. @HertsPolice tell @MailOnline that Specials have more discretion over uniform standards than regular police.
It's not what their handbook says
The Handbook says that in training student officers sign a contract including standards of behaviour and dress
Being appropriately equiped for duty is an officer's responsibility
- Uniform standards are the same for Specials as regular officers
- You need to adhere to what is an acceptable standard
- Supervisory officers are responsible for checking
It is very clear on jewellery, make up and nail polish.
NB: it doesn't say no make up, it says discrete
Glittery green & red nails is not discrete
Standards are not just about health and safety but conveying professionalism and integrity
Particularly for recruitment events
Herts police in their recruitment publicity showed an officer breaching these standards, on two separate occasions.
When people complained on Twitter the police threatened to report them.
My complaint got this response (from the Corporate Communications Team!)
Officers are encouraged to follow the uniform policy
...but it may not reflect modern culture
... Officers are given supportive advice over breaches of uniform
... In this instance we are very comfortable
So Herts police only "encourage" officers to follow rules 🤔
And when they breach them they threaten the public who complain 😡
And say they feel "very comfortable" with officers not following rules 🤯
What other rules are officers allowed to break @HertsPolice ?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The phrase “gender identity” appears 36 times in the judgment
Leonardo’s policy is that any member of staff who is proposing to to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process for the purposes of reassigning their gender can use the toilets intended for the opposite sex.
I am hugely grateful to Naomi Cunningham for the work that she has done as the first chair of Sex Matters, and for her equally important role as a barrister representing claimants using the law to fight for justice.
The arguments made on behalf of the Women and Equalities Minister yesterday were a desperate attempt to shoehorn "case-by-case" back into the single sex services following the Supreme Court judgment.
At paragraph 36 she says there are there are no equivalent exceptions to the single sex service exceptions that apply to employers.
She seems to have forgotten the provisions about protection of women in Schedule 22!
She said that the FWS case was principally decided by reference to maternity rights.
It wasn't. The SC concluded "it important that the EA is interpreted in a clear & consistent way so that groups which share a PC can be identified by those on whom the Act imposes obligations so that they can perform those obligations in a practical way"
Ollie was Chair of the Civil Service Rainbow Alliance for 9 years from 2008 -2017, then held a number of roles in the GEO.
So all the time that the government was getting the law wrong and getting Stonewall prizes for he was leading this.
In 2012 he wrote in Civil Service World about his personal opinion that the government shouldn't renege on its commitment to this particular approach to diversity.
Peter Wilkins case exposes another public body (this one part of @DefenceHQ) that lost sight of the Equality Act and of civil service principles of impartiality and objectivity.
One colleague accused him of making a "threatening" FOI request when he tried to draw attention to @dstlmod 's Line Manager’s Guide.
The FOI was turned down but I tried again.
At first DSTL said they couldn't find the document.
I said "have another look, its on your intranet" and they located it.
Then they thought long and hard about whether they could withhold it on security grounds.