The High Court in England & Wales has handed down a judgment declaring that the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police – a force covering Northumberland, Newcastle and Sunderland, (basically the upper part of north-east England) acted irrationally in letting her officers participate in and support a ‘Pride’ event in 2024.
In short, the issue was that the Claimant (‘Plaintiff’ to our friends over the Ocean), a ‘gender-critical lesbian’, objected to members of the local Police Force Force and/or members of the Force associating themselves with the views of supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists by actively participating in the ‘Northern Pride Event in Newcastle in July 2024. The Claimant’s belief is that as a person who is ‘gender-critical’, she believes that a person’s sex is an immutable characteristic and that “gender ideology”, which recognises a person’s gender identity, is “wrong and dangerous“. To cut a long story short, the learned judge, Mr Justice Linden, upheld the complaint. Putting it simply, the judge looked at the Chief Constable’s reasons for authorising her officers to participate in the Pride Event and found them to be irrational, i.e. there was no way that the decision could have been taken by a rational Chief Constable.
The crux of the case was that police officers have a duty to be impartial and to appear to be impartial, the Chief Constable decided that the duty to be ‘impartial’ was subject to the ‘public sector equality duty’ (a general duty used wrongly here as a ‘catch-all’ to justify any deviation from the norms of acceptable conduct), but the judge said that it was the other way around, the duty to be impartial is an absolute duty, and the ‘public sector equality duty’ is a duty to have regard to the need to achieve equality, rather than the need to achieve it. The Equality cart was put before the Impartiality Horse. At the end of the judgment is a rather stinging finding about the Defendant, the Chief Constable, in paragraph 136:
I have already explained that the Defendant’s reasoning did not provide a rational basis for her decision. After careful consideration I have also concluded that the effect of the activities challenged by the Claimant was sufficiently obvious for the Defendant’s decision to be outside the range of reasonable decisions open to her.I should point out for our readers that in England & Wales, judges are appointed by a commission, and the notion of a judge being akin to an ‘Obama judge’, a ‘Biden judge’ or a ‘Trump appointee’ is alien here, but of course the exalted echelons of higher legal circles contain in the main the sort of people who, holding a conference on law to all comers, would see nothing untoward in sneering at a Conservative government’s legal difficulties or Brexit, and the ‘Overton window’ in the legal community is more like a pinprick hole in a camera obscura, but that is not the point. What I would say is that in England & Wales, the more senior judges will tend to stick to the law and this may produce apparently surprising results, like this case.
So what happens now? Well in respect of last year’s event, nothing other than this court’s finding. However, this judgment, although from a judge who is in the first-level of the English courts, amounts to a legal ‘slap in the face with a wet fish‘ to activist police officers and will no doubt embolden those who seek to reduce or dilute the endless stream of ‘agitprop’ we see coming from our police forces, and to an extent in the wider public sector. It also helps to show that there is a difference between the activist version of the law and reality. Will the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria take any steps like asking the irrational Chief Constable to resign? Well, I’d be more surprised by that than the Second Coming.
Uh? Maybe this needs a correction.
Aside from that, this story makes me think that there is still some good sense in England.
Snorri,
Sorry if that is obscure. What it means is that a public official in the UK has a duty when taking any decision, to take into account the impact of a decision on equality etc. rather than to take the decision on the basis that the ‘Prime Directive’ as it were, it to advance equality. Here the police chief decided that she had a duty to advance ‘equality’ rather than to be ‘impartial’, rather than when considering if she involved police in the march, whether that step would advance equality in a way consistent with the duty to consider the impact of the decision.
The impact of the decision was that she acted unlawfully by disregarding a legal duty to act impartially, which cannot be excused on the basis that the unlawful decision ‘advanced equality’.
SG: When I used to work for judges, they often said that the appearance of impropriety could be worse than actual impropriety, because the damage the two things do can differ. I read the OP sentence as being similar to that.
Snorri
There still is plenty of good sense in England but the disconnect between public opinion and our government (both elected representatives and the far worse unelected civil servants), law enforcement, judiciary and media is the most extreme I have known throughout my nearly seventy years.
