Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.033744
I note you seek access to the following information:
In July 2023 the Metropolitan Police Service banned its Officers from wearing Thin Blue Line badges on their uniform, starting at the policing of London Pride, as apparently it was feared members of the Trans community may take offence.
These badges are sold by the Care of Police Survivors charity to raise funds for the families of police officers that die on duty. The Thin Blue Line badge is worn as a mark of respect for those officers. Similar to wearing a poppy in respect of those who died in varies wars. They are not in any way political or offensive.
Please can you provide details of the total number of ACTUAL complaints you have received from any member of public complaining that they found it offensive for this badge to be worn by police officers.
Please can you provide data for the past five years together with the nature of the complaint.
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 40(2)(3) - Personal Information
Section 31(1)(a)(b)(g)(h)(i)(2)(b) - Law Enforcement
Reason for decision
At your second question you have asked us to provide data for the past five years together with the nature of the complaint. We have made the decision to disclose the number of complaints located, and the number where ‘offence’ was mentioned, however, we are unable to disclose the nature of each complaint in each case as this would identify specific complaints and would, or would be likely to, prejudice our ability to ascertain whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper and our ability to prevent or detect crime and apprehend or prosecute offenders, which would impact on law enforcement.
Any such disclosure would also identify individuals concerned and would release sensitive personal information about those individuals into the public domain. This would be unfair and unlawful as the individuals concerned would have no expectation that they would be identified in connection with a complaint in a FOIA response and this would therefore breach the first principle of the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection regulations (GDPR).
The following exemptions under the Act have therefore been applied to refuse disclosure in this case:
Section 40(2)(3)&(4) – Personal Information - of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would identify any living individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA).
I have applied this exemption because if we were disclose the information you have requested broken down to the level that you are seeking when low numbers have been located, it is possible that this would identify specific complaints and by virtue of this, would also identify individuals concerned and release sensitive personal information in relation to those individuals into the public domain. Having considered the legitimate interest test any such disclosure would not be in accordance with the first principle of the Data Protection Act which requires that the disclosure of the requested personal data must be lawful and fair
Section 31(1)(a)(b)(g)(h)(i)(2)(b) - Law Enforcement - The disclosure of the additional information you are seeking could identify specific complaints and investigations. If we routinely disclosed information that identified specific complaints and investigations this could alert offenders as to whether improper conduct or offences have been reported or not, and whether those offences, and those individuals responsible, are being actively investigated. Furthermore, individuals would be less likely to make complaints against police, or report offences to police, if information about those offences and investigations were then subsequently, routinely published, and due to low data, they were personally identified.
Disclosure could lead to people being less likely to make complaints to police, and could also led to victims and witnesses being less likely to report crime to police.
Disclosure would prejudice law enforcement and impact on our ability to ascertain whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper, and also on our ability to prevent or detect crime and to apprehend or prosecute offenders.
There is a public interest in the transparency of how the police respond to and investigate complaints and offences and providing assurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively dealing with improper conduct and/or offending. However, safeguarding the safe space that allows the public to make complaints against police, and for victims to report crime, is paramount and any disclosure that would be likely to prejudice these processes, which would impact on our ability to identify improper conduct, apprehend offenders, and prevent and detect crime, cannot be in the public interest.
I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure, particularly given the level of information disclosed today – which I believe satisfies the wider public interest.
Disclosure
Please see below for information that has been located in response to your first question, and assessed as suitable for disclosure.
Please can you provide details of the total number of ACTUAL complaints you have received from any member of public complaining that they found it offensive for this badge to be worn by police officers.
In the period requested two public complaints were received that mentioned ‘thin blue line’ badges. One of these complaints used the word ‘offence’.
FURTHER INFORMATION
The Thin Blue Line badge has not been banned by the MPS. The Met’s dress code policy sets out the official uniform standards police officers must adhere to whilst serving the public without fear or favour, including the wearing of badges or other items that show support for particular causes. The policy has not recently changed.
The only items that are allowed to be worn are the National Police Memorial Day Trust badge, the Help for Heroes badge and wristband, and the Royal British Legion poppy.