Police Ordered to Stop Using Words Like 'Black Sheep' and 'Pregnant Woman'
New speech codes for officers spark irritation, raising questions about priorities and free speech in the fight against crime
For the hardworking, underresourced, and overstretched police officers in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and Cambridgeshire, the already daunting task of fighting crime has been temporarily overshadowed by the need to police their own language. A new Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) speech code issued to police staff across these forces has sparked a debate, one that raises serious questions about priorities, freedom of speech, and the role of our brave police officers in modern-day Britain.
The nine-page document instructs officers to avoid using terms like “black sheep” and “blacklisted,” among others. As one person humorously commented on social media, “My pen doesn’t seem to work, have you got a non-white mixed ink pen so I can write down this young man’s stop and search record?”” Instead, “pregnant person” is recommended, while “Christian-centric” terms like “faith” are discouraged. According to the guide, these changes are necessary because such language risks “portraying certain groups as inferior or superior to others.”
Are These the Battles Worth Fighting?
Critics have slammed the guidance for veering into the realm of absurdity. Festus Akinbusoye, the UK’s first black Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and former PCC for Bedfordshire, didn’t mince words. He called the guidance “utterly mad,” pointing out its selective approach. For instance, while terms like “blacklisted” are frowned upon, there’s no mention of phrases like “whitewashing.” This inconsistency, he argues, undermines the very inclusivity the document claims to champion.
“The idea that a word such as ‘blacklist’ is being discouraged because of its negative inference to black people while a word like ‘whitewash’ is not included raises concerns,” he said. And he’s right—such cherry-picking fuels perceptions that these policies are less about genuine inclusivity and more about ideological posturing.
The Trouble with Ideological Frameworks
The document doesn’t stop at language policing. It goes further (if you are not a fan of the BBC then this bit might trigger you somewhat) urging officers to watch a BBC Bitesize video explaining the difference between being “non-racist” and “anti-racist,” while warning of “white fragility.” For those unfamiliar, “white fragility” refers to the idea that some white people struggle to process conversations about racism. But this concept, rooted in critical race theory, is highly contested. Dismissing alternative, lawful views as inherently “racist” or “hateful” risks alienating not just officers, but the people they serve.
Psychotherapist and campaigner James Esses expressed his concern: “It is concerning that the threat of being smeared for using these terms is becoming a reality.” Esses also highlighted that terms like “blacklisted” have origins unrelated to race, often tied to concepts of darkness or death. Here we are in Britain, 2025, where violent crime and sexual offences are on the rise, yet police officers are being asked to second-guess their words rather than focus on their core duty—keeping the public safe.
Free Speech Under Fire?
One of the most troubling aspects of this guidance is how closely it aligns with contested ideological frameworks. For police officers, impartiality is non-negotiable. Their role demands neutrality, especially when dealing with sensitive cases involving different communities or belief systems. Aligning training materials and policies with one side of a divisive debate risks creating perceptions of bias and further eroding public trust in the police, especially at a time when confidence in impartial policing is already at an all-time low.
We’ve seen how this plays out in the past. Take the example of Kate Scottow, a mother arrested by Hertfordshire Police in 2020 for referring to a transgender woman as a man on Twitter. Although her conviction was eventually overturned, the incident sparked outrage. Even former Prime Minister Boris Johnson weighed in, calling it an “abuse of manpower and police facilities” and questioning whether such actions truly serve the public.
“This is not what our brave police officers signed up to do,” Johnson wrote. “Is this really the right way to fight crime?”
A Dangerous Distraction?
Got a story or video to share? Need to get something off your chest?
Our team of experienced former emergency services and armed forces personnel wants to hear from you! With 300,000 monthly views, your story could reach a wide audience. Email us at contact@emergency-services.news.
When officers are busy watching BBC videos on “anti-racism” and scrutinising their every word for ideological correctness, what happens to their real job? The job of investigating burglaries, protecting vulnerable people, and tackling rising knife crime? The introduction of such policies risks pulling officers away from the frontlines, all in the name of virtue signaling.
And let’s not forget—the public expects police officers to uphold laws and protect communities, not to act as enforcers of contentious social ideologies. It’s little wonder that so many within the emergency services and their supporters are growing frustrated with what they see as a dangerous distraction from core responsibilities.
It’s no wonder that so many people are leaving the police force, while recruitment struggles to attract new talent. Having served in the armed forces and other branches of the emergency services, my time in the Met on a 999 response team in the East End of London was the most rewarding and enjoyable job I ever had. However, there is no chance I would join now. I signed up to fight crime, not to have woke ideologies imposed upon me by pressure groups. But that’s just my view.
The Case for Common Sense
Of course, no one is arguing against professionalism or treating people with respect. But there’s a fine line between fostering inclusivity and imposing ideological orthodoxy. Officers should absolutely strive to understand the communities they serve; most of them do. However, this understanding should come from genuine engagement and empathy, not from mandates that feel more like thought-policing than practical guidance.
As Festus Akinbusoye pointed out, this guidance creates more questions than answers. Why are certain phrases targeted while others are ignored? Why are contested ideological frameworks being presented as fact? And perhaps most importantly, is this really what policing in Britain should look like?
OPINION: What on Earth Has Happened to Our Police Force? (Are we allowed to call it that!?)
In a country where the police once stood as the epitome of common sense and hands-on law enforcement, we now find officers being instructed to watch BBC Bitesize videos and to use terms like "pregnant person" instead of "pregnant woman." This shift raises an alarming question: what the heck has happened to policing in Britain? The focus on language policing through EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) guidelines seems more like an ideological crusade than a strategy for effective crime prevention.
The origins of this directive are murky but stem from a broader cultural push towards political correctness and rigged social justice ideologies. Who is behind it?
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to ESN Report to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.