Judgements such as this, while welcome, are definitely outliers.
Anyone fancy putting together another Grand Remonstrance? Failure to defend borders, allowing divers foreign criminals to harm British people in their homeland, allowing large numbers of foreign people to damage British culture, allowing police forces to participate in partisan affairs, allowing the judgements of foreign courts to dictate British internal affairs………….
Northumbria Police has been dangerously out of control for a long while and makes up the law and lies to advance their agenda when it suits them. You CAN take them to court for redress but as they have the resources of the state at their disposal and always press for recovery of their costs if they win then the disincentive to do so is great.
I got the hell away from them over 16 years ago and don’t regret it for a moment.
I would be very interested to see the career history of the Chief Constable. I am reminded of a scene in a Dirty Harry film where Harry Callahan, played by Clint Eastwood, asks a job applicant to describe a felony arrest she has made. When she informs him that the has never made a felony arrest he asks her to describe a misdemeanour arrest she has made. No misdemaenour arrest either.
Here it is, from the Police Force’s website.
So it turns out that all this time championing communities, she has misunderstood the law she is meant to uphold.
@Mr Ed
I don’t believe she misunderstood the law but perhaps she believed (yes, a matter of belief) that other other activities were more important and this enabled her to ‘dismiss’ the importance of the law.
Although much mis-used by corporate drones there is perhaps a use for ‘mission statements’ which encapsulate the very reason for activities in an organisation. Sir Robert Peel had his principles, after all. Number one of which was:
Unbelievable? No; sadly all too believable.
From the webpage mentioned by Mr Ed above.
————————————————————————————————-
Alongside her role as Chief Constable, Vanessa is National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) Lead for LGBT+ communities, on the NPCC Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Committee. She is also the chair of the NPCC International Coordination Committee, which oversees and coordinates the assistance the UK policing gives to other countries.
Yes Mr Ed – it is good that English judges sometimes follow the law.
I would have expected them to find for the police – and have a Pride Flag flying in the court, with everyone made to prostrate themselves before it. I am glad to be mistaken.
As for the police being impartial – that goes against the training (and “policy advice”) the police have got for many years.
And there is indeed a tension (to put the matter mildly) between the idea of impartial state institutions, including the courts, and such legislation as the Equality Act of 2010 (and various international conventions as well).
The judge appears to be trying to square the circle – to prevent the state and its institutions, including the courts, openly becoming the enemy of the British people, which would mean that all “legitimacy” would be gone from the British state, including the legal system.
But how long can the circle be squared – how long before the obvious contradiction between the idea of impartial state institutions (such as an impartial police force) and the ideology the state now follows, becomes so blatant that it is impossible to keep papering over the cracks?
I’m so old, I remember the controversy about police officers wearing a Remembrance Day poppy on their uniforms, on the basis that they were supposed to be totally impartial, and totally meant totally, even when it came to displays that were pretty-much universally approved-of. There was this quaint idea that displaying support for ideas held by the vast majority was actually not a good thing, and that the police should not engage in what amounted to a popularity contest. How times have changed.
llater,
llamas
Or, put another way:
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
llater,
llamas
To whom would we hand our latter day Grand Remonstrance? The king no longer has any power and the vast majority of elected representatives are arranged against us. As far as I can see, there is no one to hold them to account. The voters can only do so if there are viable alternatives. I see Reform as being potentially viable only at present.
I’m not a robot but I do have bits of titanium holding together bits of my body.
Stonyground – yes, this is the worst Parliament in centuries, I think some people have not yet grasped just how bad it is.
As for the King – his Christmas broadcast, and more recent statements, speak for themselves. True His Majesty is not likely to have written any of these statements – but, as Monarch, he still read them out.
Paul:
Sadly, the Christmas message is one thing the King does indeed write himself.
Stoneyground,
The last one was handed to the monarch. Every year, the monarch reads the opening of parliament programme for government and starts with the words, “my government…”
Personally I’d like a constitutional convention unless parliament gets its act together. They are showing themselves to be working against our interests. As has been said in another document, when any government becomes destructive of our inalienable rights, its our right to alter or abolish it and to institute new forms to better protect ourselves.
