Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Linzi Smith is granted Judicial Review over police participation in Pride

218 replies

Imnobody4 · 26/05/2025 11:20

Good for Linzi. This has big ramifications, is Pride political? If so it affects schools as well.

BREAKING: The Chief Constable of Northumbria must account to the High Court for her active participation in Northern Pride last year. She was warned. She went ahead anyway.

The court has asked if she intends to actively participate again this year. She states that she will.

Now she’ll have to defend her position at a Judicial Review in July. GC women need to feel safe in Northumbria which is why Linzi Smith is bringing the action. Pride is political.”

x.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1926537757389643914?t=DTzh1NkVVmnCGkZFNHOatQ&s=19

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
ArabellaScott · 17/07/2025 07:33

A "safe space' badge. A bit like Surrey Pride's 'safe with me' badge (Surrey Pride was where Stephen Ireland used his contacts to prey on children)

archive.ph/xgsi0

RayonSunrise · 17/07/2025 07:27

RedToothBrush · 16/07/2025 17:16

Let me also introduce you to purdah

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah_(pre-election_period)#:~:text=Purdah%20(%2F%CB%88p%C9%9C%CB%90rd,of%20the%20new%20elected%20government.

Purdah is the period in the United Kingdom between the announcement of an election and the formation of the new elected government. It affects civil servants, who must be politically impartial, preventing central and local government from making announcements about any new or controversial government initiatives that could be seen to be advantageous to any candidates or parties in the forthcoming election. Purdah does not apply to candidates for political office. Where a court determines that actual advantage has been given to a candidate, this may amount to a breach of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986.

Who else does this apply to?

Well... This is what NHS England have to say on the matter.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/pre-election-guidance-for-nhs-organisations-general-election-2024/

Key considerations
You should ensure your organisation and staff behave impartially towards all candidates and political parties, and do not influence the election outcomes, whether inadvertently or intentionally.

As always during a pre-election period, there should be:

no new decisions or announcements of policy or strategy;
no decisions on large and/or contentious procurement contracts;
no participation by official NHS representatives in debates and events that may be politically controversial, whether at national or local level.
These restrictions apply in all cases other than where postponement would be detrimental to the effective running of the local NHS, or wasteful of public money.

It then goes on to list the following amongst others:

Media handling: Avoid proactive media work on issues that may be contentious. Reactive lines should be factual and, where possible, in line with previous lines. Any appearances on local or national media (TV, radio) should follow the same principles.
Events: Avoid attending events where you may be asked to respond to questions about policy or on matters of public controversy. This may mean withdrawing from previously agreed engagements.

Visits from prospective parliamentary candidates: Visits are permitted, but the decision to host visits is at your discretion. The same approach must be applied even-handedly to all visit requests from candidates/parties to avoid any question of bias. Any visits should not interfere with the day-to-day running of your service and you should be mindful of patient privacy and dignity.

Social media and web: Nothing contentious should be posted on your website or social media accounts. Updates/posts, including blogs, should only convey essential information.

Campaigns: Do not undertake any ‘paid for’ marketing campaign activity unless you have secured an exemption – for this you will need to demonstrate that the activity is operational and time critical (i.e. a public health emergency).

Existing campaign activity can continue to be delivered through ‘owned’ channels as long as this does not breach the pre-election period guidance.

Marketing: Printed materials, such as posters and leaflets, promoting contentious policy or proposed policy should not be given fresh circulation, but can be retained and issued in small numbers on request. Films and other media produced by the NHS, including the NHS logo, should not be made available for use by candidates/parties.

Staff activism: NHS employees are free to undertake political activism in a personal capacity but should not involve their organisation or create the impression of their organisation’s involvement

Those flags and lanyards need to be in the cupboard as they aren't neutral.

Promoting your pronouns in your NHS work signatures during purdah? Hmmm. Nope.

How about we look at the Department of Education and what this ruling might suggest.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/political-impartiality-in-schools/political-impartiality-in-schools

The law
Existing statutory requirements on political impartiality cover all schools, regardless of type or funding arrangement. This includes independent schools.

