Britains "most-gay-friendly employer", where 10% of the staff bowl round the wicket, is Staffordshire Police.
A spokesman for the Staffordshire force said gay and lesbian officers were entitled to attend up to three gay pride rallies a year in paid time, to have paid parenting leave if they adopted a child, and to run parties with gay groups from neighbouring West Midlands constabularies.
I've got no problem with paid leave for adoption, and what parties they attend is their affair, but I'm raising a bijou eyebrow at paying taxes for people to go on marches.
Nature vs nurture is always an interesting debate in relation to any aspect of human behaviour, though in the case of homosexuality my money's on nurture, as a 'gay gene' wouldn't seem to be one that would confer reproductive advantage. But the current politically correct "fact" is that they were born that way, immutable part of self, discrimination as bad as racism, etc etc. Any evidence to the contrary is ignored and its exponents vilified.
So lets assume that they're right, and batting for the other side is an immutable part of your being, like skin or eye colour. In that case, why should taxpayers pay for people to "demonstrate the pride of the marchers in being gay" as Met Commander Cressida Dick puts it ? Would Staffordshire Police expect taxpayers to subsidise a White Pride march ?
(It's a pity Commander Dick has such trouble with the job she's paid to do).
Elsewhere, in Nottinghamshire ...
A detective is facing disciplinary action by his force for referring to a career criminal as “pondlife” in a private conversation with another officer.
The detective constable, who faces possible dismissal from his job, has been told that the criminal “might have been offended” had he heard the remark, although he was not present at the time.
Mustn't demonise the villains, must we ?
Sir Robert Peel is rotating at 7,200 rpm.
Weekend Read: Defining "Solidarity" in Law
5 hours ago