I’ve been banging on about this yet all here prefer to keep returning to their own vomit. They want to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome.
So, serious question, what is your plan exactly? Write out your GR document and march up to the king during the opening of Parliament, hand it over and expect him to read it out?
I’d avoid this like the plague until such time as real conservatives are regularly winning elections. Progressives are far better than we are at getting out the vote, and that is the vote that will determine the tone of your new constituion.
The only real conservatives are outside parliament.
Maybe we could just watch our country fall apart and disorder reign?
I came up with an idea. You’re shooting it down without trying to be constructive. Ideas often fail but without them, nothing changes. The Chartists had ideas. The Harrogate Agenda has ideas.
@Stuart Noyes
Personally I’d like a constitutional convention unless parliament gets its act together.
I think a constitutional convention would be excellent if only people who posted in this blog got to go. Unfortunately it will be the same rich, powerful elitists who already run the country would would control the convention and it would be just a doubling down on the disaster you already have, and a stripping away of the few remaining rights you have. Look, you guys had already got something akin to a new constitution, it was the European convention on human rights. Few things have been more destructive to liberty than that.
And even were it a plebiscite remember who gets to set the questions, frame the issues and list the options on the multiple choices. Plus, honestly, the British people have completely lost any sense of “the rights of the Englishmen” so I wouldn’t put my trust in them at all.
On the other hand maybe a constitutional convention would be a better choice. It would be the final nail in the coffin of Britain, so that instead of a slow lingering death it would be a merciful bullet to the back of the head.
Maybe we could just watch our country fall apart and disorder reign?
The country WILL fall apart and disorder WILL reign, it is inevitable. Britain is beyond saving. However, whether you watch it happen is your choice.
I came up with an idea. You’re shooting it down without trying to be constructive. Ideas often fail but without them, nothing changes. The Chartists had ideas. The Harrogate Agenda has ideas.
Did you consider that there is nothing that can save Britain? Pretending that you can vote to change is like a flea complaining the dog doesn’t do what it tells him to do. You have no power over the fate of Britain. You can gather a group of people to work on it and that would be a good idea. Not because it’ll change the fate of Britain, but because it is always fun to have a group of people to go down the pub and have a good moan with.
But that doesn’t mean things have to go bad for you. If bad stuff is coming you plan around it. How can you organize your life to make the most of it? Can you build barriers against the intrusion of the state? Can you find alternatives? If you were living in Russian in the 1950s you’d have to face the inevitability that Stalin didn’t care to accommodate your preferences. Rather you’d build your life in a way to protect yourself from the state. You might, for example, start some Samizdat as a means of sharing news with your friends.
And if building a wall around your life against the state is insufficient, you can get out of Britain. Find another country that will welcome you and your ideas, a different place where you can flourish away from the collapsing dystopia of modern Britain.
Pretending something bad isn’t going to happen doesn’t stop it. Talking about or even doing things that won’t make a difference also won’t stop it. But making plans for the inevitable will make your life better. I’d recommend focusing on that, the personal sphere, rather than pretending you can make any difference politically.
(I should in fairness say that there is one possible hope for Britain, and that is a Trumpian Farage. That would probably help, but I don’t know how likely that is.)
“We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it”?
I’m only pointing out that trying to formulate a constitution – something with supermajority protection that is going to define your country for a long time – should only be done when you can realistically draft a version that is sane. You cannot do this if progressives can jump on the process and control it and draft a South Africa version of a constitution. And right now, they can.
Constructively, we all need to be better at changing minds, at bringing support to our views. We need voters, and votes. There is no shortcut around this requirement for fixing countries.
bobby b at 11:56pm, “…we need voters, and votes.” I would add that you can have all the voters you like but if you don’t have the vote counters you won’t have the votes.
In the US, the R half of the Uniparty might actually be making changes that give us more fair and transparent elections.
I would like to see every vote shown on a map. Only show map resolution down to about 100 votes. That is, you’d be able to see the 100 votes cast that are closest to your house. If your solidly conservative neighbors voted 70-30 for Biden, you’d know something was wrong. But each voters vote is still protected. And the system could also provide for overall accountability–no more or fewer votes were cast than expected. With all our money (yeah, I know “fiat money”) and tech, you’d think this is easily doable. Could probably get it all done for the price of the Fed’s renovation!
