Police wrong to join Pride march, judge rules
Linzi Smith, 34, a gender-critical lesbian, brought a case against Northumbria Police after officers, including Vanessa Jardine, the head of the force, took part in last year's parade in Newcastle.
Ms Smith argued that it was wrong to allow uniformed officers to actively participate in an event that promoted gender ideology and was supported by transgender activists.
Responding to the ruling, Ms Smith said: 'I am delighted with the judgment of the court. It is terrifying to live in a community where the police have abandoned their duty of impartiality and embraced a highly controversial political cause.'
In the legal claim, officers were accused of joining in the march; stationing a police van decked out in Pride colours at the event and associating with messaging that supported gender ideology.
The hearing was told there was also a Northumbria Police static display staffed by uniformed officers and a transgender Pride flag incorporating the force's insignia.
Ms Smith argued that while she accepted it was necessary for the Pride march to be policed it was wrong for officers to actively participate because it breached their professional oath to operate with impartiality.
Allowing the judicial review, Mr Justice Linden 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.'
He went on: 'It is not hard to imagine circumstances in which the officers in question might be called on to deal with a clash between gender critical people and supporters of gender ideology, and therefore situations where the former had cause for concern as to whether they were being dealt with impartially.'
The court also heard how during the march there were pro-Palestinian protesters chanting slogans such as: 'From the River To The Sea, Palestine Will Be Free', 'No Pride in Genocide' and 'Toute le monde deteste la police'.
The case was supported by Kathleen Stock, a gender-critical professor, and Harry Miller, co-founder of the campaign group Fair Cop, which seeks to 'remove politics from policing'.
Professor Stock said: 'For me, the sight of the Northumbria Police either participating in Pride marches, supporting Pride events in public statements, or using or encouraging the use of Progress or rainbow flags, emblems, lanyards or other symbols associated with trans causes in a public-facing way, conveys its support for gender ideology.
'If that is not the force's intention, it is certainly its effect.'
It is not clear how the ruling will impact on the force's plans to police this year's event, which is taking place this weekend.
Mr Miller said: 'The significance of this ruling means that in future the police will attend events like this at their peril.
'But it is sad that we had to go to court to challenge something that was so blindingly obvious.'
He said the ruling should bring an end to police officers attending such events and wearing associated livery.
'The clarity in the ruling should have a profound effect on Chief Constables across the UK,' Mr Miller told the Telegraph.
'Pride is political in the same way that any protest is political. Police engagement should therefore be solely operational. No lanyards, flags, whistles or painted cars. Just good, honest bobbies remaining polite and keeping the peace.'
In his concluding remarks the judge said the findings only related to the 2024 event, adding: 'It will be a matter for the Defendant to consider, in the light of what I have said in this judgment, whether her current proposed approach to the 2025 Event should remain as it is.'
In a statement following the ruling, a spokesman for Northumbria Police said: 'The officers, staff and volunteers of Northumbria Police are dedicated and passionate about providing each and every person of our wonderful region with an outstanding policing service.
'In doing so, we recognise not all communities share the same level of confidence in policing for a variety of reasons. We want to ensure everyone knows that we are absolutely here for them when they need us.
'Part of that is us being visible in those communities and playing an active part in our force area. Throughout the year, we will have an important role to play in a variety of events, including parades and festivals.
'During these events while our primary aim is to keep people safe, it also provides us with an opportunity to engage with people including those who may have less confidence in policing. It is vitally important they feel supported and we continue to build their trust in us.
'That is why we felt it important to challenge the case which was brought against us and which has implications for wider policing.
'We will work through the ruling to understand the implications, while staying true to our values of fairness, visibility, and support for all.'
Other forces are currently looking at the ruling to see how it could impact on their approach to the policing similar events.
Gavin Stephens, chairman of the National Police Chiefs' Council, said: 'Every week police officers and staff will as part of their duties take part in thousands of events up and down the country, from community events at village halls through to large scale events like carnivals, parades and festivals.
'However, we recognise that policing must also maintain its impartiality, including in the types of events it supports and plays an active part in.
'We are working through the detail of this judgment and will ensure this decision is communicated to forces for them to consider.
'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.'
Newcastle United ban
Earlier this year Northumbria Police apologised to Ms Smith, who is a season ticket holder at Newcastle United, following an investigation that took place when she expressed gender critical views on social media.
She was accused of being transphobic by a complainant who told Newcastle United that trans people would not feel safe sitting near her.
A hate crime investigation was launched and she was banned by the club.
Northumbria Police later admitted crucial elements of their investigation into the claims were not acceptable.