These legal duties mean schools:

must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views
should take steps to ensure the balanced presentation of opposing views on political issues when they are brought to the attention of pupils
For maintained schools, these legal duties are set out in Section 406 and Section 407 of the Education Act 1996. Most academies will also have a specific clause in their funding agreement which requires adherence to the same provisions

Let's look in more detail at sections 406 and 407

406Political indoctrination.
(1)The [F1local authority], governing body and head teacher shall forbid—

(a)the pursuit of partisan political activities by any of those registered pupils at a maintained school who are junior pupils, and

(b)the promotion of partisan political views—

[F2(i)]in the teaching of any subject in the school [F3(in the case of a school in England), or]

[F4(ii)in the teaching of any aspect of a curriculum provided in the school under the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act 2021 (in the case of a school in Wales)]

(2)In the case of activities which take place otherwise than on the school premises, subsection (1)(a) applies only where arrangements for junior pupils to take part in the activities are made by—

(a)any member of the school’s staff (in his capacity as such), or

(b)anyone acting on behalf of the school or of a member of the school’s staff (in his capacity as such).

(3)In this section “maintained school” includes [F5a community or foundation special school] established in a hospital

And

407Duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues.
(1)The [F1local authority], governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are—

(a)in attendance at a maintained school, or

(b)taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school, they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.
(2)In this section “maintained school” includes [F2a community or foundation special school] established in a hospital.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/406

I believe this is reflected in the updated Statutory Guidelines which 'coincidentally' came out (checks notes) yesterday. (Someone has seen today's ruling coming, if not directly but because there's a clear issue over the subject of gender identity and political bias).

See thread here
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5374160-statutory-guidance-on-rse-and-health-

I know of a good few people who are going to need to consider changing their lens for how they regard their usage of rainbow lanyards at work. One of them was declaring on social media only a year or so ago that he regards his rainbow lanyard as a sort of visual declaration to all minority/oppressed colleagues that he is a “safe space” for them to come and tell him their problems.

The implication being, of course, that anyone not sporting a rainbow lanyard is a reactionary bigot. (Join in or be cast out in action, eh?) That’s going to be an important mindset to counter with this judgement.

RedToothBrush · 17/07/2025 07:21

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/07/2025 23:59

Yes. Schools are legally required to be politically impartial so a judicial review that confirms that pride is a political protest movement, confirms that it has no place in schools. Nor do trans lobbyists or any other political activist groups other than as part of a balanced curriculum (ie a programme looking at different sides of a political issue).
Just like everywhere else, parents have been too scared of being called bigots and their children targeted if they raise concerns about pride clubs and activities pushing partisan political views in schools.

Below is the guidance for schools which details the legal requirements and explains how schools can undertake their role in helping children navigate contentious and sensitive issues while not promoting partisan political views to pupils.

I reckon this is a game changer as until now the campaigning to remove the rights of women and girls to same sex sports, spaces etc has been openly waged in schools by political lobbyists under the guise of "inclusivity" with children gaslit that this is the right thing to do. But now it's clear that this is political activism.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/political-impartiality-in-schools/political-impartiality-in-schools

Is argue that forcing children to comply with the social transition of other children is teaching them that you can change sex at this point.

ArabellaScott · 17/07/2025 07:15

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 16/07/2025 23:08

Hmm, England ... Local News ... Tyne

That's easy to find

I know. It's barely made the media.

That said, I can imagine the ramifications should be swift and decisive, and may ripple out in many directions. Sometimes issues don't need media attention to have impact.

ArabellaScott · 17/07/2025 07:10

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/07/2025 23:59

Yes. Schools are legally required to be politically impartial so a judicial review that confirms that pride is a political protest movement, confirms that it has no place in schools. Nor do trans lobbyists or any other political activist groups other than as part of a balanced curriculum (ie a programme looking at different sides of a political issue).
Just like everywhere else, parents have been too scared of being called bigots and their children targeted if they raise concerns about pride clubs and activities pushing partisan political views in schools.

Below is the guidance for schools which details the legal requirements and explains how schools can undertake their role in helping children navigate contentious and sensitive issues while not promoting partisan political views to pupils.

