7th December 2021
One of the wisest political decisions in the inter-war years was to ban political uniforms:
They knew in the 1930s that the combination of uniforms and democratic politics is not a happy one.
*
This blog has previously been critical of the Home Secretary for wearing an especially designed police uniform and attending a police operation:
Not even Winston Churchill wore a police uniform as Home Secretary in similar circumstances:
One perhaps hoped that the Home Secretary’s wish to dress up in police uniform was a one-off.
But no.
Now we have this spectacle:
police absolute state pic.twitter.com/HMNcGf8B9h
— Dan Hicks (@profdanhicks) December 6, 2021
We have the very Prime Minister wearing a police uniform.
*
Does it matter?
Surely there is no harm in politicians wearing fancy dress?
And perhaps there is no harm in them doing so, as long as they look silly when they do.
But.
A distinction between the police and the civilian politicians to whom they are accountable is a good thing.
The blurring – even removal – of that distinction is, in turn, a bad thing.
The distinction is a mark that we are not a police state – and a mark that we are not in any way approaching a police state.
It is a line – a police line, if you will – which should not be crossed.
Even for promotional photographs.
And already we are at a stage where ministers are expected to have at least two United Kingdom flags behind them in official photographs and films.
That would have too seemed odd for a British politician not so long ago.
Visual rhetoric and paraphernalia is potent, sometimes toxic.
The legislators of 1936 were sensible enough to halt political uniforms in the United Kingdom before it went too far.
A similar prohibition on politicians in uniform would also be a wise move.
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers.
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
Isn’t it an offence to dress in way that could deceive someone into thinking you are a member of the police?
What reason would there be for dressing as a (scruffy) police officer other than for seeking to appear to be a member of the police?
As is well known, part of the hidden danger of Boris’ leadership is the ability to look like an extreme buffoon in almost everything he does. Surely this is the most perfect example
It seems that wearing some police garment (caps, vests, badges, etc) is a widespread habit of certain politicians. These “certain” politicians are in fact always members or leaders of extreme right parties or movements – Salvini of Italy’s Lega (League) is one – and the message they are passing to their electorate is clear: we are the law-and-order patriots proud to defend our borders, clear our land of the assailing masses that contaminate our race.
They are not baffoons, they are subverters of the democratic order and spirit of a Nation-
It feels like we’re walking, willingly to our doom, without even clocking it. Johnson and his chums know exactly what they’re doing, in their hard hats, waving their flags. The press reinforce the message on a daily basis. The public either don’t notice, or don’t care, as long as they can shop, and dine out, and upgrade their car. Very scary.
The answer lies in Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 Geoff. However, there is a requirement to prove an ‘intent to deceive’.
Notwithstanding the legislation, one would think the Prime Minister would have more common sense than to think it is ok to dress as a Police Officer, particularly as Sarah Everard was murdered by Wayne Couzens – a real one!
With the current proposals, he now has his beady eye on a wig & gavel
Wig to represent his British side, gavel to represent his US birth?
Like Geoff, I always thought it a criminal offence to impersonate a police officer. Is this not the case?
this picture is hilarious, i mean any police officer attending their daily shift like this, would surely face disciplinary consequences. That the PM didnt had much time for this photo op is another thing, the tie, the bullet proof west, the much to small xxl jacket all sugest that they had 15 min and not one second more for whatever reason. But here we are this picture is out and the World is ROFL about the UK or better the UKs PM.
I start to get the feeling that mr Johnson really doesnt wants his momentary Job anymore.
Boris Johnson’s photo opportunity would have been thoroughly risk assessed well before he turned up for his close up.
Perhaps the Prime Minister should be charged with wasting police time and resources on a low level bust?
i do agree that in normal times any Government Photo Op in any country is well planed in advance. And when i look at Mrs Patel’s Photo above, she at least has that harsh look at the possible criminal beeing arrested by the police. Actually i see some similaritys to the way Churchils looks in his pic above .
But please what is the hidden message of the PMs picture.
“I am out of my of my depth, get me out of here?? ” The next election is at least 3 years away, there should be no need for the PM to convince the regular bloke on the street that he is one of them.
I have more then 35 years of media experience trough my job and i just dont get what this picture is supposed to deliver beside global laughter.
