We should be about to witness the end of policing's flirtation with political symbology
New guidance in the wake of the King's Coronation provides an opportunity for sensible leaders to get their forces back on track - and to win back public support.
You will hopefully be relieved to learn that this isn’t a piece about some new -obia or -ism to add to the collection. Rather, it’s a brief story of how one of our most vital public institutions (the police) failed to grasp the significance of what adorns the iconic (or otherwise) helmet or hat of virtually every constable in the land.
Take a moment to really study what is on the front of the helmet. The Crown. The Brunswick star. The Royal Cypher. Together they announce the wearer of this iconic beat duty helmet to be a Constable of the Metropolitan Police.
But these aren’t just “design elements” of another corporate logo. They are “symbols of State” and thus have a status above all others. They are fundamental, if often overlooked, elements of our national identity and culture. You might think of them as being in the same league as our flag, our land and islands, and our history.
They are not simply logos or badges that can be tweaked or edited to favour or support a cause. Indeed, only approved entities - such as the police - are authorised to use these symbols of State. The Crown and Cypher (especially) speak to the reality that police officers are duty-bound to help keep the King’s Peace.
So, perhaps, it was no surprise that in 1968, our late Queen Elizabeth II authorised the use of the Crown, Cypher and Brunswick star on police cap badges, helmet plates, uniform buttons and other official items. With such rights of use, come responsibilities.
More than fifty years later, this June, The Public Safety Foundation wrote to the College of Arms raising concerns about the extent to which policing had deviated from the approvals and protocols associated with the use of symbols of State - such as the Royal Cypher, the Brunswick star, the Prince of Wales's feathers and the Crown.
Our particular concerns related to the use of symbols of State by policing entities seemingly without any approval (e.g. some of the police staff networks), but also the extent to which some forces had taken it upon themselves to rework, redesign, or otherwise misuse the symbols of State. For example, swapping the Royal Cypher for other imagery, or having the symbols of State dominated or overshadowed by other brands or symbols.
We know from More in Common’s polling that nearly 7 in 10 Brits believe the police have given up on solving crimes like burglary and shop theft, and that just over 4 in 10 Brits believe that the police are more interested in being woke than solving crimes.
The fact that the public have come to such views, should galvanise us all to help rebuild and restore policing: both in terms of resources, but also in terms of professionalism and helping ensure that policing refocuses on what really matters to the public and what is rightly expected from policing.
That’s why, in our correspondence with the College of Arms, we encouraged and urged clarity:
Our intention is to help ensure that our police forces are communicating as clearly and appropriately as possible with the public. We believe that seeking clarity around any relevant protocols, regulations, or conventions would seem to us to be the most sensible starting point for understanding the issues and public concerns.
Following on from our correspondence with the College of Arms, we are therefore delighted to be able to share the recently published guidance on the use of the symbols of State under His Majesty King Charles III.
The guidance helpfully reproduces several versions of the Brunswick star for use by the police (and a number of other public bodies), which meet the standards of the College of Arms.
You will hopefully be relieved to learn that this isn’t a piece about some new -obia or -ism to add to the collection. Rather, it’s a brief story of how one of our most vital public institutions (the police) failed to grasp the significance of what adorns the iconic (or otherwise) helmet or hat of virtually every constable in the land.
Take a moment to really study what is on the front of the helmet. The Crown. The Brunswick star. The Royal Cypher. Together they announce the wearer of this iconic beat duty helmet to be a Constable of the Metropolitan Police.
Thanks for reading On The Beat! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
But these aren’t just “design elements” of another corporate logo. They are “symbols of State” and thus have a status above all others. They are fundamental, if often overlooked, elements of our national identity and culture. You might think of them as being in the same league as our flag, our land and islands, and our history.
They are not simply logos or badges that can be tweaked or edited to favour or support a cause. Indeed, only approved entities - such as the police - are authorised to use these symbols of State. The Crown and Cypher (especially) speak to the reality that police officers are duty-bound to help keep the King’s Peace.
So, perhaps, it was no surprise that in 1968, our late Queen Elizabeth II authorised the use of the Crown, Cypher and Brunswick star on police cap badges, helmet plates, uniform buttons and other official items. With such rights of use, come responsibilities.
More than fifty years later, this June, The Public Safety Foundation wrote to the College of Arms raising concerns about the extent to which policing had deviated from the approvals and protocols associated with the use of symbols of State - such as the Royal Cypher, the Brunswick star, the Prince of Wales's feathers and the Crown.
Our particular concerns related to the use of symbols of State by policing entities seemingly without any approval (e.g. some of the police staff networks), but also the extent to which some forces had taken it upon themselves to rework, redesign, or otherwise misuse the symbols of State. For example, swapping the Royal Cypher for other imagery, or having the symbols of State dominated or overshadowed by other brands or symbols.
We know from More in Common’s polling that nearly 7 in 10 Brits believe the police have given up on solving crimes like burglary and shop theft, and that just over 4 in 10 Brits believe that the police are more interested in being woke than solving crimes.
