Pronoun plods: virtue-signalling police force crosses (thin blue) line

Cheshire police force’s deputy chief constable Julie Cooke has come under fire over her gender-neutral campaign.

In 2017, British man Matthew Furlong, 25, applied to join the Cheshire Police Service. This was a lifelong ambition and by all accounts he was an outstanding applicant. During his interview he was told “It was refreshing to meet someone as well prepared as yourself” and that he “could not have done any more”.

To his disappointment, he was later told he had lost out to other applicants. This was perplexing, for he had performed exceptionally well in the process. His father, a detective inspector in the same force, lodged a complaint. It transpired the recruitment branch had not been forthcoming with feedback, and that a combination of three traits had held Furlong junior back. First, he is male. Second, he is white. Third, he is heterosexual. Also, he had applied at the same time the force had decided it was time for a diversity binge.

We've issued a statement this evening to make people aware that social media posts which are being posted in relation to Alder Hey and the Alfie Evans situation are being monitored and may be acted upon. Read the full statement here: https://t.co/epopt5bhmY

— Merseyside Police (@MerseyPolice) April 25, 2018

While British employment law permits so-called “positive action” for recruitment and promotion in the name of diversity, there are limitations. For example, where a man and woman have equal claims to a position in a male-dominated industry, the employer may lawfully discriminate in favour of the female. However, this would be unlawful if the male applicant demonstrated better claims to the position.

There's been a lot of feedback about this. Here is our statement as to why and how police forces respond to hate incidents: pic.twitter.com/ch3yggII2k

— Humberside Police (@Humberbeat) January 28, 2019

The force attempted to circumvent this by dropping its recruitment standards to an artificially low level and assigning applicants a simple “pass” or “fail” mark as opposed to rating them in order. By doing this it argued that “protected-characteristics”-classified applicants who scored a “pass” rating had equal claims to that of Furlong, who had tertiary qualifications.

In February this year an employment tribunal found the force had unlawfully discriminated against him on the grounds of sexual orientation, race and gender. As Furlong bitterly reflected, had he lied on his application form to the effect he was bisexual, he would be walking a beat by now. “The irony of the whole thing is that throughout the whole process I was required to demonstrate my honesty and integrity and they have completely undermined that,” he stated.

Excellent work by #Safeguarding to put man before courts for wearing racially offensive t-shirt. #stophate #beingyou https://t.co/FM1dRW4MUU

— Newcastle Police (@npnewcastle) February 24, 2017

While accepting the tribunal’s findings, the newly appointed deputy chief constable Julie Cooke said the processes had been put in place “with the best of intentions”. That was not the smartest of responses, especially given rogue police have a long history of acting unlawfully with good intentions, but that is by the bye.

You would also think the force had more important things to think about than diversity. Two years ago, Cheshire experienced the third-highest crime rate rise in the country. Sex offences rose 34 per cent, robberies by 33 per cent, violence crime by 43 per cent, and public order offences a whopping 124 per cent. So what have been the force’s priorities since then?

Put it this way: last week the force again made international headlines for the wrong reasons, and this time Cooke was at the centre. Posting a video on her official Twitter account, the deputy chief constable, in full uniform and with her organisation’s logo in background, pontificated about the importance of observing “International Pronouns Day”.

Today marks #pronounsday – seeking to make sharing, educating and respecting personal pronouns commonplace. @pronounsday pic.twitter.com/pe9x9GWTJj

— Julie Cooke (@DCCJulieCooke) October 16, 2019

Referring to transgender people and those who are “gender non-conforming” she stated, “Today is about raising awareness, getting people to have conversations and understanding why it’s so important to understand the pronouns that somebody wishes to be used for them. Warning of the dangers of “misgendering”, Cooke, who is also the UK National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the LGBT plus portfolio, added it could “have a huge impact on somebody and their personal well-being”. Judging by the intense backlash, you could say the public gave Cooke a lesson on the dangers of misjudging.

What about an international "catch a burglar day"?

— george hudson (@parrsdad) October 16, 2019

No doubt the gormless Cooke would again claim she was acting with the best of intentions. But there is something profoundly disconcerting about a high-ranking government official — especially one with the power to deprive citizens of their liberty — dictating the use of logically non-conforming pronouns.

When Cooke said this was about “getting people to have conversations” about pronouns, she was resorting to authoritarian irony. From her perspective, there is no conversation to be had and no debate will be permitted, because the social science is settled. Subjective belief determines gender no matter how ludicrous the claim, and you will validate it through express affirmation or else.

It brings to mind a certain literary excerpt. “You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you … that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.” How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?

Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated.

— Police Scotland (@policescotland) December 30, 2014

It is hard to believe this is the same country that created the model for professional policing. Its founder, Home Secretary Sir Robert Peel, who formed the Metropolitan Police Service in 1829, was acutely aware of concerns this body would repress civil liberties. Accordingly, he and the inaugural commissioners instilled in the force what become known as the Peelian principles, the basis of which was providing policing through the public’s consent.

While Peel is still admired for his contribution to policing, we are forgetting something important. He is a dead white male, and as we all know they are synonymous with sexism, racism, patriarchy, and privilege. Accordingly, we should revise the Peelian principles to better reflect the functions of modern policing in Britain.

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. Outdated. Amend to: “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent people from being offended.”

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions. Amend to clarify that “public approval” is defined by the opinions of rainbow activists, human rights commissions, anti-discrimination boards, and disgruntled minority groups.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. Amend to include “after the police service has gaslighted them no end”.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. Agreed. Far better to use Orwellian terminology and monitoring to browbeat and intimidate.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. Amend to “Police seek and preserve public favour by catering to public opinion (to be read in conjunction with point 2)”.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient. This one can go altogether. After all, when was the last time you saw a police officer use physical force against a lawbreaker? Think Extinction Rebellion protests.

7. Police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police. Amend to “Police at all times should maintain a relationship with a public that gives reality the heave-ho.”

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary. Amend to clarify that the function of the police is to give instructions to the public on what is “appropriate” behaviour.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. Amend to “The test of police efficiency is no visible evidence of action in dealing with crime and disorder.”

My apologies in advance to all the hardworking operational police out there, who no doubt are embarrassed by their virtue-signalling, desk-bound superiors. On a happier note, Cheshire Police has improved in one respect: in May this year it was announced Furlong would be entering the force in September. Let’s hope we see more of his type and less of the pronoun plods.