It said that while there was no misconduct by its officers, the way they handled her case and similar hate crime reports in future should be subject to further training.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Angela Rayner's critique of Labour's performance is short on solutions
Angela Rayner has a reputation for being forthright – and, according to the 'readout' of the last cabinet meeting before the summer recess, she has had some punchy things to say to her colleagues about the state of the nation. Reflecting on the riots that swept the country after the Southport tragedy almost a year ago, Ms Rayner is blunt about the government's collective performance. The official summary, itself a bowlderised version of her remarks, records her comprehensive critique about the causes of the civil unrest: 'Economic insecurity, the rapid pace of de-industrialisation, immigration and the impacts on local communities and public services, technological change and the amount of time people were spending alone online, and declining trust in institutions was having a profound impact on society.' Those factors were certainly at play in the riots last July, and are still in evidence now, notably in Epping, the Essex market town where an asylum seeker has been charged with sexual assault. There have since been signs of trouble at another hotel requisitioned by the Home Office for migrant accommodation, in Diss in Norfolk. As has been noted, these are the kind of 'tinderbox' conditions that the authorities need to treat with great care, and which have already resulted, in the case of Epping, in agitators turning up, and in unjustified attacks on the police. Ms Rayner is right to confront her colleagues, and indeed her own department, responsible as it is for 'communities', about the frustrations felt by the public and the widespread disaffection that will continue to build unless the government 'delivers' some tangible evidence of the 'change' in their lives promised by Labour at the last general election. This is most obviously so over immigration, though not confined to it, and the slow progress in 'smashing the gangs', ending the use of hotels to house migrants, and clearing the backlog of claims the government inherited. Where Ms Rayner may be faulted is in making such concerns so public at such a sensitive time – in the context of a palpable sense of unrest and the threat of another round of summer rioting. That is the context of her words. Obviously, she has no intention of having her implicit warnings about more riots be in any way a self-fulfilling prophecy, let alone inciting non-peaceful protest, but that may well be their practical effect. The timing of what she said is unfortunate and clumsy. At a moment when Nigel Farage – who is shameless about exploiting grievances – is stirring things up with overheated claims that 'we're actually facing, in many parts of the country, nothing short of societal collapse ' – this is no time to be adding to the sense of unease. With no sense of irony, given the tacit encouragement Mr Farage offers to the protesters, the Reform UK leader talks about 'lawless Britain' where 'criminals don't particularly respect the police and they're acting in many cases with total impunity'. The Essex police, faced as they are with an impossible job of controlling a mob and in enforcing the law impartially as it stands, will not have thanked Mr Farage for his words. Still less will they welcome Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who intends to descend on Epping in the coming days, with all that entails. Ms Rayner ought not to be adding her voice to these sorts of tensions. The other, wider criticism of Ms Rayner's reported assessment is that she is long on analysis but short on solutions. She rightly says that Britain is a 'successful, multi-ethnic, multi-faith country', and that 'the government had to show it had a plan to address people's concerns and provide opportunities for everyone to flourish'. For her part, she is going to produce her own Plan for Neighbourhoods, but she must also take her share of the blame – there is no better word – for the government's collective failure to create a sense that it has a cohesive plan or programme for government to solve the various challenges she identifies. One year on, there is still a sense that the government lacks a 'narrative' of what it is doing and why. People wish to see progress and understand how the sacrifices they make in paying higher taxes will prove worth it. The tangled web of 'missions', 'tasks' and 'priorities' that Sir Keir Starmer weaved as he entered government last year has not so much unravelled as been forgotten. Irregular migration, stagnant living standards, the public finances and the NHS, again facing renewed and deeply damaging industrial action, are intractable challenges that successive governments have been defeated by, and they will inevitably take time and resources to improve. The public needs to be reassured about that. As Ms Rayner indicates: 'It is incumbent on the government to acknowledge the real concerns people have and to deliver improvements to people's lives and their communities.' The good news for Sir Keir, Ms Rayner and their colleagues is that, riots or not, they still have three to four years to show that this Labour government works. If not, then they know how disastrous the consequences could be, because they were inflicted on the Conservatives not so long ago.
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Labour playing with fire when it comes to lighter regulation for bankers?
