Starmer being sued re. Civil Servants attending Pride

[lcakethereforeIam]

This seems to be following on from Linzi Smith's success with Yorkshire Police(?).

https://archive.ph/vmkUE

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/12/22/starmer-sued-civil-servant-pride-lgbt-christian-institute/

It's the Christian Institute which makes me feel a bit hmm, but I do agree with them about this.

I'm assuming it's Starmer because clickbaity headline and because he's currently Prime Minister. I do hope the case won't be affected should Starmer be replaced.

I agree with this move. Public bodies should not be endorsing political messages. Even things that seem benign put you at mercy of mission creep/change.

Presumably Starmer was sued as minister for the civil service so the case will be inherited by whoever replaces him in that role.

This is long overdue. The Dept for Education has been hopelessly compromised by trans extremist groups. The DfE have been funding them for ages, allowing them to promote the notion that sex change is desirable for children, puberty blockers harmless, mixed sex sport / changing rooms / dormitories essential and safeguarding children unnecessary if the sacred caste are in any way involved.
They've repeatedly compromised the Nolan Principles and taken sides. The last government belatedly started to roll this back but despite schools repeatedly calling for guidance, the DfE / government have failed to do update the last draft guidelines.
Presumably because trans captured as they are, they've got some insight that the messages they'd like to give parents (see first para) won't go down well, no matter how they try to frame objections as "transphobic.

I absolutely agree on this. As a former civil servant myself I know impartiality is woven through the civil service code and is one its most important values. Like so many institutions, GI has seeped into the veins of CS and tainted its culture. Frankly I am not bothered what organisations step in to take cases like this as long as they do so competently and win.

Hear, hear.

I’m fine with this being instigated by a Christian institute.

It’s time the churches stepped up and stopped condoning this movement that undermines women’s rights and encourages children to seek harmful body modification.

I'm in two minds about this.

On the one hand, as a former civil servant I've been horrified by how captured and in thrall to gender ideology the civil service has become. As @FarriersGirl has said, the way this has played out is completely at odds with the value of 'impartiality' that is at the heart of what it means to be a civil servant in the UK.

On the other hand, Pride used to be about acknowledging that LGB people should not be ashamed of (and indeed should be proud of) their sexual orientation and I would not want to see any challenge condemning that as a legitimate thing for civil servants to support.

If the challengers are focused on the way in which T activists are undermining women's rights (and reality), then they have my support. If they are also targeting LGB activists arguing for a level playing field, then I would be less keen.

I wonder if it ever occurred to Ruth Hunt that when she expanded the Stonewall remit she was binning the hard fought consensus on gay rights.

Years ago everyone would have thought it was fine. It's a sad indictment of trans activism that I. now absolutely agree with this action. It poisons everything it touches.

I agree with you @AlexandraLeaving up to a point. The old Pride had a very different agenda and was very much about visibility and rights for LGB people and it was political with a small p. I am not sure it has much in common with Pride as it has become last 10 years or so. Much more political and the TQ+ has come to dominate and that is before we get to the activist agenda that it is pushing. Gay friends of mine are no longer interested in it.

I agree - my friends too. But any challenge to it needs to be carefully handled to ensure it is targeting the TQ+ and not catching the LGB up in it (or being misrepresented as that).

Kathleen Stock has made a submission to the High Court.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b4f44a41-c9e5-453d-92b0-b4cf3a62a37d?shareToken=18fbcedb6aa5ffd0783aa4196c404df0

Civil servants who march in Pride events lend “support for gender ideology”, Kathleen Stock has told the High Court in a landmark judicial review claim.

The high-profile academic and gender-critical campaigner has backed a legal action against the prime minister and the civil service over claims that the Whitehall staff who participate in the “obviously political” annual marches are “in breach of laws on civil service impartiality”.

I think there is a difference between people who are civil servants going to something as civil servants, and going to something personally as an anonymous individual. Sometimes the latter is fine but the former is inappropriate even when the issue is fairly uncontroversial.

I don't think most employers should be asking employees to go to any political events, unless they are directly job related. I think it's an abuse of the employers power.

There are grey areas for sure - what's the differernce between a natural "community" and a political grouping, what about instances where a civil servant is representing an elected official at an event, etc. But I do think it's important to stick with the principle which would include visibility for LGB people being political.