When the current fetish for politicians draping themselves in the Union Jack first came up I did a bit of casual research on the web, and with only one exception could not find a british PM with a Union Jack back drop before Cameron’s 2015 speech on the result of his ‘renogiation’ with the EU. It seems it was started by Theresa May, and enthusiastically embraced by the current crop of tory politicians. The sole exception I mention was in fact Boris’ self-professed hero, Winston Churchill, but this was his address to the House of Representatives in Washington, where the flag back drop was provided by Congress alongside the Stars and Stripes. All other pictures i found of Churchill broadcasting from his office or the studio eschewed it.
It strikes me as slightly desperate with ministers seeking to outdo each other in their zealous demonstration of their unswerving patriotism. And of course anyone, particularly an opposition politician, not draping themeselves in the flag is now tacitly, and often vocally, tarred with a lack of pride in Britain, of defeatism, allegiance to foreign states (and the EU), and even giving succour to the enemy when in a war context.
At least Johnson stopped short of having his job title emblazoned across it somewhere.
I suspect dressing in a police uniform was the only manner in which he felt comfortable visiting Liverpool.
When David Lloyd George bravely came to Birmingham, to the seat of Chamberlain family, to speak out against the Boer War in a meeting at our Town Hall, he took his life in his hands.
He evaded the mob baying for his blood outside of the Town Hall by being smuggled out of the building, dressed as a policeman.
Some decades later, four Liverpudlian mop tops came to Birmingham and to evade the adoring crowds, wanting to hold their hands, get their autographs and … they too donned police uniform to safely leave the concert they had given at the Town Hall.
Of course, Winston Churchill had worn a military uniform as a graduate of Sandhurst, on campaign in the Sudan and during the Boer War, and in the trenches as a Major in command of a battalion on the Western Front during the First World War.
His World War Two comrade in arms was Major Clement Attlee, who was the second to last man off the beaches at Gallipoli and, like Churchill, served on the Western Front.
I suspect Johnson feels rather jealous of those greater men, who wore their uniforms, their leadership skills, their courage and their intellect lightly.
How long before Tory politicians adopt the American habit of wearing a pin badge showing the national flag in their lapel? A practice that seems to have begun with this chap: https://i.insider.com/5552a7d0eab8ea5220ca0930
The only saving grace is that both Priti Patel and Boris Johnson look ridiculous and out of place in their uniforms. Patel with her decidedly non uniform shoes, hands in pockets and Johnson looking dreadfully untidy (even more than usual) in his police rig. In neither case does it give them an air of uniformed authority which would indeed be extremely sinister.
It hasn’t been Johnson’s day, really. Party time.
Perhaps we should consider the rise of ‘Corporate Communications’ and also the psychology of belonging to groups.
Consider some police type saying to Churchill ‘lose the expensive overcoat and topper guv, try on this blue serge job and woodentop’. Does not sound likely does it, Churchill already ‘belonged’, he was already posh, armigerous and had a distinctive brand and already wore the uniform of the upper classes.
Today, apart from Rees-Mogg, clothing is more ‘renta oik’ and a few minutes with an electric sewing machine knocks out a corporate branded beany hat or flak jacket on the regulation uniform. Perhaps Boris and Priti think it says ‘don’t shoot’.
Then we might consider the psychology of joining in and the role of corporate communications and photo ops. Turn up at well planned photo op and get pressed cinto donning the ‘us’ clobber. Not helped by neither Boris nor Priti being socially secure. Money – OK but position – precarious.
As for Mrs Patel – those shoes, my dear, what a scream. Have a word with Mrs May, she would not be seen dead in those pumps.
She’s obviously got flat feet!
As for “Mr Bean” – seems any excuse to get the dressing up box out – I’m just waiting for the orange overalls which I hope he has to wear for a very long time!
Perhaps they want to be like an American President. Who wears military jacket when with the military. & Perhaps wears police when with police. Not sure about the police one though. I remember seeing Trump in a military jacket.
Quite right. It does make her look like a policeman and not like a Civil servant, member of parliament.,Home Secretary.
The US president is “commander in chief” of the US armed forces under article 2 of the US constitution. Strictly speaking, that does not give the president a military rank or a military uniform, but presidents do seem to like wearing jackets with military style patches. Much as members of the royal family have military ranks and on formal occasions wear military uniforms.
