Grassroots police officers have launched an informal support network to push back against the influence of LGBT lobby groups and activists within the service, and defend the speech rights of gender critical staff who currently dare not speak out for fear of disciplinary action.
As reported by the Mail, the Police Sex Equality and Equity Network (Police SEEN) says that it intends to emulate the civil service network, SEEN, which was established “to re-focus attention on improving equality and equity between women and men”.
In a statement, Police SEEN accused the service of taking “actions that embed gender ideology” within forces nationwide.
Examples cited by the group include recent national guidance allowing male officers who identify as women to undertake searches, including strip and intimate searches, of detainees of the opposite sex.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council, which published the guidance, was forced to retract it and conduct a “thorough” review, following an outcry from ‘gender critical’ campaign groups. (Although recent research from the Women’s Rights Network recently found that 34 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales already had in place policies to allow transgender officers who were biologically male to carry out strip searches).
Police SEEN also points out that police forces now routinely record crime data based on self-declared gender identity (self-ID) rather than biological sex, even in cases where the alleged crime is rape.
According to research from Sex Matters, of the 22 police forces that responded to FOIA requests for information on how suspects’ sex is recorded, 18 (82%) said they recorded a suspect’s gender identity, while 16 (73%) said they did so on the basis of self-ID. In response to a separate question regarding the recording of rape suspects’ sex, 13 of 16 (81%) respondents confirmed they recorded gender identity, with over 50% doing so on the basis of self-ID.
Police SEEN’s statement goes on to warn that the influence of LGBTQ+ lobby groups and activists is impacting not only the day-to-day operational conduct of the police, but also creates “a culture of fear which prevents officers and staff who believe there are two sexes and that sex is real and immutable, from speaking out, for fear of disciplinary action”.
Charlotte Cadden, a Detective Chief Inspector with Greater Manchester Police said: “We feel that this network is long overdue and it is not just needed now, it is absolutely imperative that it is set up.
“We know personally of serving officers and staff who have been referred for disciplinary action for merely expressing a view that sex is real and that they don’t subscribe to a belief in gender ideology.
DCI Cadden added: “While we have respect for those whose views differ from our own, and their right to express those views, for the sake of public trust and confidence in our policing service, we have to ensure that there is a space where officers and staff know that sex realist views will also be respected and not subject to cancellation or harassment.”
Cathy Larkman, of the Women’s Rights Network, called on police chiefs to take notice and protect their officers from discrimination. “We have spoken to police officers and staff ourselves on many occasions,” she said, “[and] we know that there are real fears about challenging any aspect of gender ideology in the service. Given the growing number of tribunal successes for women who have been unfairly discriminated against for their views, police chiefs would be well advised to support them.”
A recent interim report of His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary – titled ‘Update on our activism and impartiality in policing inspection’ – highlighted “a lack of clarity in how police forces understand and interpret this evolving legal framework”, and noted that this is seen “in particular in the contested areas of: sex and gender reassignment; what constitutes a genuinely held belief; and when such beliefs are themselves protected under the Act.
“Without greater clarity,” it adds, “there is a risk that officers and staff may make the wrong decisions and, in so doing, undermine public trust and confidence.”
