UK Camden Council Faces Legal Challenge Over Trans Pride Street Crossing

[Social Media]

 

Title: Camden Council Faces Legal Challenge Over Trans Pride Street Crossing

 

A legal battle is brewing in north London, where a resident is preparing to take Camden Council to court over a set of road crossings painted in the colours of the transgender pride flag. The crossings, located in Bloomsbury, were installed nearly four years ago and have since sparked both praise and controversy.

 

The blue, pink and white designs were introduced by the Labour-run council as a symbolic gesture to promote inclusivity and commemorate Camden’s LGBTQ+ history. “These crossings are a visual statement to help celebrate transgender awareness and act as a reminder of the rich LGBTQ+ history and daily life in the Bloomsbury area and across Camden,” a council spokesperson stated. “Camden is ‘no place for hate’ and we have a strong and continuing history of respect and support for everyone in our borough. We fight discrimination in all its forms, and this includes being an ally to our trans residents.”

 

But 57-year-old resident Blessing Olubanjo disagrees. The NHS administrator and Evangelical Christian has launched a legal claim against the council, arguing that the installations amount to “unlawful political messaging” and infringe on her rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. The cost of the project, £10,464 of taxpayer money, has added fuel to her objections.

 

“I brought this case because I believe in fairness, freedom of belief, and the proper role of public institutions,” Ms Olubanjo told The Telegraph. “As a Christian and a taxpayer, I should not be made to feel excluded or marginalised by political symbols in public spaces. This crossing sends a message that only one viewpoint is welcome, and that’s not right in a truly democratic society. I’m standing up not just for myself, but for everyone who feels silenced or sidelined by discredited, harmful activism forced on the public by ideologically captured local authorities.”

 

The Christian Legal Centre is backing Ms Olubanjo’s legal challenge. Its chief executive, Andrea Williams, said: “Not only is this crossing a matter of public safety and Christian freedom, it’s about the misuse of public resources for political campaigning. The crossing is a visual endorsement of a contested ideology, installed by a public authority in breach of its legal duties. This is not the role of local government. Public spaces should be able to be used by everyone, not to advance divisive agendas that alienate people of faith and those who hold to biological reality. The council needs to remove or redesign the crossing and apologise to its residents and local businesses.”

 

Concerns have also come from disability rights groups. The Royal National Institute for the Blind warned the council at the time that such colourful crossings could pose dangers for blind individuals and others with visual impairments. Transport for London’s Independent Disability Advisory Group echoed those concerns, saying the crossings could confuse people with learning difficulties, dementia, or sensory sensitivities, including those on the autistic spectrum.

 

Criticism has also come from women's rights advocates. Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at human rights charity Sex Matters, argued that “there is no conceivable justification” for maintaining the crossings, particularly after a Supreme Court ruling affirmed that terms like “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. “The trans flag crossings in Camden are not only a safety issue for the blind, disabled and elderly, but a costly exercise in celebrating a flag that represents unforgivable medical harms done to gender-distressed children in the name of ‘progress’,” she said.

 

 

The crossings are located in the same borough as the now-closed Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust’s youth gender identity clinic, which shut down last year following recommendations from the Cass Review. The council, however, denies any connection between the flag-themed crossings and the clinic.

 

Despite receiving a formal legal letter, Camden Council says it rejects Ms Olubanjo’s claims and is standing firm on its decision to retain the crossings.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph  2025-07-08

 

 

[Dionigi]

The zebras and pandas have added their support to these efforts.

[Dionigi]

Where do I apply for a contract to paint crossings, 10,000 pounds would do very nicely.

[JonnyF]

What a stupid idea. Drivers are conditioned to look for the standard zebra crossing. It would be easy for them (especially if colour blind) to mistake this for something else and knock someone over, and then likely get prosecuted for dangerous driving all because some Liberal working at a local authority wants to prove how Woke they are. 

 

Plus not everyone support trans ideology and they should not be forced to have this forced on them as they go about their daily business. 

 

 

[boloaf]

They look ridiculous to me as well as being downright dangerous. I would have thought it contravened the rules of the highway to have zebra crossings anything but black and white. The clue is in "Zebra"! Regardless of my political leanings, there is no way, in the name of personal safety, that I would ever use one of them. Anyone that does is risking life and limb. 

[Watawattana]

Maybe if this colouring was used in Thailand then more drivers might stop to look at them in disgust, rather than killing someone? 😜

[MarkBR]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Title: Camden Council Faces Legal Challenge Over Trans Pride Street Crossing

 

A legal battle is brewing in north London, where a resident is preparing to take Camden Council to court over a set of road crossings painted in the colours of the transgender pride flag. The crossings, located in Bloomsbury, were installed nearly four years ago and have since sparked both praise and controversy.

