Printable Version of Topic
FightBack Forums _ News / Press Articles _ How did this even get to tribunal?
Posted by: Unzippy Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 13:19
Post #1346742
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/police-review-tests-dog-handlers-avoid-discrimination/
It’s not discrimination based on sex, it’s based on strength and fitness.
Jobs have person specifications for a reason. The suitability is hard because it very loosely replicates what is required in the job. If you can't lift a 35 kilo dog over fences and cover terrain that's nasty, shitty, rough, then deal with a suspect who wants to fight you at the end of it all then this job isn’t for you.
Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 13:34
Post #1346745
QUOTE (Unzippy @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 13:19)
... then deal with a suspect who wants to fight you at the end of it all...
That's what the dog is for
But it does rather smack of "let's lower the standard to suit"
Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 13:53
Post #1346751
Google "indirect discrimination".
Posted by: Unzippy Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:06
Post #1346754
QUOTE
Indirect discrimination is when there's a practice, policy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people than others.
Quite, it has a worse effect on the people that don’t meet the person specification for that job.
I couldn’t be a RAF pilot as it the job spec states you need full colour vision. Who do I sue?
BTW, 35kg is pretty light for a land shark, most are well over 40kg. A dog handler that can’t physically control their dog is a distinct liabilty.
Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:45
Post #1346763
QUOTE (Unzippy @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:06)
QUOTE
Indirect discrimination is when there's a practice, policy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people than others.
Quite, it has a worse effect on the people that don’t meet the person specification for that job.
Presumably the finding was that it has a disproportionate effect on women.
QUOTE
BTW, 35kg is pretty light for a land shark, most are well over 40kg. A dog handler that can’t physically control their dog is a distinct liabilty.
I agree.
Posted by: andy_foster Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 15:53
Post #1346786
Presumably the women had the added burden of also having to make the tea?
Posted by: mickR Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 19:07
Post #1346834
I sympathise with the poor lady! Carrying a large dog is very difficult when shes got to contend with a handbag as well
Posted by: glasgow_bhoy Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 02:49
Post #1346897
If I can pass the police fitness test I think anyone can...
Anyway why the 10 mile run? The poor dog would be exhausted far before its human master.
Posted by: paulajayne Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 10:15
Post #1346916
It doesn’t discriminate against women.
It discriminates against people who can’t pass it.
Posted by: StuartBu Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 11:06
Post #1346924
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 02:49)
If I can pass the police fitness test I think anyone can...
Anyway why the 10 mile run? The poor dog would be exhausted far before its human master.
What Cop ever had to run 10 miles with or without a mutt???
Posted by: mickR Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 12:01
Post #1346939
So are all the male Pcs who fail the test now going to claim discrimination by way of being a sissy girl?
Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 14:08
Post #1347279
QUOTE (Unzippy @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 13:19)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/police-review-tests-dog-handlers-avoid-discrimination/
It’s not discrimination based on sex, it’s based on strength and fitness.
Jobs have person specifications for a reason. The suitability is hard because it very loosely replicates what is required in the job. If you can't lift a 35 kilo dog over fences and cover terrain that's nasty, shitty, rough, then deal with a suspect who wants to fight you at the end of it all then this job isn’t for you.
Surely this is a step in the right direction to create a more equal society, hopefully in the near future employer won't be able to unlawfully discriminate based on intelligence, skills, ability or qualifications either!
Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 21:11
Post #1347393
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 14:08)
...............Surely this is a step in the right direction to create a more equal society, hopefully in the near future employer won't be able to unlawfully discriminate based on intelligence, skills, ability or qualifications either!
Please, not even n jest.
Years ago I read a short SCiFi story about a future society where all were not only equal but handicapped by the state if they were above the "normal"
So anyone with a high IQ had a blast of white noise to break concentration on a regular basis, athletic types had physical restraints and the like.
Can't remember the full story or the author but that vision of forced equality seems at times to be getting closer.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 22:35
Post #1347439
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 21:11)
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 14:08)
...............Surely this is a step in the right direction to create a more equal society, hopefully in the near future employer won't be able to unlawfully discriminate based on intelligence, skills, ability or qualifications either!
Please, not even n jest.
Years ago I read a short SCiFi story about a future society where all were not only equal but handicapped by the state if they were above the "normal"
So anyone with a high IQ had a blast of white noise to break concentration on a regular basis, athletic types had physical restraints and the like.
Can't remember the full story or the author but that vision of forced equality seems at times to be getting closer.
Are you de crying our education system per chance. Even in your Si Fi there is the person that decides who needs the white noise etc. so always a place for Eton
Posted by: KH_ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:38
Post #1347683
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 21:11)
Years ago I read a short SCiFi story about a future society where all were not only equal but handicapped by the state if they were above the "normal"
So anyone with a high IQ had a blast of white noise to break concentration on a regular basis, athletic types had physical restraints and the like.
Can't remember the full story or the author but that vision of forced equality seems at times to be getting closer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:26
Post #1347697
QUOTE (KH_ @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:38)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 21:11)
Years ago I read a short SCiFi story about a future society where all were not only equal but handicapped by the state if they were above the "normal"
So anyone with a high IQ had a blast of white noise to break concentration on a regular basis, athletic types had physical restraints and the like.
