The Police Service of Northern Ireland’s Strategic Community Engagement Team (SCET) hosted a Reference, Engagement and Listening (REaL) event at the University of Ulster, on 19th November 2024 with representatives from the LGBTQIA+ community across Northern Ireland.
The event centred on focus group discussions, linked to each of the five pillars contained within the ‘Here for You’ Engagement Vision, namely attraction and recruitment, engagement, neighbourhood policing, procedural fairness and local accountability.
The Organisations in attendance included HereNI, Omagh Pride, Belfast Pride, Young Greens NI, LGBTQ+ United Community, Another World Belfast/Show Some Love, Fermanagh Pride, HCAS, Cara Friend, Rainbow Project, Rainbow Refugees, Age NI, Trans NI, Mermaids, Out & About Hikers, Mams4TransNI. Peter McReynolds from the NIPB spoke about the NI Policing Plan. PSNI HR representative spoke around attraction and recruitment. ACC Singleton led the plenary session allowing for feedback on all issues.
This summary document is intended to capture some of the important highlights and potential solutions discussed across the focus groups and plenary session.
Attraction and Recruitment
The Police Service of Northern Ireland is committed to being representative of the community we serve and welcomes all applicants interested in a career in policing. In anticipation of a Police Officer recruitment campaign launching in early 2025, how could we maximise our outreach to enhance our attraction and recruitment from under-represented groups. How could the community assist the PSNI in this endeavour?
Among those in attendance there was a strong desire to understand the current representation of LGBTQIA+ officers and staff, but there was also an acknowledgement that data would be incomplete due to non‑disclosure (“prefer not to say”) and wider societal attitudes.
Attendees highlighted that visibility of LGBTQIA+ role models within PSNI is seen as critical to reassure prospective applicants that LGBTQIA+ staff exist and can progress and to reduce fear of “being the only one” and feeling isolated.
Initiatives like “Cop Call” (where community members spoke to officers from similar backgrounds) were positively referenced as good practice that should be built on. It was also recognised that some LGBTQIA+ officers do not wish to be publicly “out” or be seen as “the face of the network”; recruitment approaches need to respect different levels of visibility and comfort.
A recurring message during the event was is a lack of trust in PSNI among LGBTQIA+ communities, particularly linked to the withdrawal from participating in Belfast PRIDE in uniform and what was felt as a subsequent lack of clear explanation or visible support. This decision is seen as highly damaging, symbolically and practically
Those in attendance perceived tolerance amongst police of anti‑LGBTQIA rhetoric and insufficient challenge to discriminatory behaviour. Some also felt that there was under‑reporting of abuse and concerns that internal complaints are not always taken seriously.
Some LGBTQIA+ staff and community members perceive PSNI as “going backwards” on inclusion, with people who once loved the job now feeling alienated. Being LGBTQIA+ in policing was described as “double discrimination”: stigma attached both to being a police officer and to being LGBTQIA+. Attendees also highlighted the need to support intersectionality (e.g. working‑class, LGBTQIA+, disabled officers) and the additional risks and support needs that may be required.
The need for more LGBTQIA+ training was routinely highlighted with some participants focusing on the need for training to be supported by lived experience input. Attendees highlighted gaps in practical skills (e.g. using pronouns correctly, understanding trans issues, handling hate crime sensitively). There is an expectation that senior leaders should model inclusive behaviours, including use of pronouns and challenging poor conduct.
Internal LGBTQIA+ networks and staff associations are valued. Attendees advised that without trust in internal support, existing LGBTQIA+ staff may be reluctant to advocate for recruitment.
Engagement was seen as uneven. Some districts and events (e.g. Balmoral Show, Belfast Mela, Newry Pride‑style events) are seen as positive. Others report negative interactions and low trust, especially in urban areas. There were mixed frontline experiences: some officers and districts are reported as being supportive and respectful; others are perceived as insensitive or dismissive.
There is appetite for more in‑person, discussion‑based events with clear outcomes, including smaller steering groups to work through difficult topics. Online engagement (webinars, Instagram Q&As) that allow anonymity and broader reach; past experience shows strong demand. Co‑designed approaches with LGBTQIA+ organisations, including using community spaces and financially supporting host organisations were encouraged.