The chair and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, David Solomon, has told Sky News that London's status as one of the world's pre-eminent financial centres is ' fragile ', because of the continuing effects of Brexit, increased competition from other European centres, and the tax treatment of the US investment bank's most highly paid staff. Although Solomon cuts a rather remote figure with concerns far removed from the average British family, the fact is that financial services and the City are such a significant part of the economy that his remarks carry some serious implications for the economy, and thus the living standards of all. So he's worth listening to. What is at issue? Solomon points out that his bank, one of the largest in the world, has more people employed in continental Europe and proportionally fewer in London than was the case before Brexit. As a result, the UK doesn't enjoy the spending these 'absent' workers would otherwise inject into the local economy. Even in its current 'fragile' state, the financial services sector contributes about £44bn to the Exchequer, not far off the entire defence budget, and it could be even more, given the right conditions. The temptation for ministers is to change rules on tax and regulatory rulebooks, to boost banking profits and thus tax revenues, social spending and investment. We may term this 'Rachel's Dream'. What's wrong with London? Solomon is fairly clear that Brexit put up too many barriers with the EU in the financial sector, so relocation of certain functions and staff became inevitable. Tax and 'incentives' are also significant factors in the leakage of people and money abroad to rival centres. The abolition of ' non-dom ' status under the Conservatives, with additional tax liabilities added by Labour, Solomon says, has also depopulated the UK tax base. 'Incentives matter. If you create tax policy or incentives that push people away, you harm your economy … in Goldman Sachs today, if you're in Europe, you can live in London, you can live in Paris, you can live in Germany, in Frankfurt or Munich, you can live in Italy, you can live in Switzerland.' The government has already softened the former non-doms' tax obligations; paying inheritance tax is a particular concern for the super-rich. Thus far, the Labour left hasn't objected much. What else does this major investor want? Lighter regulation, as also suggested by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, in her Mansion House speech last week. In particular, he wants the rules introduced in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008, which keep 'high street' retail banking and 'casino' investment banking separate, to be reformed: 'It's a place where the UK is an outlier, and by being an outlier, it prevents capital formation and growth. What's the justification for being an outlier? Why is this so difficult to change? It's hard to make a substantive policy argument that this is like a great policy for the UK. So why is it so hard to change?' Well, why is it so hard to change? It's precisely because the UK has such an outsized financial sector compared to the size of its GDP that leaves the government and British taxpayers badly exposed if banks overextend themselves and have to be rescued with public funds – as happened before with Northern Rock, RBS, HBOS et al. Put simply, given the national debt, another banking crash could collapse the British public finances. The governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, is alive to the dangers. He said only this week that such 'ring fencing' rules needed to be kept in place: 'I do think the ring-fencing regime is an important part of the structure of the banking system. It makes the resolution of banks if they're in trouble much easier, and it benefits, particularly in terms of the UK, consumers, business and households.' Who will win? The Bank is operationally independent, and has to be to maintain confidence, so no chancellor would be reckless enough to undermine its status (as happened, in a different context, with the infamous Truss mini-Budget of 2022). However, the chancellor in the final analysis sets the Bank's remit, with parliamentary authority, and can prevail on a governor to contemplate change. Bailey hasn't ruled out reform, but banking supervision is a delicate and complex task, and there is much devilment in the detail. There will probably be some compromise and consequent quiet deregulation because the government is so desperate to boost growth, even if it means the system taking on more risk. No one will notice such boring developments – unless/until they go wrong. If they do, and if the Starmer government is still in charge, then the Labour Party would collapse along with the banks. How much of a gamble are Starmer and Reeves ready to take on the likes of Goldman Sachs getting it right? As the old saying goes, the most dangerous words in finance are 'this time, it's different'.
The Guardian
7 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Job prospects in the UK are grim – no wonder our kids are escaping abroad
Zoe Williams' piece on today's nepo job market is on the nose and tells me that nothing has changed in the past 40 years (Looking for a job? Who you know probably matters more than what you know, 15 July). It's not much to do with artificial intelligence, and studying chemistry is not the solution. Anecdotally, of the 13 engineering science graduates from Keble College, Oxford, in 1982, only three found work in the UK – in Daddy's firm. The rest of us went overseas. My nephew recently graduated in chemical engineering from Durham and could get nothing better than a lab assistant job in the UK. So he's joining a Norwegian oil firm in Stavanger, upstream research for the trading desk. My eldest daughter, a paramedic graduate, seems destined for emergency response in the Australian mining industry. My youngest has dreams of studying medicine. But Daddy has just explained to her that it means working overseas on graduation, attempting to default on the £100,000 debt she'll accumulate and never coming back. The reason this country is a declining parody of a developed nation is that kids are best served graduating from the Airport Bookstore School of Management and honing their bullshitting skills. Managers with a visceral understanding of the business and the conviction to recruit, train and retain the right talent are rare. So it defaults to HR drones and their clickbait competency AndersonBarwick-in-Elmet, West Yorkshire