Can't remember the full story or the author but that vision of forced equality seems at times to be getting closer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
That's the beasty, thanks
Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 17:13
Post #1348881
There is a constant background whine of discontent that has been around as long as we have had language; before that even, given that is driven by one of the most basic of all our instincts – survival. In times of scarcity, those who outcompete the others will prevail where the rest perish. It’s what makes humankind the undisputed success that it is, notwithstanding those who blame man for every bad thing that befalls the home planet. But, goes a certain narrative, why can’t we be equally successful? Why can’t I have what he has?
There is an inaccurate but soothing platitude that all men are created equal. Seriously, if you want to believe this then Go You, I guess. But even if one takes that at face value and assumes that every baby is an equally blank slate, the process of differentiation begins almost immediately. Even if you strip out inherited advantages – money, circumstance, family attitudes, country of origin, etc., the supposed balance begins to tip right from the off. Some will walk, talk, understand, far quicker than others. Some will be overcome by childhood illness or accidents... or suffer trauma at the hands of those who should care from them.
Even if none of those things happened – or if they happened equally – once attaining the age of responsibility, some will work harder, smarter, faster, longer than others and begin to open up a lead. By their mid-twenties most people have set the groundwork for what follows. Of course, some fall by the wayside, but the mindset is pretty much established and it takes a mighty effort to shift it. Some plough all their energy into the next generation, some – selfishly, you might decide – continue to invest in themselves.
Either way, the world roughly splits into the haves and the have-nots and only the boundary is blurred; at what point do you have ‘enough’? At what point do you decide you don’t? And then, whichever camp you sit in, how do you account for it? The ‘winners’ continue to slap each other’s backs and congratulate each other for their hard work (even those who have inherited every penny) while berating the ‘losers’ for their indolence. The ‘losers’ can do no such thing, so construct a narrative of privilege and class from which they are excluded by some unfair process.
Both narratives have a certain basis in actualité, but one side has no desire to redress the balance; they must be compelled to do so. Thus, the class struggle is the attempt by the have-nots to loosen the grip of the haves on the keys to wealth and power. And replace it with what? An egalitarian, ‘equal’ society? Don’t make me laugh. Those who agitate for the left have their eyes on the prize of power for themselves and this manifests every time a socialist administration is ushered in on the tide of votes of the have-nots, hoping for a ‘kinder, gentler’ politics.
Even if you nominally divided fiscal wealth equally – that which you could seize before it was squirreled away – there is still the issue of influence and favour and pretty soon a hierarchy will be established in which it is secretive alliances which convey power, not the open acquisition of material things. When rich people screw up they become poorer people and suffer the ignominy of public ridicule. When nominally equal party apparatchiks screw up they either get given even more power or they disappear.
Maybe you prefer that version of society – conform or be removed – where your success depends not on your individual efforts but on how much you further the aims of the ruling committees; on how closely you resemble everybody else and how uniform your actions, speech and thought. Because, if you want an ‘equal’ society, this is where it it is inevitably headed, with all differentiators removed. But regardless of how far down the communist road you wish to travel, your imagined fair society has to begin with answering one question: How much of what other people have produced do you believe you are entitled to?
Posted by: Fredd Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 17:39
Post #1348890
Care to share the source?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 18:24
Post #1348912
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 17:39)
Care to share the source?
Care to share the brandy
Posted by: Unzippy Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 14:02
Post #1351451
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 18:39)
Care to share the source?
Google is quite the tool...
http://batsby.blogspot.com.au/2018/01/to-have-and-to-have-not-politics-of.html
Posted by: Fredd Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 14:26
Post #1351455
QUOTE (Unzippy @ Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 14:02)
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 18:39)
Care to share the source?
Google is quite the tool...
http://batsby.blogspot.com.au/2018/01/to-have-and-to-have-not-politics-of.html
Perhaps I was being too subtle. If you're going to regurgitate a swathe of text, from a far-right blog in this case, then the least you could do is provide some attribution so that people can decide for themselves how much credence they should give to the author's views.
Posted by: Unzippy Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 12:51
Post #1351699
There you go then, tidy lesson in art of sublety.
Hope it was an easy one!
Posted by: oldstoat Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 16:25
Post #1351789
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 14:26)
QUOTE (Unzippy @ Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 14:02)
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 18:39)
Care to share the source?
Google is quite the tool...
http://batsby.blogspot.com.au/2018/01/to-have-and-to-have-not-politics-of.html
Perhaps I was being too subtle. If you're going to regurgitate a swathe of text, from a far-right blog in this case, then the least you could do is provide some attribution so that people can decide for themselves how much credence they should give to the author's views.
far right crikey how do you work that out.
Posted by: Fredd Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 17:18
Post #1351816
Have you read any of it, beyond that one post? Unless it's supposed to be satirical and I missed the humour, then I'd say approval of eugenics and anti-Muslim posts illustrated by pictures of burkha-wearing women would be a fair indicator for a start.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)