Suella’s crackdown on ‘awakened’ police: Braverman warns officers to stay out of gender issues, not to take the knee…and not to give militant protesters cups of tea
Suella Braverman issued a stark warning to police today, “waking up” and warning them to stay out of “controversial” issues such as gender.
The Home Secretary insisted that officers “should not get involved” by displaying trans flags or supporting “critical race theory”.
Amid a bitter row over the passive response to the chaos caused by XR and Just Stop Oil, Ms Braverman also said police should not hand them cups of tea or dance with militant protesters.
The blunt remarks came as Ms Braverman hailed the government for meeting its target for a 20,000 increase in police numbers nationally.
But Scotland Yard chief Mark Rowley admitted his beleaguered force had failed to achieve its goal – and also faced criticism from MPs for failing to deal with the disruptive protests.
Interior Secretary Suella Braverman urged officers ‘shouldn’t get involved’ by displaying trans flags or supporting ‘critical race theory’
Scotland Yard Commissioner Mark Rowley has insisted that police must operate ‘in a very precarious legal framework’ when it comes to police protests. In the photo, Waterloo Bridge today
After giving a speech in London, Ms Braverman was asked about her call for police to stay out of ‘controversial’ issues.
Given the example of displaying a trans flag, the Home Secretary said: ‘What I want to convey is that the police should not control lawful debates.
“If someone expresses gender-critical opinions on social media, they shouldn’t interfere.
“They shouldn’t get involved or espouse or embrace views that fit into critical race theory, they shouldn’t get down on their knees.”
Mrs. Braverman said she saw it reports of police departments “spending thousands of pounds on lanyards, on equality and diversity programs embracing contested theories such as critical race theory.”
Critical race theory argues that the law and other institutions are inherently racist.
She added: There is a perception that sometimes they support the militant demonstrators, like I said, give them cups of tea or dance with them.
“I think from a public trust point of view, all of that is detrimental. They should be taken seriously.
“They have to respond effectively and quickly to the crimes that people undergo: anti-social behaviour, car theft, rape and serious sexual violence, burglary. Those are the priorities that the British people want the police to deliver.”
In an earlier interview with LBC, Ms Braverman was asked about a case where several officers were dispatched to collect ‘golly’ dolls from an Essex pub.
She declined to comment as an investigation is underway, but added that she was “more generally concerned about the police response to complaints of hurt feelings or insults.”
Sir Mark said it is ‘much less likely’ that protests causing a stalemate will be legal when a new bill defining serious disruption is passed
“I’m afraid legal debate necessarily involves offending people and hurting feelings,” she said.
That’s not the job of the police. That is why the new directive I introduced on non-crime hate incidents raises the threshold, requiring police to take action and only really when there is a serious risk of significant harm, which should mean that police action should be taken in the rare circumstances. , but in the vast majority of lawful debate, lawful discourse, even where people might be offended, that really shouldn’t be an area where the police should be involved.’
Sir Mark Rowley was berated by MPs for passively monitoring protests when he testified before the Home Affairs Committee this morning.
He insisted that officers “have to operate in a very uncertain legal framework,” and there was case law suggesting that blocking traffic did not amount to “serious disturbance’.
“We have to struggle with that. It’s not as simple as saying you can immediately arrest someone for blocking the highway if they protest,” he said.
Sir Mark said it is ‘much less likely’ the protests will be legal if a new bill defining serious disturbance is passed.