I reckon this is a game changer as until now the campaigning to remove the rights of women and girls to same sex sports, spaces etc has been openly waged in schools by political lobbyists under the guise of "inclusivity" with children gaslit that this is the right thing to do. But now it's clear that this is political activism.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/political-impartiality-in-schools/political-impartiality-in-schools

I agree. This seems a real line in the sand judgement.

Pride is a political stance and anyone supporting the Pride movement is making a partisan political statement.

This does just echo the statements that 'Pride is a protest'. It never was supposed to be a pink washing exercise.

Annoyedone · 17/07/2025 05:57

BeeSouriante · 10/07/2025 19:27

"GC women need to feel safe in Northumbria"

"We just have some concerns"
"We're not worried about trans people just people pretending to be trans"
"Transgenderism must be eradicated" (Knowles) "We need to reduce the numbers of trans people, even the happy ones" (Joyce), we're not homophobic
"Gay Marriage shouldn't exist", "Co-parenting gay couples are abusive", "Surrogacy is inherently abusive, no matter consent", "Drag should be banned"

"GC women need to feel safe (from the gays) in Northumbria"

I'll wait for the next exciting episode of "GCs do pikachu face as they realise they're just another patriarchal, reactionary movement"

Patriarchal 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 sure buddy. You’re a man coming in to scold women for not bowing down to men. Maaaaaate. You ARE the patriarchy made flesh.

WarriorN · 17/07/2025 05:51

Also the new RSE guidelines talk about impartiality

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/07/2025 23:59

Sycamoretrees · 16/07/2025 23:17

Any chance this verdict can be used to stop schools plastering the trans flag over every available surface? Especially in May for pride month....

Yes. Schools are legally required to be politically impartial so a judicial review that confirms that pride is a political protest movement, confirms that it has no place in schools. Nor do trans lobbyists or any other political activist groups other than as part of a balanced curriculum (ie a programme looking at different sides of a political issue).
Just like everywhere else, parents have been too scared of being called bigots and their children targeted if they raise concerns about pride clubs and activities pushing partisan political views in schools.

Below is the guidance for schools which details the legal requirements and explains how schools can undertake their role in helping children navigate contentious and sensitive issues while not promoting partisan political views to pupils.

I reckon this is a game changer as until now the campaigning to remove the rights of women and girls to same sex sports, spaces etc has been openly waged in schools by political lobbyists under the guise of "inclusivity" with children gaslit that this is the right thing to do. But now it's clear that this is political activism.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/political-impartiality-in-schools/political-impartiality-in-schools

Sycamoretrees · 16/07/2025 23:17

Any chance this verdict can be used to stop schools plastering the trans flag over every available surface? Especially in May for pride month....

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 16/07/2025 23:08

ArabellaScott · 16/07/2025 22:14

Hmm, England ... Local News ... Tyne

That's easy to find

SinnerBoy · 16/07/2025 21:54

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2025 16:44

This nonsense he came out with. He seems confused.

“The basic error in this judgment, imo, is the assumption that what the judge describes as 'gender ideology' is contestable. In the Equality Act Parliament decided it is not. For the same reason as the police do not need to be 'impartial' on racism they do not need to be 'impartial' on transphobia.”

what he’s implying is that gender identity ideology has been ruled as completely incontestable, presumably because of the existence of the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” in the Equality Act. A bit of a leap there given that the Supreme Court have just given a big fat no to whether men are women.

Well, thank goodness for Jolly Old and his useless chums, who subscribe to his mixed metaproverb School of the Law, to wit:

If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing badly.

UnWilly · 16/07/2025 21:37

Talkinpeace · 16/07/2025 18:14

I liked the analogy of

The police separating two crows of football fans
while wearing scarves for one of the teams

The WHOLE approach of the police to "participating" in events they should be "policing"
HAS to change

Excellent analogy

Not sure anyone unfamiliar with the background would understand that from this local reporting
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/northumbria-police-unlawfully-officers-take-32074890

Northumbria Police 'unlawfully' let officers take part in Pride, judge rules

The decision has come from the high court after last year's Northern Pride event

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/northumbria-police-unlawfully-officers-take-32074890

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2025 20:33

My favourite bit was when Harry compared LGBT activists to Trump supporters as an analogy 😂

Helleofabore · 16/07/2025 20:17

Remember, no public celebrating of any wins, whatever size. It is apparently viewed as unwomanly and cruel. And we need to be gracious only in any wins and never mention it again.

