A Labour Police and Crime Commissioner has been criticised after it emerged she handed over £5,000 of taxpayers’ cash for a gay pride march – just weeks before a High Court judge ruled that allowing uniformed police officers to take part in such a parade was biased and unlawful.
Emily Spurrell, a former councillor and PCC for Merseyside, made the donation of public money to ‘save’ Liverpool Pride, which was under threat because of a shortage of funds.
The cash from her office – which was the top donation of any organisation or individual – helped the event to go ahead as planned, on July 26.
But just days earlier Northumbria Police was admonished by the High Court for allowing uniformed police officers to march under a Progress flag promoting transgender ideology at a pride march last year.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Linden said it was ‘contrary to the uniformed officers’ duties of impartiality’, as well as Northumbria Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine’s ‘own duty of impartiality, to participate in the 2024 march, in Newcastle, in the way that they did.’
His judgement had immediate repercussions for police forces nationwide, with some opting to ban their officers from marching and taking part in such future events – unless policing it in an official capacity.
Yesterday critics said Ms Spurrell’s decision to make the donation when the High Court case was ‘on the horizon’ was ‘an extraordinary misuse of public funds’ and ‘simply stupefying.’
Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner Emily Spurrell made the £5k donation to help save Liverpool Pride, which was struggling financially
She was pictured at the event with police officers in 2024 wearing facepaint and a rainbow dress
Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin has slammed the donation as a ‘misuse of public funds.’
Sarah Pochin, Reform UK MP for nearby Runcorn and Helsby, said: ‘The Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner’s £5,000 donation to Liverpool Pride is an extraordinary misuse of public funds.
‘With rising crime and anti-social behaviour, taxpayers want to see safer streets not political gestures.’
Another outraged local told the Mail: ‘When other forces are following the ruling and making cancellations in relation to Pride events – the Merseyside PCC was shelling out thousands – that’s in no way impartial.
‘The decision to make the donation when that High Court case was on the horizon was simply stupefying.’
Under police regulations, which are set out in legislation, officers have a duty to act with impartiality and must avoid activities likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of their duties.
Allowing Northumbria police officers to march in Newcastle’s 2024 Pride in the City parade, and to staff a police stall decorated in the colours of the Progress flag, alongside a van painted in the same design, breached that duty, the judge found.
He agreed with lawyers for Linzi Smith, a lesbian who brought the case against the Northumbria force, that when police officers appeared in uniform or under official branding while displaying the Progress flag, it suggested an alignment or support for gender ideology or transgender rights. The Progress Pride flag is a variation on the original rainbow banner adopted by gay rights campaigners in the 1970s. It has extra colours to represent trans and non-binary people, as well as people of colour and those living with Aids.
A judge said police who marched at Newcastle Pride in 2024 breached rules on impartiality
The ruling prompted other forces across the UK to ban officers taking part in Pride marches in uniform unless they are officially on duty
Vanessa Jardine, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, was criticised in the High Court ruling
Linzi Smith, a gender-critical lesbian, brought the legal action against the Northumbria force
Soon after the ruling, Chief Constable Tim Forber, of neighbouring North Yorkshire police, said any officers from his force who wished to participate in such parades, who were not officially on duty or ‘actively engaged in policing the event,’ would not be permitted to wear uniform.
‘Participating in protest activity, or parades that support any ’cause’ can quite rightly undermine the public’s confidence in that impartiality,’ he said.
‘I do not allow the altering of police uniform or the changing of the livery of police vehicles to show support for any cause.’
Similarly, Greater Manchester Police officers were also told they will not be able to take part and ‘represent the force’ at this year’s Manchester Pride parade later this month.
In a letter to staff, Assistant Chief Constable Stephanie Parker said the High Court ruling had concluded that ‘such participation could reasonably be perceived by the public as the police taking a side in ongoing societal and political debates.’
She specifically highlighted gender identity and ‘related issues’ in the correspondence.
While GMP ‘remains steadfast in its commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion’ and ‘would continue to support LGBTQ ‘colleagues and communities’, Ms Parker said they also needed to ‘uphold the principle of operational impartiality’.
The senior officer added that staff will continue to be able to attend Manchester Pride ‘in a personal capacity’ and encouraged ‘everyone to continue celebrating and supporting our diverse communities’.
‘We understand this may be disappointing to many, but this decision has been made to ensure we remain compliant with legal expectations and maintain public confidence in our impartiality,’ she added.
Ms Spurrell did not respond to requests for comment.
