Council being sued for transflag crossings

[lcakethereforeIam]

Apologies if there's already a thread but I've not found one

https://archive.ph/dCRzW

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/06/camden-council-pedestrian-crossing-legal-action/

'Unlawful political messaging'. Is this a thing? If it is and the complainant wins then it could have a wider implications regarding flag flying, possibly even pin badges and lanyards.

I did indulged in a small eyeroll at this statement from the Council

A spokesman added: “Camden is ‘no place for hate’ and we have a strong and continuing history of respect and support for everyone in our borough. We fight discrimination in all its forms, and this includes being an ally to our trans residents.

'Everyone'!? Clearly not the complainant or anyone else who doesn't buy into this divisive ideology. But, the statement implies those people are hateful.

What about people with sigh5 impediment and guide dogs. It must be very confusing for them

Sight! 🙄

They’re not good for partially sighted people either, the crossings are standardised for a reason.

also not great for foreign drivers on our roads.

Sorry for cross post. Yes it is very confusing. For both the dog and the human.

No idea if unlawful political messaging is a thing, but unless it costs exactly the same to paint the crossing pink and blue as it costs to paint it black and white, then it is absolutely a council spending taxpayers’ money on personally chosen, political messaging.

They’ve been directed to stop doing it before IIRC. They ignored it.

What the RNIB said in 2021:
https://www.rnib.org.uk/news/multi-coloured-road-crossings-pose-a-threat-to-people-with-sight-loss-warn-charities/

I guess the protected characteristic of disability was included in the EA just to spoil people's fun

Respect and support for 'everyone' eh...? That isn't passing well.

Also Keir Starmer's local council. It's long past time Camden were told they can't thumb their nose at the law with these crossings.

The story say that a Camden resident is threatening to bring a legal challenge, which is not much a story. People threaten legal action all the time but only really counts if they follow through

Camden might be no place for hate, but yep, I do think it's also a place where councils can't do political messaging and this combined with their message about hate would probably constitute unlawful political signalling.

The photo is of the Pride colours not the 'trans' flag, it looks like the objection is on religious grounds.

It might be a step backwards to the days when Christians objected to anything same sex, all the same battles are going to have to be fought all over again by the LGB's, only I think this one is down to multi-culturalism not GI.

What is with this bizarre defaulting to "hate" each time?!

You read that list of rational, courteous arguments by a range of people, including on behalf of other vulnerable groups, and then the quotation from the council, and it stops you in your tracks.

It's such a disproportionate, inappropriate and childish response.

When set against the words of the groups affected, it exposes one side, and one side only, as indulging excessively strong, irrational emotion.

A spokesman added: “Camden is ‘no place for hate’

This is a truly disgusting reply to a legitimate complaint from a resident

The RNIB building is literally 5 minutes walk from this crossing, it was on my commute to work. The crossings were very irritating to me, and must have been dangerous to the number of blind people in the area, which will have been higher than average due to the RNIB presence.

There are also trans flag crossings in Camden, unless they've been removed since I was last there.

Absolutely!

And that ridiculous word, "hate", sweeps up in it all the disabled, blind, confused etc. people. All the worried parents whose road safety messages are suddenly, shamefully, complicated by intrusive political messaging ("But why is that one different, Mum? But why those colours?")...

And it labels them bigots.

It bemuses and appals me in equal measure.

As ever, what do these people hope to achieve by it?

I'm struggling to articulate why I disagree with this- even though I'm not a fan of the crossings.

If most people in Camden vote for a party that wants to waste money on these that should be up to them. This seems like the triumph of judicial activism over political decision making. It also seems less like genuine discrimination e.g. I can't use this crossing because it confuses my guide dog, with discrimination based on 'this upsets me.'

I feel these two trends cause problems, and I'm not sure I want to support them even when they hit something I don't like.

Good. It’s about time these ridiculous virtue signalling crossings were removed. There is no justification for them and even if they caused detriment to one sight impaired person, that’s one too many.

Was there not a video of police horses being spooked by them too as they are not standard crossing colours

@TheywontletmehavethenameIwant The photo of the crossing in the article is clearly baby blue, baby pink and white.

There's an excellent post under that article referring to Camden saying there's no place for hate:
"I hate this made-up flag with a passion because it represents genital mutilation, incontinence arising from said mutilation, breast binding, removal of healthy breasts, indoctrination of young people, taking advantage of autistic people, men in women's toilets, men being awarded medals for 'winning' in women's sports, people who are easily persuaded and then regret their choice and parents who are cut off by their much-loved children for using the 'wrong' pronouns"

Well no, because a crossing in colours other than black and white means absolutely nothing. They are specifically chosen due to the contrast [although yellow and black would be better], so that people and drivers can see the crossing and it is custom and practice across the world, it is taught to sighted and non sighted people, and everyone knows what it is.

It is written into all road design manuals, and yet it seems once the word 'trans' enters the meeting room, all decisions based on reality fall by the wayside.

Also the paint faded really quickly so it was barely recognisable as a crossing at all after a while.

Legally, it was never a crossing in the first place. It was a virtue signal.