The fact that the public have come to such views, should galvanise us all to help rebuild and restore policing: both in terms of resources, but also in terms of professionalism and helping ensure that policing refocuses on what really matters to the public and what is rightly expected from policing.
That’s why, in our correspondence with the College of Arms, we encouraged and urged clarity:
Our intention is to help ensure that our police forces are communicating as clearly and appropriately as possible with the public. We believe that seeking clarity around any relevant protocols, regulations, or conventions would seem to us to be the most sensible starting point for understanding the issues and public concerns.
Following on from our correspondence with the College of Arms, we are therefore delighted to be able to share the recently published guidance on the use of the symbols of State under His Majesty King Charles III.
The guidance helpfully reproduces several versions of the Brunswick star for use by the police (and a number of other public bodies), which meet the standards of the College of Arms.
If police leaders are serious about ensuring high standards and rebuilding trust and confidence in policing, then they should ensure that their brand identity - and those ‘staff networks’ and other entities seemingly operating with the approval of police forces and chiefs - is also in keeping with the standards set by the College of Arms and thus not misusing symbols of State.
The takeaway message for police leaders, Police and Crime Commissioners, and Mayors, is that if their logos or emblems diverge from the versions that meet the standards of the College of Arms, shown within the guidance, then “approval must be sought from the College of Arms for any new design before it is used”.
This new guidance should therefore be welcomed as helping bring clarity and restoring order to a situation that has undoubtedly become disordered. It is a situation that has, with other factors, contributed to an undermining of trust and confidence in the political impartiality of the police.
Those police leaders who seize upon this new guidance to ensure that their force is not misusing symbols of State, should do so confident in the knowledge that they are also bolstering one of the fundamental Peelian principles upon which policing is based:
“To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.”
The only risk from this new guidance is that elements in policing - continuing to misjudge both public mood and the question of “what is political” - seek approval for designs that are very obviously inappropriate, thus inviting further public ridicule and contempt, to say nothing of the embarassement that would come from the College of Arms rightly refusing to approve such inappropriate designs.
In short, this new guidance should mark the end of the road for UK policing’s flirtation with political or any other symbology. There really is no excuse for police forces or policing bodies to emblazon, dominate, or redecorate their identities.
With the Home Secretary and Policing Minister continuing to push hard for common-sense policing, and a public desperate to see policing improve, this new guidance provides a real opportunity for sensible policing leaders to help restore and demonstrate the political impartiality of their police force and win back the respect and approval of the public and their workforce alike.
In any event, with every force now on notice, it will be interesting to see in the coming weeks and months which of the UK’s police forces and policing bodies seize the opportunity, and which, if any, squander it.
Annex: For the convenience of any police leaders, Police and Crime Commissioners, and Mayors who ought to assure themselves that their force is not misusing symbols of State, the most relevant pages of guidance from the document are reproduced below, and you can can download the Guidance on Symbols of State here.
Thanks for reading On The Beat! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
If police leaders are serious about ensuring high standards and rebuilding trust and confidence in policing, then they should ensure that their brand identity - and those ‘staff networks’ and other entities seemingly operating with the approval of police forces and chiefs - is also in keeping with the standards set by the College of Arms and thus not misusing symbols of State.
The takeaway message for police leaders, Police and Crime Commissioners, and Mayors, is that if their logos or emblems diverge from the versions that meet the standards of the College of Arms, shown within the guidance, then “approval must be sought from the College of Arms for any new design before it is used”.
This new guidance should therefore be welcomed as helping bring clarity and restoring order to a situation that has undoubtedly become disordered. It is a situation that has, with other factors, contributed to an undermining of trust and confidence in the political impartiality of the police.
Those police leaders who seize upon this new guidance to ensure that their force is not misusing symbols of State, should do so confident in the knowledge that they are also bolstering one of the fundamental Peelian principles upon which policing is based:
“To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.”
The only risk from this new guidance is that elements in policing - continuing to misjudge both public mood and the question of “what is political” - seek approval for designs that are very obviously inappropriate, thus inviting further public ridicule and contempt, to say nothing of the embarassement that would come from the College of Arms rightly refusing to approve such inappropriate designs.
In short, this new guidance should mark the end of the road for UK policing’s flirtation with political or any other symbology. There really is no excuse for police forces or policing bodies to emblazon, dominate, or redecorate their identities.
With the Home Secretary and Policing Minister continuing to push hard for common-sense policing, and a public desperate to see policing improve, this new guidance provides a real opportunity for sensible policing leaders to help restore and demonstrate the political impartiality of their police force and win back the respect and approval of the public and their workforce alike.
In any event, with every force now on notice, it will be interesting to see in the coming weeks and months which of the UK’s police forces and policing bodies seize the opportunity, and which, if any, squander it.
Annex: For the convenience of any police leaders, Police and Crime Commissioners, and Mayors who ought to assure themselves that their force is not misusing symbols of State, the most relevant pages of guidance from the document are reproduced below, and you can can download the Guidance on Symbols of State here.