Activities should align with key community calendar events (PRIDE, specific LGBTQIA+ dates) rather than generic scheduling and social media should be used to highlight concrete actions (training, listening events, policy changes), not just recruitment adverts.
Current recruitment branding is perceived as overly formal/intimidating (“sounds like I am applying to run the police”) as well as generic and not explicitly inclusive of LGBTQIA+ people. Suggested improvements include explicitly stating that LGBTQIA+ applicants are welcome and valued. Using subtle but recognisable LGBTQIA+ signals in visuals (e.g. rainbow elements, inclusive imagery, pronoun use) was encouraged as well as featuring LGBTQIA+ officers and staff in campaigns, but in a way that goes beyond tokenism, backed by real organisational commitments. Suggestions also included highlighting flexibility, varied roles, sideways moves and promotion opportunities that might appeal to diverse candidates.
It was felt that storytelling from LGBTQIA+ officers (where safe and consented) is powerful. Recruitment messaging must align with actual practice; otherwise it will be seen as “pink‑washing”.
Some attendees raised questions and concerns about the vetting processes, especially how social media is assessed and potential impacts on LGBTQIA+ applicants.
Procedural Fairness
Peter Tatchell has led a campaign over a number of years, branded as “ApologiseNow!”, which aims to get Police Forces across the UK to acknowledge their roles in victimising the LGBTQIA+ community. What are your thoughts on this campaign? Does it reflect the priorities and concerns of LGBTQIA+ community in Northern Ireland? What do you think the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s response should be to the “ApologiseNow!” campaign and what do you think are some of the sensitivities around this response that the PSNI should consider?
Many participants believe some form of apology is necessary for historical enforcement and victimisation of LGBTQIA+ people (pre‑decriminalisation and subsequent decades). Attendees also raised more recent harms, particularly the withdrawal from PRIDE in uniform and perceived “radio silence” or inadequate explanation. There is frustration that, while other police services have already apologised, PSNI has not, and some feel “miffed” that it has taken so long.
However, there is also recognition that not everyone in the community will agree or feel the same way and for younger people, the historic context may feel less immediate, though they still understand its legacy.
Some suggest two separate but linked pieces of work (historic apology and PRIDE‑related apology/explanation). At minimum, a clear acknowledgement that PRIDE was “not handled right” and a transparent explanation of decision‑making.
There is consensus that any statement must be absolutely clear. Clarity of scope is critical. The community wants to know what PSNI is apologising for and what changes follow, not a vague or generic statement.
A central concern is that an apology could be perceived as a PR or recruitment tactic rather than genuine remorse and delivered without substantive follow‑through (“talk is cheap”, “actions speak louder than words”).
An apology must be part of a wider, sustained programme of change and engagement, not a standalone communications exercise, it must not require individuals to “apply” or complete forms to be included, which could re‑traumatise those affected and community feedback and involvement in design and wording are essential to avoid performative gestures.
There was a view that an apology is “not relevant” if PSNI cannot explain or take accountability for current issues (e.g. PRIDE, hate crime responses). Emphasis on dealing with current harms and culture first, otherwise any historic apology may lack credibility. There was also a view that time is running out for many who lived through the worst of historic policing practices. There is no single agreed sequence, but there is agreement that apology and practical change must be tightly connected and clearly communicated.
Participants identified potential positive impacts of a well‑handled apology and follow‑up programme including the rebuilding of trust. Attendees also cited that it could help some community members feel more able to report hate crime and engage with police. Demonstrating accountability and change could encourage more LGBTQIA+ people to consider policing careers.
While focused on apology, discussions referenced current levels of online and offline hate, including orchestrated attacks on LGBTQIA+ organisations and fears that institutions may drift towards more hostile positions under political and social pressure.
At the same time, attendees highlighted examples of good practice, including officers providing practical safety and hate‑crime advice to LGBTQIA+ organisations, which has increased trust and willingness to call police. Active Bystander training and other internal initiatives, were seen as promising if fully implemented and supported.
Closing
Thank you to everyone who took part in these discussions and shared their experiences, insights and challenges so openly. Your contributions provide an honest and nuanced picture of the issues and will be critical in shaping any future approach to building trust.