Police launch investigation after seven statues damaged during London trans rights protest
20 April 2025, 15:04
Police are seeking urgent information after several statues were damaged during a trans rights protest in London yesterday.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
Thousands flocked to the streets of the capital on Saturday after the Supreme Court declared transgender women are not women in the eyes of the law.
Protesters defaced a statue of suffragette Millicent Fawcett as well as six others, the Metropolitan Police said on Sunday.
The iconic statue, located in London's Parliament Square - a location renowned for mass protest, depicts the suffragette grasping a banner reading: "Courage calls to courage everywhere".
The statue of the suffragette was scrawled with "f** rights" on the banner grasped by the figure.
A Met Statement read: “The Met Police is appealing for information following criminal damage to seven statues during a protest in Parliament Square, Westminster on Saturday, 19 April.
“Officers are currently trawling CCTV footage from the surrounding area after statues were defaced with graffiti and are appealing to anyone who may have been in attendance with information, footage or pictures to come forward by calling 101 quoting 01/7396927/25.
“Officers are also dealing with a number of complaints from the public about signs and images shared on social media that were reportedly displayed at the protest yesterday.
“Officers are investigating but to date the images and signs are from historic events, did not take place in London, or do not constitute a criminal offence. Available footage of the protest is being reviewed and action will be taken if there are signs displayed that breach of the law.”
Chief Superintendent, Stuart Bell, who led the policing operation for the protest, added: “Criminal damage and vandalism like this has no place on the streets of London and spoils the area for locals and those visiting.
“While the police support the public’s right to protest, criminality like this is senseless and unacceptable. We are pursuing this and will take action against those responsible.
“Working with the Greater London Authority (GLA) plans are underway to remove the graffiti but this requires specialist equipment and we are confident this will be done shortly.”
"Trans rights are human rights" was spray-painted onto the plinth of South African military leader Jan Christian Smuts.
It follows last week’s controversial decision on gender - more specifically the definition of a woman - a ruling that led to widespread division of opinion among the general public.
Activist groups, trade unions and charities took to Parliament Square for an “emergency demonstration” after the Supreme Court declared trans women are not women in the eyes of the law.
Activists demanded “trans liberation” and “trans rights now”, with some waving flags and holding banners.
It comes after the UK’s highest court confirmed the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.
This means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate can be excluded from single-sex spaces if "proportionate".
Keir Starmer’s government said the decision provides clarity and confidence” for women, while sources said the PM sees it as a “common sense position.”
The ruling means trans women cannot use single-sex female toilets, changing rooms or compete in women’s sports, according to the head of Britain’s equalities watchdog.
However, the decision has been slammed by Transgender and human rights groups.
Among the groups supporting the London protest are Trans Kids Deserve Better, Pride in Labour, the Front for the Liberation of Intersex Non-binary and Transgender people (Flint) and TransActual.
Following the decision, LGBTQ+ activist group Stone Wall said: “Yesterday’s UK Supreme Court ruling marks a deeply concerning moment, with widespread and harmful implications for our communities.
Former MP Joanna Cherry vs trans activist on Supreme Court gender ruling | LBC
“As a by-and-for LGBTQ+ organisation, we stand in full solidarity with trans, intersex and non-binary people as we begin to understand and respond to what this means.
“We’re looking closely at what this judgment means in practice – particularly in relation to the protections that remain in place for trans people under the Equality Act.
“We remain committed to working alongside partners across the LGBTQ+ sector and beyond to provide as much clarity as we can.
“Trans people have the right to live with safety, dignity and equality – today, tomorrow and always.
“We will never stop standing with you.”
Speaking to LBC, Melanie Field, an independent adviser on equality and human rights, who oversaw the Equality Act's drafting and passage through Westminster in 2010, has called for calm but warned this recent decision could be at odds with the act’s original goals.
She told LBC’s Paul Brand the legislation was meant to give transgender people with gender recognition certificates (GRCs) the same legal status as so-called “biological” men or women.
She said it was the “very clear” goal of the act that trans women with GRCs would be seen as women in the eyes of the law.
This will no longer be the case following the Supreme Court ruling.
Ms Field said: “So we're working in the context of that government policy and parliamentary intent that the gender recognition certificate should have the effect of changing a person's sex under sex discrimination law.
“So that was the basis on which we drafted the Equality Act 2010. And there are a number of exceptions in there that recognise the importance of biological sex in the provision of, for example, single sex services.
“And we were very careful to draft those provisions in a way that they would enable trans people to be treated differently in relation to those services, regardless of whether or not they had a gender recognition certificate.
“So my worry is that this Supreme Court judgement, which is sought to provide Clarity in a very sort of noisy and confused context, by applying a different interpretation to those provisions may mean that the act doesn't work in the way that was intended.”
