Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

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
ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 16/07/2025 11:05

This is really important because all police forces will have to take note. Well done Linzi, Harry and all at Fair Cop

SamiSnail · 16/07/2025 11:06

Yet another win for the feminists. Females are human and females exist. So suck it, @BeeSouriante and @Christinapple . Women are kicking arse! Remind me, Chris, which side has a 100% win rate? 😚

MassiveWordSalad · 16/07/2025 11:06

Yeah! 🥳

Apollo441 · 16/07/2025 11:09

Is the judgement published?

Pluvia · 16/07/2025 11:14

This is great news. Will be contacting my area police force to notify them of this and request that they withdraw from Pride too. Thank you, Linzi.

Helleofabore · 16/07/2025 11:21

Apollo441 · 16/07/2025 11:09

Is the judgement published?

Harry is publishing some screenshots of the judgement on twitter if needed.

https://x.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1945421417933099360

https://x.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1945419737493623041

moto748e · 16/07/2025 11:25

It shouldn't require people like Linzi to stand up to deal with this. but she has done, and been brilliant. Hope this does set a precedent for all police forces.

Cailleach1 · 16/07/2025 11:27

SamiSnail · 16/07/2025 11:06

Yet another win for the feminists. Females are human and females exist. So suck it, @BeeSouriante and @Christinapple . Women are kicking arse! Remind me, Chris, which side has a 100% win rate? 😚

Edited

Men are still men, and women are still women. Even if the law created a legal fiction that they aren’t. Even if women lost cases based on fictions created in law. This is still happening in many places. Men (based on their claim to a fictitious identity) are put in with trapped real women in prisons.

Thankfully the UK seems to have a somewhat fair and robust legal system, where even women can find justice against injustices against them.

TrainedByCats · 16/07/2025 12:09

Great news and memories of the past reprimands by trans activists of women on this board for contributing to these crowd funders gives me extra joy when another I contributed to wins 🥂

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 16/07/2025 12:30

Practical ways we can apply this to local forces? Brighton comes to mind...

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2025 14:17

It’s an interesting read.

CraftandGlamour · 16/07/2025 14:40

Amazing news! Well done, Linzi and Fair Cop!

RedToothBrush · 16/07/2025 16:14

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 16/07/2025 11:05

This is really important because all police forces will have to take note. Well done Linzi, Harry and all at Fair Cop

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.

Notfinanciallyresponsibleforyou · 16/07/2025 16:19

Kent police participated in Pride the other week. Maybe this judgement will mean they all have to reflect.

not sure why photo didn’t attach

Notfinanciallyresponsibleforyou · 16/07/2025 16:20

Repeat

RedToothBrush · 16/07/2025 16:44

By section 29 of the Police Act 1996 every member of a police force maintained for a police area is required, on appointment, to be attested as a constable by making the following declaration before a justice of the peace (see Schedule 4 to the 1996 Act):

'I....................of....................do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the King in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law" (emphasis added)

Compare with

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-diversity-and-inclusion-and-impartiality-for-civil-servants/guidance-on-diversity-and-inclusion-and-impartiality-for-civil-servants

Now unlike the police, it's not a legal requirement for civil servants to take an oath of allegience and it's not legally binding HOWEVER, those appointed on or after July 1, 2020, are required to take it.

This is a real issue that the government are going to need to reflect on because otherwise they risk a loss of public confidence and potentially being exposed to discrimination claims.

Guidance on Diversity and Inclusion and Impartiality for Civil Servants

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-diversity-and-inclusion-and-impartiality-for-civil-servants/guidance-on-diversity-and-inclusion-and-impartiality-for-civil-servants

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.

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.

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.

hawheresthebmareviewnow · 16/07/2025 17:24

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

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.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/07/2025 17:55

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/07/2025 16:38

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

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.

Swipe left for the next trending thread