. @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
I have seen quite a lot of this question going around.
Its called the "transman gotcha" and it is addressed in the Supreme Court judgment.
It goes like this: If you exclude "trans women" from women's spaces then you must include burly, bearded "trans men"
The answer in the judgment is that the Equality Act exceptions mean that both sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination prohibitions are disapplied so a service provider can lawfully exclude both ways.
There will be much talk of the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act over the next few days.
These are the exceptions that allow service providers to offer services that are only open to one sex or the other (found at Schedule 3 Part 7 of the Act). (1/7)
Without these provisions service providers would be committing sex discrimination by excluding men or women.
Service providers don’t need to “use these exceptions” to exclude people, they just provide the service in the normal way. If they were to get sued they (or a lawyer) can point to the exceptions to show the service is lawful. (2/7)
The exceptions disapply both the prohibitions against sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination.
Again service providers don’t have to “use the exceptions” to exclude someone based on a particular protected characteristic. (3/7)
The CEO of @AdvanceHE has written to university vice chancellors acknowledging that "certain policy statements" cited in the @officestudents decision on @SussexUni "originated in part from" their template.
The parts in yellow came word-for-word from the Equality Challenge Unit/ Advance HE template....
i.e. almost all of it.
... this policy was influential and contributed to the culture of declaring everything "transphobia" and of hounding and not protecting those accused of it.
The ONS have new guidance out on their gender identity data from the census....
They say that you can take it from them with "high confidence" that around 1 in 200 people have a "gender identity different from their sex at birth" 🤨
So who is "Mr X" the trans identifying man held in high security male prison after multiple convictions for luring boys into sex acts while pretending to be a teenage girl on social media?
Could it be former children’s holiday camp manager Cameron Osman who engaged more than 70 teenage boys in sexualised chat pretending to be a 16-year-old girl “Lizzie lemon”.