This is the latest tactic from posters who wish to censure women for their views. They will agree with us ... but will censure any celebratory tone.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 16/07/2025 20:12

Talkinpeace · 16/07/2025 18:14

I liked the analogy of

The police separating two crows of football fans
while wearing scarves for one of the teams

The WHOLE approach of the police to "participating" in events they should be "policing"
HAS to change

From the case, isn't it even more than this

The police also spread themselves throughout their supported team having a jolly old time and then use their powers to check that the other supporters aren't misbehaving

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/07/2025 18:27

A nice summary of the judgment:

x.com/boswelltoday/status/1945478487545917948

Talkinpeace · 16/07/2025 18:14

I liked the analogy of

The police separating two crows of football fans
while wearing scarves for one of the teams

The WHOLE approach of the police to "participating" in events they should be "policing"
HAS to change

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/07/2025 17:59

RedToothBrush · 16/07/2025 16:14

I'd argue this goes further than this.

The argument is that the police have to be impartial on certain matters in the public interest otherwise they are biased.

This potentially has wider ramifications for other public services because their participation in pride is not a neutral act.

The civil service are not allowed to engage with anything which has political bias.

The judicial review is effectively saying that pride is a political event and isn't a neutral event. And participation in it is problematic for anyone who has to uphold certain standards in public life without bias.

Agreed. I think this is massive as the political protest nature of pride was clearly evidenced in the case. In one sense it's a shame the judgment dropped today with the Fife debacle spread all over the press as I agree, this is very significant for police forces and other organisations currently in thrall to the trans extremists.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/07/2025 17:55

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2025 16:38

More judges that Jollyon disagrees with. Who'd have thunk it.

moto748e · 16/07/2025 17:48

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2025 16:38

Some of the legal branes on that site sound even more idiotic than JM.

hawheresthebmareviewnow · 16/07/2025 17:24

In Surrey Stephan Ireland who was founder of Surrey Pride was protected by the police support he had.

RedToothBrush · 16/07/2025 17:16

Let me also introduce you to purdah

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah_(pre-election_period)#:~:text=Purdah%20(%2F%CB%88p%C9%9C%CB%90rd,of%20the%20new%20elected%20government.

Purdah is the period in the United Kingdom between the announcement of an election and the formation of the new elected government. It affects civil servants, who must be politically impartial, preventing central and local government from making announcements about any new or controversial government initiatives that could be seen to be advantageous to any candidates or parties in the forthcoming election. Purdah does not apply to candidates for political office. Where a court determines that actual advantage has been given to a candidate, this may amount to a breach of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986.

Who else does this apply to?

Well... This is what NHS England have to say on the matter.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/pre-election-guidance-for-nhs-organisations-general-election-2024/

Key considerations
You should ensure your organisation and staff behave impartially towards all candidates and political parties, and do not influence the election outcomes, whether inadvertently or intentionally.

As always during a pre-election period, there should be:

no new decisions or announcements of policy or strategy;
no decisions on large and/or contentious procurement contracts;
no participation by official NHS representatives in debates and events that may be politically controversial, whether at national or local level.
These restrictions apply in all cases other than where postponement would be detrimental to the effective running of the local NHS, or wasteful of public money.

It then goes on to list the following amongst others:

Media handling: Avoid proactive media work on issues that may be contentious. Reactive lines should be factual and, where possible, in line with previous lines. Any appearances on local or national media (TV, radio) should follow the same principles.
Events: Avoid attending events where you may be asked to respond to questions about policy or on matters of public controversy. This may mean withdrawing from previously agreed engagements.

Visits from prospective parliamentary candidates: Visits are permitted, but the decision to host visits is at your discretion. The same approach must be applied even-handedly to all visit requests from candidates/parties to avoid any question of bias. Any visits should not interfere with the day-to-day running of your service and you should be mindful of patient privacy and dignity.