A man once said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
@GregWA
In the US, the R half of the Uniparty might actually be making changes that give us more fair and transparent elections.
It’s not my place to speak for BobbyB, but I think you misunderstand. For sure we need more secure elections (though I think the likelihood of that outside R states is not high), but what we also need is voters who don’t believe really stupid things. The problem is that the American people to some degree and the British people to a much larger degree have been seduced by the terrible ideas of the left. Not not just to the point of believing them, but considering them moral imperatives.
If that is true, which is seems to me to be self evidently so, and if you get perfectly secure voting, you are still screwed.
Here in America the great budget cutting Trump might, if we are lucky, manage to get a bill passed cutting 9 billion dollars (which is to say the amount we pay in interest on the debt since Saturday). That is so ridiculous it is hardly worth doing. The voters might say they want big cuts, but they can’t actually name anything they want to cut. And lets be clear the biggest by far existential threat to the USA is the debt. And for the Brits I’m not sure if the biggest existential threat of the utter suppression of freedom of speech or the debt, but there are no mobs of pitchfork and torch guys outside the palace of Westminster demanding that we get our freedoms back.
Fraser Orr.
Any protests get branded “far right”, “racist” and, even if totally peaceful, “violent thuggery”.
Protesters risk their jobs, they risk their families being victimized (yes the families as well – ask Katie Hopkins and many others about that), and they risk being sent to prison – and British prisons are very different places from what they used to be, many British prisons are now dominated by violent gangs who follow….. well let us say they follow the Crescent Moon.
So it is hardly surprising there are not crowds of people demanding we get our freedoms back.
@Paul Marks
Any protests get branded “far right”, “racist” and, even if totally peaceful, “violent thuggery”.
Sure, it is too late now. Y’all should have done it ten years ago. And FWIW there is still one place in Britain where you can speak your mind unfettered, and that is the House of Commons due to parliamentary privilege. But I don’t hear too many rants about freedom of speech there either.
Stuart:
Not quite: bobby made an attempt at being constructive:
Fraser Orr – did you miss what I have said, repeatedly said, about this being the worst House of Commons in my lifetime?
The vote was split in 2024 – and a lot of good Members of Parliament (who had made speeches defending liberty) are no longer in the House of Commons.
Elections have consequences – and “get the Tories out” has meant that some good Members of Parliament, including my own Member of Parliament, are no longer there. Meanwhile the chief failures (Sunak, Hunt and so on) remain there.
The good Members of Parliament are not making speeches defending liberty (as they used to do) – because they are not there anymore.
Far from being some sort of good-thing (as some, some, people around here seem to think) the General Election of 2024 (specifically the vote splitting “on the right”) was a disaster – certainly Britain was declining anyway (indeed one can date the rise of the state, the decline of liberty, in this country all the way back to the 1870s – 150 years ago), but the election of 2024 may be the final straw – which breaks the back of the nation.
“real conservatives are regularly winning elections” – there were some (some) real conservatives in the House of Commons, they are, mostly, NOT there any more (although a few have survived) – as for “future elections”…..
The next General Election in the United Kingdom will not be till May 2029 – it will be held at the same time as the council elections.
By May 2029 there will not be much of a country left – those of us who (unlike Perry) do not have the resources to leave, had better hope we are dead by then.
The reason the ‘right’ vote was split in 2024 was the appalling record of the Conservatives since 2010 and 2015 in particular when they had no excuse, and the appalling tyranny of the Covid terror. To hang on to the Conservative Party simply because it is not as bad as Labour is simply to choose a tangled parachute over a torn one. The Conservative Party is entirely to blame for the current situation and it deserves nothing less than oblivion and its MPs who voted for the last 14 years a People’s Court, not in the style that Charles I met, but one that brings charges of ‘wilful destruction of the country through fiscal and legislative neglect’ (a new indictable offence declared under the common law). A period of silence on the part of the Conservative Party would be most welcome.