The Metropolitan Police Service has initiated a controversial new policy requiring its officers to declare if they are, or have been, members of any “hierarchical organization that requires members to support and protect each other.” This policy, announced by Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, aims to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest among serving officers. Even worse, this has been a cause for enormous public outcry. The Freemasons have gone so far as to bring a judicial review to argue the policy’s illegality.
Adrian Marsh, the chief executive of the Grand Lodge of England, called the policy a “retrograde step.” Whether this was such an idea, I think it was badly implemented and the Metropolitan Police failed to do proper consultations before its immediate implementation. Marsh adamantly asserted that the new regulations would violate the human rights of Freemason police officers. He explained that membership involves belief, which could potentially be a protected ground under human rights law.
Marsh called the outcome of the consultation process entirely inadequate, biased, and unfairly discriminatory. He stressed that this injunction was the important first step required to protect our members from suffering the consequences of the Met’s damaging action. He alleged that the Metropolitan Police are “just making it up as they go along.”
The ongoing inquiry into Daniel Morgan’s tragic murder in 1987 has resulted in a landmark ruling. As a result, stricter prohibitions of Freemasonry in policing have immediately seen implementation. The inquiry revealed that ten police officers involved in the murder investigation were Freemasons, including one detective who later worked with a prime suspect. The explosive nature of that report’s call to action underscored the growing demand for transparency and accountability in policing.
In response to the new policy, a survey conducted among officers and staff indicated that two-thirds supported the restrictions due to concerns that membership in such organizations “affects public perception of police impartiality,” according to a Metropolitan Police spokesperson.
Marsh calls into question the survey’s usefulness. He questions whether Freemason officers have been truthful regarding their memberships with superiors. He encouraged anyone affected by the policy to reach out to the Police Federation, which equally condemns the new policy.
We urge them to consult with the Police Federation. They are equally as dead-set against this policy. He stated.
The Grand Lodge has filed an injunction to prevent implementation of the policy change. Marsh expects the court to take this question up sometime next month, if not before. This lawsuit victory is an important and encouraging step forward in the continued fight to restore transparency and accountability to the country’s law enforcement agencies.
Police lodges, such as the Manor of St James’s for Metropolitan officers, give a space for officers to meet and socialise. A second is Sine Favore, founded by Police Federation members in 2010. Adding to the discussion, the new federal policy has led to some important questions. How would membership in these groups go over in a conservative professional environment?
Our current debate over Freemasonry in policing still stirs passions on both sides of this incendiary issue. To some, these control structures are a threat to public trust. Still, others think they unjustly profile people for their personal beliefs and associations.
“They did not have an effective consultation before they announced the policy, which came into immediate effect. The policy is illegal, unfair and discriminatory. It breaches the human rights of our members.” – Adrian Marsh
“We are aware of the judicial review launched, challenging our change to the declarable association policy. We will be defending this.” – Met spokesperson