Why am I not surprised?

Incoherent brain dump

Ok to be fair it was very late/early and I could have been a bit clearer, that'll learn me to MN after midnight after a few wines

No-one said “stay in your lane” except you
My post says stay in your lane as in trans people, as staying in your lane looks wise!
Not about '' G C'' views.

Incoherent brain dump.

It still makes little sense, lacks internal logic. Maybe deliberately so?

I thought most people knew that?

I do.
Correctly sex.
Refuse to see as trans. Stay in your lane.
Potato, potatah.

No-one said “stay in your lane” except you.

*There.

Their are rules that female officers must adhere to. If Cherry wishes to identify and be treated as the opposite sex then why is Cherry being allowed to flout these rules. Cherry is getting special treatment that is not accorded to female officers. Seems there is one rule for one and one for the rest.

Rant?!
Crikey.
Hardly.

and telling us to stay in our lane
Yeah, that didn't happen though, did it.
Said nothing of the sort.
Think what you like, just like I do.

If a male officer has a dress code and a female officer has a dress code these are the basic PR checks that a publicity photo shoot should adhere to. In this case neither dress code was applied.

The bit of code quoted doesn't even appear to be specific to women. It looks like it should be ok for any officer to wear discreet makeup and neutral nail polish. Quite right too, no reason for any difference on that.

The force's Dress And Equipment Code And Standards Policy states: 'Individuals should keep make-up discreet or in connection with your religion/faith. Individuals in operational roles must ensure nails are kept short and any nail varnish must be neutral in colour.'

Plod are exploiting individuals to further their diversity crusades.
Did they ever stop to think that they might be humiliating this person?

It all comes back to bloody Stonewall.

Crikey. That's a much more incoherent rant than I expected.

Maybe NoSiree could come back and explain what they meant, for those of us up late and still a bit hungover?

It may be that there is a toilet and changing room issue in some of the stations, there is if some males are being allowed to use female areas. This Police force has indicated that rules don't apply to some male officers. If there is a problem can a female officer have confidence that her concerns about the service provision for her and her fellow female officer will be acknowledged or will she be told that it's "fine" to have a male use the female service areas?

If a male officer has a dress code and a female officer has a dress code these are the basic PR checks that a publicity photo shoot should adhere to. In this case neither dress code was applied.

So who should care if the Senior Officers in a Police force decide that the rule book is an optional extra when it comes to achieving the optimum positive publicity?

Who should decide which rule books should be applied or when they should be applied?

Who should decide which individuals get to operate out side the rules?

Is that how the Police should operate?

The Police Officer in charge of PR who first responded on Twitter said that they would remove offending tweets. This is not possible on Twitter. So the PR tweeter is less than competent with the PR role.

The next tweet was a statement of intent to report tweets the Police PR account dislikes to parties unspecified in the tweet.

If the PR person was properly informed on the recent Court case etc then their PR rule book would not have enabled that PR sequence to develop.

The two tweets sets out the "official position" of tone policing by a arm of the State who have the power to obtain a UK tweeters details, turn up at their house, and threaten to arrest or actually arrest the individual.

Police are really strict about nail varnish in our district. Friend doesn't wear any because only clear allowed, short so what is the point?

Ive not read the article yet but from what others have said its ‘excessive’ makeup and nails which is the issue

Oh and dyke, but no one takes homophobia of females seriously these days.

Know a female police officer. Having heard the stories, a woman police officer would be targeted for wearing excess make up or nails.
Even without the signals make up sends, she's endured sexually explicit remarks, been called fat, ugly, women's body part etc.

Must be nice to have the luxury of being able to present how you want due to a male body. Safe in the knowledge that if such a comment did occur the police would take the verbal abuse seriously and not tell you that that is part of being a police officer, if women want equality this I the reality etc.
Trans women can never be women because they can't she'd their male privilege, and as in this case, often use it to get their own way.

What a bunch of transphobes that police for are then. Because they don't appear to believe that cherry is capable of following the same rules and regs as everyone else so cherry must be allowed to flout the rules in order to be able to do the job.

This kind of low bar behaviour standard is transphobic surely?

It’s clear to me that Cherry is trans. It’s also clear to me that Cherry is male. The two aren’t mutually exclusive - are they to you?

Males who don't conform to conventional male appearance and behaviour are not still part of the female sex class.

The make-up on its own could be understandable and forgivable (in my opinion) if O’Donnell had looked, in every other way, like a professional police officer in a natural or professional police officer stance.

But there’s a deliberate staginess. It looks like the hands are deliberately positioned to show them off, with their bright green varnish. It’s the performativenes that I find provocative. That, and all the boundaries that are constantly pushed.

It’s sad though. Doubtless Hertfordshire police were trying to do a good thing, but it ended up very negative. By allowing O’Donnell to break the rules, then using a photograph that actively highlights that rulebreak, they left themselves wide open to criticism. Someone in the chain of command should have told O’Donnell it was not appropriate.

There are few things that rile women more than seeing males (however they identify) being given preferential treatment.

If a person identifies as the opposite sex and takes a role where specific clothing and presentation rules are in place based on sex, they should surely follow the rules for members of that sex.

If that means no heavy make up or bright nail varnish colours for women then that rule should apply to women and to men who identify as women in that role.

If that means no facial hair for the men, then that rule should apply to men and to women who identify as men in that role.