he chair of a policing watchdog has been sacked after publicly questioning whether a senior officer should be wearing an LGBT rainbow lanyard.

[SheWhoMustNotBeHeard]

The chair of a policing watchdog has been sacked after publicly questioning whether a senior officer should be wearing an LGBT rainbow lanyard.
Bob Fousert was forced to step down as chairman of Cheshire police and crime panel by seven votes to five with one abstention.

The panel’s role is to hold elected Labour police and crime commissioner (PCC) David Keane to account.

Apparently at a panel meeting he questioned Keane about the deputy chief constable wearing a rainbow lanyard whilst in uniform at a meeting.

Mr Fousert said: “Do you consider such an overt, political statement to be appropriate for a senior officer to wear given the police should be seen to be impartial in all it does and what message do you think this sends to officers and staff in terms of integrity, leadership and objectivity as espoused by the constabulary’s code of ethics.

We are Fair Cop Twitter feed here: twitter.com/alliancelgb/status/1295606685306945538?s=21

Full story here: https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/cheshire-police-chairman-sacked-over-16538058.amp?twitterr_impression=true

This!

If officers were allowed to wear rainbow lanyards then why not badges belonging to other organisations that helped address issues facing the police, he asked.

“Should we ignore Women’s Aid. Cheshire has a domestic abuse problem and the constabulary’s record on solving rape cases appears to be sinking without trace? Let us not forget Shelter - the homeless on the streets is an ever increasing problem.”

But I don’t understand this - homosexual is offensive?

Cllr Thompson was also unhappy with Mr Fousert’s written reply to the PCC in which he referred to ‘homosexual relatives’ and the ‘homosexual community’.

He said by and large the term ‘homosexual’ was seen as offensive in the modern world.

And is he now comparing Bob Fousert (the guy who’s just been sacked) with Putin

“In the last month only two people in some form of public office have gone about talking about gay people as homosexuals. One is the chair of the Cheshire police and crime panel and one is Vladimir Putin,” he added.

Thank you for posting this. It is shocking, yet unsurprising that Mr. Fousert has been removed from his position for this incisive question. The police should not be broadcasting partisan support for any political party or lobby, for reasons which should be obvious to everyone. What is happening in the upper echelons of the police that when reminded of their duty to be rigorously impartial their response is to shut down the guy asking the question? Do the UK police even understand what their job is anymore?

Homosexuality:

Apparently (according to someone on Twitter), it's gender attraction now or genital preference. Same sex attraction is seen as discriminatory.

Absolutely ridiculous. It'a why the police should never wear any political signs. Even the ones which seemed harmless (rainbows for gay rights) break the neutral rule which should be upheld.

@SheWhoMustNotBeHeard

Homosexuality:

Apparently (according to someone on Twitter), it's gender attraction now or genital preference. Same sex attraction is seen as discriminatory.

FFS! Guess we’re gearing up for some more book burnings then, cos I’m pretty sure the dictionaries and most of LGB communities haven’t got the memo from *WC. Yet.

*(Woke Central MN, I’m not calling anyone a toilet 🙄)

Nolan Principles of public life:
1.2 Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships

Yeah why just the rainbow lanyard. When does the lanyard wearing start and stop

The police should get on with their jobs which is policing

Ah yes, the good old guilt by association card. "I saw that Goody Fousert consorting with a black cat called Putin at midnight..."

And "genital preferences" FFS! Way to downgrade someone's sexuality, which formed the basis for their group's oppression for centuries, and in some parts of the world can still get you executed, into a mere "marmite or jam" preference.

Homophobic, that's what it is.

But I don’t understand this - homosexual is offensive?

Only if for believers in transgender ideology. Which holds that sex doesn't exist, therefore homoSEXuality cannot exist.

That chairman needs reminded pronto that having a sexual orientation to a member of the same sex is a protected characteristic under the EqA. And the Explanatory Notes of the Equality Act explicitly refer to "homosexual people" btw.

It's not the word homosexual that is offensive, what's offensive is the belief that excluding people from your dating preferences due to their sex is transphobic.

Yeah Charley

then what about cross or hijab?

So is the Equality Act couched in homophobic language now? Who will the police be having a chat with about that?!

Its sexuality or sexual orientation on the list of protected characteristics isnt it?

Not genderality.

They are being actively homphobic. Someone should sue

Lanyards should be issued by the employing organisation which should ensure the design has no religious, political or lobby group significance. Employees should be contracted to wear only the issued lanyard. Gifts of jazzy lanyards or other merchandise from external organisations should be refused without exception.

Problem solved!

There were issues with the word homosexual a long time before TRAs were on the scene, I remember from the late 80s because it was a mental health diagnosis in the DSM.

I think this happened a while ago. I remember the story.

Although I'm sure since then the police have widened the bandwidth further of people they'd like to sack for questioning their political impartiality.

Just pointing out that this happened in July 2019.

The police might be putting themselves in a difficult legal position.

If you happened to be, for example, a member of a religious group which disapproves of homosexuality, and you called the police because your homosexual neighbour chucked a brick through your window, if the copper turned up in a rainbow lanyard, you might be within your rights to infer the incident would not be treated dispassionately.

Short of turning police uniforms into a kind of Pearly King version of badges for causes, a sensible police force might eschew such displays.

Unless of course, crime is solved in Britain and coppers have nothing better to do than shill for Stonewall, in which case, carry on I suppose.

If the term homosexual is offensive, then surely the term queer is just as offensive, if not more, considering the historical connotations and the fact that many LGB people were called queer in a derogatory manner up until fairly recently.

But the term homosexual is used in Acts of Parliament and as far as I can tell, no one is going back and changing the terms

@yetanotherusernameAgain

Just pointing out that this happened in July 2019.

Opps, yep, I’ve just gone back and read the date of the article

BY DAVID HOLMES
13:48, 5 JUL 2019UPDATED14:18, 5 JUL 2019

I’m guessing there’s a reason Fair Cop are tweeting about this now?

I’m guessing there’s a reason Fair Cop are tweeting about this now?

Maybe they've only just found out about it?

Maybe they've only just found out about it?

D’oh! I’m such a plank I guess I’m still caught up in their tweets about announcements and background shenanigans I was wondering if this was part of some larger picture.

Your explanation makes much more sense

There were issues with the word homosexual a long time before TRAs were on the scene, I remember from the late 80s because it was a mental health diagnosis in the DSM.

I think the pdocs in charge removed it from the list, when they realised that they had colleagues who were homosexual themselves.
The T diagnosis is going the same route,