I’m not aware of US presidents wearing police uniform much, but here is a ceremonial example –
https://www.alamy.com/us-president-barack-obama-c-is-presented-with-a-jacket-by-police-commissioner-ray-kelly-r-as-new-york-mayor-michael-bloomberg-looks-on-during-a-visit-to-the-real-time-crime-center-at-one-police-plaza-in-new-york-may-13-2010-reutersjim-young-united-states-tags-politics-image380379090.html
It is indeed a bad thing for UK politicians to dress up in this manner, crossing a thin blue line by linking up operational policing with politics.
Thank you. & Thanks for the link. I don’t know. But I know that I don’t mind if they want to wear uniform whatever the reason. Until this blog I wouldn’t have thought to question it. Interesting to read each opinion though.
The difference between the situations can easily be determined by reading the title of that photo: “U.S. President Barack Obama (C) is presented with a jacket by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly (R) as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg looks on during a visit to the Real Time Crime Center at One Police Plaza in New York “.
Obama is visiting a police station, alongside another politician, and is given a jacket, which he wears over his suit for the photo op.
Johnson and Patel on the other hand, dressed as a fairly close approximation of a police uniform, in order to participate in a real life operation in the field, where they also arranged to have a cameraman for a photo.
The difference between the two situations seems pretty obvious to me.
Also the US President should NEVER wear a uniform, in order to cement the principle of civilian control over the military. I don’t recall there being any scandal about Trump wearing a military uniform (old bone spurs was never in the military so that would be multiple levels of wrong) but maybe I missed it. He did pressure the military to ‘perform’ as part of the July 4th celebrations at one point which was a big no-no.
Quite right Riktol, Even though not military. Trump wearing military. I think the giving of their military coat for the President to wear is like a prize they are giving to the current President, to give him a boost.
Perhaps they want to be like an American President. Who wears military jacket when with the military. & Perhaps wears police when with police. Not sure about the police one though. I remember seeing Trump in a military jacket.
Quite right. It does make her look like a policeman and not like a Civil servant, member of parliament., Home Secretary. That she is supposed to look like.
Churchill could have worn a uniform had he wished. He published an account (The Battle of Sydney Street) of his presence at Sydney Street where he discusses the propriety of politicians attending operational events. He remarks, “the attitude of the crowd was not particularly friendly and there were several cries of ‘Oo let ’em in’ in allusion to the refusal of the Liberal Government to introduce drastic laws restricting the immigration of aliens”. Plus ca change, then.
Guess. If Churchill would wear uniform if he wished. Then it’s okay for Priti Patel to wear a police coat. Presumably.
& thanks for the information & Reply. Interesting.
Not a police uniform. Johnson and Patel were given uniforms in advance of their prearranged photo opportunities. Churchill would not have had time to arrange that even if he wanted to. He could have put on his army uniform but he would have known how ridiculous and inflammatory that could have looked in a situation like the Sydney Street seige. Churchill’s presence at the seige was controversial at the time. Questions were asked about whether he was in operational control. Had he been wearing a uniform that would have appeared even more like he was.
The fact that Johnson and Patel were able to get dolled up in uniform and be inserted in operations shows how close the relationship is between the Met and the Government. Unhealthily close in my view.
Thank you. That is very good information on this matter. Yes. If the government is too close to the Met police it might make it difficult for the police to investigate a member of the cabinet should they need to be investigated. The law is above the government. The Met should be above the gov? But the government should be able to call the police to do whatever is essential to protect the gov and the people? I would think so.
I merely meant that Churchill had the right to wear a uniform had he wished and, pace Kevin Hall, had he not been called out of his bath and then attended the scene on impulse. I shall try to be more careful in future.
I don’t think you can say Churchill had the right to wear a police uniform any more than Johnson and Patel had.
I did not intend to specify a police uniform in that case. However, since the matter has been raised I am not sure if (very purist) commentators to this post should not also criticise Churchill’s continual wearing of honorary rank uniforms during the War. And although I have no wish to defend the Home Secretary, if she wishes to observe a police operation where there is some possibility of violence, should she not be clearly identified as part of the police presence?
It’s not being purist, the blog is about wearing police uniforms. I said in my first reply he would have been entitled to wear his army uniform but probably very unwise to do so in the circumstances.
I certainly would not criticise Churchill for wearing honourary uniforms he was entitled to in wartime or on formal occasions.
I agree with you. After all the conversations. She is right to wear the police uniform when with the police, wherever the police feel its necessary. They surely less likely to attack her in that coat and can conceal that she might be wearing a protective vest underneath or even be carrying a personal alarm or weapon underneath. Not to say she is. But she could do.