The Metropolitan Police has become the latest force to pander to strange woke demands with a proposed change to the uniform policy bearing no relevance to fighting crime.
The Met, Britain’s largest force, says it is considering gender-neutral uniforms following a landmark court case in which Jaguar Land Rover was censured for not taking extra steps to accommodate a gender-fluid employee.
The case concerned harassment and access to toilet facilities, not uniforms, but that hasn’t stopped the Met from making the woke move which will drain resources for the benefit of a tiny minority.
A week ago, this site reported on Cheshire police’s revival of garish police cars adorned with LGBT colours and silly stars. The hi-vis vehicles are intended to encourage people to step forward and report on hate crimes.
The standard bearer of woke pandering among UK forces is undoubtedly Merseyside Police. In July, the force released a video to “encourage colleagues to use gender neutral terms”. In the clip, officers are seen waving rainbow flags instead of cuffing criminals.
You would have thought Merseyside would have known better by now, having been condemned for a PR campaign stunt launched at the beginning of the year, which pretended being offensive to gay people was illegal.
Following last year’s court ruling, the Sun reports bosses at the Met are nervous about male and female uniforms – male coppers wear helmets, flat caps and ties; women wear bowler hats and cravats.
It is common across UK constabularies for officers identifying as another gender to wear a different uniform. This initiative is solely aimed at gender fluid officers, of which there are very few, perhaps because the phenomenon’s defintion is incredibly vague.
But according to gay rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell: “Separate uniforms for officers is a legacy of the sexist past.”
For the time being at least, the Met will not be changing its uniforms policy, but only because its current supply contract does not expire until 2023.
In the meantime, a consultation is underway. “This important feedback will be taken into consideration before a new contract is agreed,” said a Met spokesperson.
By then, another landmark ruling may have been spat out of the courts. In September, an employment tribunal legally defined gender-fluidity as a “protected characteristic” after awarding “aggravated damages” to an employee of JLR for the “egregious way” she had been treated after coming out as gender fluid in 2017 – strictly speaking she is not non-binary, the term commonly associated with gender-fluidity, as she uses female pronouns.
All sounds like a very efficient use of public resources, not to mention confusing.