Suella Braverman’s plan to clamp down on police officers who dance at Pride or wear badges could open the door to discrimination against marginalised communities, a senior police officer has claimed.
Paul Fotheringham, the president of the Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA), questioned why the home secretary had launched an investigation into “police impartiality”, saying it portrayed forces as “political rather than inclusive”.
This month Braverman ordered a review to be carried out by Andy Cooke, the chief inspector of constabulary, of initiatives in police forces that she said were “not meeting the priorities that the public expect of the police”.
Fotheringham said: “The home secretary recently wrote to all chief constables to question some of the work in this area under the subject of political impartiality. She gave examples of police activity that she felt had led to the damaging of public confidence by supposedly apolitical police forces siding with one group over another.
“She references ‘dancing and fraternising with political demonstrators’, which we assume relates to police attendance at Pride. She talks about the displaying of the progress flag and the wearing of badges. These are deeply personal and passionate matters for our staff and our communities.
“What I have actually seen are plenty of examples of effective community engagement and a desire to promote and welcome inclusion. Trust and confidence starts with how we treat our people. If they cannot be their true selves at work, how can we expect them to police our communities in the best possible way?”
Fotheringham told the PSA’s annual conference on Tuesday that the language used by Braverman mattered. “When the government uses language in this way to position the police as political rather than inclusive, are we opening the doors to a rhetoric of discrimination against those most vulnerable in our communities?” he asked.
Braverman is a leading figure in the “culture war” arena among Conservative MPs and is seen as a potential future leader if the party loses the next election.
Announcing the review of police impartiality, Braverman posted on Twitter a comprehensive list of activities that she deemed inappropriate for the force to take part in.
She wrote: “Recently, there have been cases when we have seen officers attending members of the public’s properties over perceived offence taken at gender-critical views on social media; failing to take action against threats of violence made by trans activists directed at biological women; attempting to enforce non-existing blasphemy laws in the name of ‘community cohesion’; dancing and fraternising with political marchers; waving the ‘Progress flag’ (which symbolises highly contested ideologies) or painting police cars in its colours; siding with the highly political Black Lives Matter movement by taking the knee; apologising for being ‘institutionally racist’, which is an unhelpful and inaccurate term; or encouraging the uptake of highly contested ideologies like critical race theory, gender ideology or eco-extremism, as useful frameworks for policing.”