Social media and web: Nothing contentious should be posted on your website or social media accounts. Updates/posts, including blogs, should only convey essential information.

Campaigns: Do not undertake any ‘paid for’ marketing campaign activity unless you have secured an exemption – for this you will need to demonstrate that the activity is operational and time critical (i.e. a public health emergency).

Existing campaign activity can continue to be delivered through ‘owned’ channels as long as this does not breach the pre-election period guidance.

Marketing: Printed materials, such as posters and leaflets, promoting contentious policy or proposed policy should not be given fresh circulation, but can be retained and issued in small numbers on request. Films and other media produced by the NHS, including the NHS logo, should not be made available for use by candidates/parties.

Staff activism: NHS employees are free to undertake political activism in a personal capacity but should not involve their organisation or create the impression of their organisation’s involvement

Those flags and lanyards need to be in the cupboard as they aren't neutral.

Promoting your pronouns in your NHS work signatures during purdah? Hmmm. Nope.

How about we look at the Department of Education and what this ruling might suggest.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/political-impartiality-in-schools/political-impartiality-in-schools

The law
Existing statutory requirements on political impartiality cover all schools, regardless of type or funding arrangement. This includes independent schools.

These legal duties mean schools:

must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views
should take steps to ensure the balanced presentation of opposing views on political issues when they are brought to the attention of pupils
For maintained schools, these legal duties are set out in Section 406 and Section 407 of the Education Act 1996. Most academies will also have a specific clause in their funding agreement which requires adherence to the same provisions

Let's look in more detail at sections 406 and 407

406Political indoctrination.
(1)The [F1local authority], governing body and head teacher shall forbid—

(a)the pursuit of partisan political activities by any of those registered pupils at a maintained school who are junior pupils, and

(b)the promotion of partisan political views—

[F2(i)]in the teaching of any subject in the school [F3(in the case of a school in England), or]

[F4(ii)in the teaching of any aspect of a curriculum provided in the school under the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act 2021 (in the case of a school in Wales)]

(2)In the case of activities which take place otherwise than on the school premises, subsection (1)(a) applies only where arrangements for junior pupils to take part in the activities are made by—

(a)any member of the school’s staff (in his capacity as such), or

(b)anyone acting on behalf of the school or of a member of the school’s staff (in his capacity as such).

(3)In this section “maintained school” includes [F5a community or foundation special school] established in a hospital

And

407Duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues.
(1)The [F1local authority], governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are—

(a)in attendance at a maintained school, or

(b)taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school, they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.
(2)In this section “maintained school” includes [F2a community or foundation special school] established in a hospital.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/406

I believe this is reflected in the updated Statutory Guidelines which 'coincidentally' came out (checks notes) yesterday. (Someone has seen today's ruling coming, if not directly but because there's a clear issue over the subject of gender identity and political bias).

See thread here
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5374160-statutory-guidance-on-rse-and-health-

Purdah (pre-election period) - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah_(pre-election_period)#:~:text=Purdah%20(%2F%CB%88p%C9%9C%CB%90rd,of%20the%20new%20elected%20government.

AnSolas · 16/07/2025 17:13

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2025 16:38

Mr Graham is not the brightest bunny in the field when it comes to flags and what social meaning they have always had.

The original flag has been disgarded and a new one is fluttering on the flag poles.

That social action has always been about the change of regime of out with the old in with the new.

In this case the new ideology and its philosophy viewpoint.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2025 16:44

This nonsense he came out with. He seems confused.

“The basic error in this judgment, imo, is the assumption that what the judge describes as 'gender ideology' is contestable. In the Equality Act Parliament decided it is not. For the same reason as the police do not need to be 'impartial' on racism they do not need to be 'impartial' on transphobia.”

what he’s implying is that gender identity ideology has been ruled as completely incontestable, presumably because of the existence of the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” in the Equality Act. A bit of a leap there given that the Supreme Court have just given a big fat no to whether men are women.

Swipe left for the next trending thread