 

The blue, pink and white designs were introduced by the Labour-run council as a symbolic gesture to promote inclusivity and commemorate Camden’s LGBTQ+ history. “These crossings are a visual statement to help celebrate transgender awareness and act as a reminder of the rich LGBTQ+ history and daily life in the Bloomsbury area and across Camden,” a council spokesperson stated. “Camden is ‘no place for hate’ and we have a strong and continuing history of respect and support for everyone in our borough. We fight discrimination in all its forms, and this includes being an ally to our trans residents.”

 

But 57-year-old resident Blessing Olubanjo disagrees. The NHS administrator and Evangelical Christian has launched a legal claim against the council, arguing that the installations amount to “unlawful political messaging” and infringe on her rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. The cost of the project, £10,464 of taxpayer money, has added fuel to her objections.

 

“I brought this case because I believe in fairness, freedom of belief, and the proper role of public institutions,” Ms Olubanjo told The Telegraph. “As a Christian and a taxpayer, I should not be made to feel excluded or marginalised by political symbols in public spaces. This crossing sends a message that only one viewpoint is welcome, and that’s not right in a truly democratic society. I’m standing up not just for myself, but for everyone who feels silenced or sidelined by discredited, harmful activism forced on the public by ideologically captured local authorities.”

 

The Christian Legal Centre is backing Ms Olubanjo’s legal challenge. Its chief executive, Andrea Williams, said: “Not only is this crossing a matter of public safety and Christian freedom, it’s about the misuse of public resources for political campaigning. The crossing is a visual endorsement of a contested ideology, installed by a public authority in breach of its legal duties. This is not the role of local government. Public spaces should be able to be used by everyone, not to advance divisive agendas that alienate people of faith and those who hold to biological reality. The council needs to remove or redesign the crossing and apologise to its residents and local businesses.”

 

Concerns have also come from disability rights groups. The Royal National Institute for the Blind warned the council at the time that such colourful crossings could pose dangers for blind individuals and others with visual impairments. Transport for London’s Independent Disability Advisory Group echoed those concerns, saying the crossings could confuse people with learning difficulties, dementia, or sensory sensitivities, including those on the autistic spectrum.

 

Criticism has also come from women's rights advocates. Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at human rights charity Sex Matters, argued that “there is no conceivable justification” for maintaining the crossings, particularly after a Supreme Court ruling affirmed that terms like “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. “The trans flag crossings in Camden are not only a safety issue for the blind, disabled and elderly, but a costly exercise in celebrating a flag that represents unforgivable medical harms done to gender-distressed children in the name of ‘progress’,” she said.

 

 

The crossings are located in the same borough as the now-closed Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust’s youth gender identity clinic, which shut down last year following recommendations from the Cass Review. The council, however, denies any connection between the flag-themed crossings and the clinic.

 

Despite receiving a formal legal letter, Camden Council says it rejects Ms Olubanjo’s claims and is standing firm on its decision to retain the crossings.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph  2025-07-08

 

 

The phrase 'Evangelical Christian' tells you all you need to know concerning the reasons for the hatred of inclusivity

[Hanaguma]

Mindlesss pandering and virtue signalling.

 

How can the 'art' promote inclusion when certain groups are being very clear that they DON'T feel included?

[JonnyF]

21 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

The phrase 'Evangelical Christian' tells you all you need to know concerning the reasons for the hatred of inclusivity

 

Maybe not all you need to know. I don't think Muslims are too keen either.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/sam-morsy-rainbow-laces-armband-34229908

 

But hey, let's all bow down to the dogma of the alphabet people. If people get run over by a truck, that's their problem.

[sammieuk1]

Mr Mayor will surely be along with a red Allah Akbar' crossing as not to upset the new majority 🤔 

[MarkBR]

32 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Maybe not all you need to know. I don't think Muslims are too keen either.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/sam-morsy-rainbow-laces-armband-34229908

 

But hey, let's all bow down to the dogma of the alphabet people. If people get run over by a truck, that's their problem.

Given that it was about an evangelical objecting.  I was aiming my reply at evangelicals as being wedded to hatred.  But it does apply similarly to other individuals in many religions, predominantly although not solely monotheists, who prefer hatred to inclusivity.

[JonnyF]

49 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

Given that it was about an evangelical objecting.  I was aiming my reply at evangelicals as being wedded to hatred.  But it does apply similarly to other individuals in many religions, predominantly although not solely monotheists, who prefer hatred to inclusivity.

 

Not everything you disagree with is hatred.

 

Your dogmatic thinking is typical of the left. You believe something therefore everyone else should be forced to go along with it. If it offends them, screw 'em. You are only inclusive and respectful of those who share your beliefs. You believe in diversity of everything except opinion. Anyone who doesn't agree with your ideology is a hater/racist/sexist/Islamaphobic/transphobic etc.

 

A very narrow way of thinking. The left are exactly what they accuse others of being. 

[Sir Dude]

It really is just nonsense, and more importantly, who/which faceless jobsworths sign off on stuff like this in the first place? Needs to be some accountability with names and positions... it's as if they sit behind their desks just spending their time thinking up ways on how annoy and irritate everyone as effectively as possible.