforward answer or gives a false answer and then tries to move on – it's incumbent when that happens for other reporters to jump in and say: 'Wait. What about what the other reporter asked?'' Millican has two pieces of advice for Britain and other European countries hoping to arm themselves against any coming authoritarian onslaught: fortify the media and preserve legislation designed to combat disinformation and illegal content online – represented by the online safety act in Britain and the digital safety act in the EU. 'The first thing that's going to happen in these authoritarian takeovers is they're going to try to silence and take over the media and information landscape,' she said. 'Any efforts to rein in hate speech or misinformation on platforms will be seen as tantamount to suppression of conservative thought or free speech. 'I can't stress enough trying to buffer the pollution of your information ecosystem as much as possible. One of the first things that they're going to do is just take down any barriers they can.'
