Now this is Barking Mad! - PC sues for Discrimination - which shows PC just gets Madder!

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,972
Yet another dog whistle thread.
 


mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,838
The judge did say that the test must be either modified or its necessity justified.
The latter is reasonable. The former is only "fair" if the physical demands are reduced for men as well.

The very definition of ''dumbing down''.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
31,096
The very definition of ''dumbing down''.
Not really. If you need to run this length (Or similar exertion) carrying the dog as part of the job, everyone should have to do it. But it's a reasonable request that you need to justify the test.

It's a dog handling cop job. In what scenario will that dog handler need to run 10 miles? Carrying the dog makes sense for 100 yards. The 10 miles not so much.

For instance: If I open up a position in an accountancy firm and make people do a 100 pushups before doing an accountancy test to get the job: I'm going to get no fat people in the firm. It's constructive discrimination by setting an unnecessary requirement that eliminates much of the population. Everyone's done the same test, but is that test reasonable to be an accountant.

The fact that it's a woman isn't relevant really. If it was a guy who couldn't make the 10 miles but was great at all the other stuff, they'd have the same reasonable challenge.

There's a much better discussion in the US around tests and challenges for things like the Marines, where there are different standards for no apparent reason.
 

mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,838
Not really. If you need to run this length (Or similar exertion) carrying the dog as part of the job, everyone should have to do it. But it's a reasonable request that you need to justify the test.

It's a dog handling cop job. In what scenario will that dog handler need to run 10 miles? Carrying the dog makes sense for 100 yards. The 10 miles not so much.

For instance: If I open up a position in an accountancy firm and make people do a 100 pushups before doing an accountancy test to get the job: I'm going to get no fat people in the firm. It's constructive discrimination by setting an unnecessary requirement that eliminates much of the population. Everyone's done the same test, but is that test reasonable to be an accountant.

The fact that it's a woman isn't relevant really. If it was a guy who couldn't make the 10 miles but was great at all the other stuff, they'd have the same reasonable challenge.

There's a much better discussion in the US around tests and challenges for things like the Marines, where there are different standards for no apparent reason.
10 miles is general fitness.
I'd expect every cop to be able to do 10 miles, as 'general fitness' would be a job requirement.
I'd expect every marine to be able to run a marathon.
 

papaquebec

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
1,947
The poor dog. It must have been very scared being carried by this woman who was not physically up to it. Hopefully some animal loving legal eagle will take a case against that police force for putting the dog in that dreadful situation?

In Michael Clifford's book about Maurice McCabe he reveals that McCabe failed twice to get into the gardai (1) he was 1/8" too short and (2) he failed the fitness test. He did not sue the gardai. He did stretching exercises and made the required 5' 9" and he addressed his fitness issues. He got in next time. Why could this lady copy not join a gym etc and take the test again when she felt up to standard?
What?

WHAT???

This is a thread about political correctness, NOT common sense!

Take your trolling elsewhere!
 

FunkyBoogaloo

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
2,869
10 miles is general fitness.
I'd expect every cop to be able to do 10 miles, as 'general fitness' would be a job requirement.
I'd expect every marine to be able to run a marathon.
She (the Police Officer) ran the 10 miles though. It was only when she was handed a 35kg dog and asked to carry it a further 100yds that she encountered problems.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
10,761
Men can't complain. We continue to suffer and put up with the most appalling, vicious, and aggressive female management.
If we're not prepared to organise and take action against (little blonde whore) HR and make them justify their appointments then we deserve everything we get.

It's like the Indians Shi*tting, ars*e naked, from a great height on mankind.


Speak for yourself ya daft misogynist bugger! :lol:
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,428
Its just not Fair!:cry:

WPC Kim-Louise Carter was awarded £15,000 after failing a fitness test which involved a 10-mile run, then carrying a dog over a course before running with it a further 100 yards.

Now 'Police forces must change the way they recruit dog handlers after a female officer won a landmark sex-discrimination case showing that the system was too “tough” for some women
.
Police to review tests for dog handlers to avoid discrimination

Then recruit some Tougher Women!

She wants to be a Dog Handler BTW

- but its all a bit too much for her....

Cant see why she should get a special dispensation just because she is a woman....

Its fact of life that many of us would 'like' to follow particular career paths or specialise within the one we have

- and just might not have the skills set required to do it

Life's a Bitch

- get over it!:roll:
I guess the question they looked at was is this a legitimate test, do you need to be able to do this to be a dog handler ? Really need not arbitrarily, because someone just set it up that way.

If you set a physical test higher than it needs to be then you would clearly be favouring men over women as generally men are stronger women.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
31,096
10 miles is general fitness.
I'd expect every cop to be able to do 10 miles, as 'general fitness' would be a job requirement.
I'd expect every marine to be able to run a marathon.
Why? When will they need to run 10 miles? I’d have thought sprint tests would be far more useful. Sprint tests and then carrying the 35kg dog makes sense. Lots of cases when that could come up. 0 where any officer anywhere will have to run 10 miles.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,440
There's a much better discussion in the US around tests and challenges for things like the Marines, where there are different standards for no apparent reason.
There seems to be little discussion here as men and women have different standards when joining the military.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
18,386
I guess the question they looked at was is this a legitimate test, do you need to be able to do this to be a dog handler ? Really need not arbitrarily, because someone just set it up that way.

If you set a physical test higher than it needs to be then you would clearly be favouring men over women as generally men are stronger women.

a lot of men cant run 10 miles, loads of women can.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
Why do we have to be treated to the latest rubbishy anecdote from the Daily Mail or the Daily Torygraph?

We know their agenda, we know Cattlepest's agenda, so this is all a thundering bore, and a waste of site-space.

Zoo, along with most the thread Cattlepest starts.
When you object to a thread/point made not because it's inaccurate in some way or because it misrepresents the facts, but because you don't like the point being made, it is you and your closed minded attitudes that has the problem.
All those who "liked" your post, please take similar note.

All very snowflakey so it is.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,440
Shouldn't be if they are asked to do the same job!
That is the way it is in the Irish Defence Forces and when Coveney was minister he said we needed to "look again"the female fitness requirement just to increase the number of women. He gave no reason why we needed to increase the number of women but then virtue signalling is its own reward. No one seems to have asked why the standards are lower for women and asked whether this lowers standards.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,560
That is the way it is in the Irish Defence Forces and when Coveney was minister he said we needed to "look again"the female fitness requirement just to increase the number of women. He gave no reason why we needed to increase the number of women but then virtue signalling is its own reward. No one seems to have asked why the standards are lower for women and asked whether this lowers standards.
He will be stuck for words

- now that the voices in his head have stopped.....:cool:
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
18,530
That is the way it is in the Irish Defence Forces and when Coveney was minister he said we needed to "look again"the female fitness requirement just to increase the number of women. He gave no reason why we needed to increase the number of women but then virtue signalling is its own reward. No one seems to have asked why the standards are lower for women and asked whether this lowers standards.
There were three 3 female army people on the Ray Darcy radio show during the week , part of a further campaign to increase female participation in the military. it seems this has become one of their top priorities and have campaigns aimed specifically at females.

It is interesting to compare it with say a profession like teaching whee there are actual valid arguments for a gender balance workforce as opposed to Bus driving , army , pilots , radio/TV presenters etc etc where we have seen these gender orientated recruitment campaigns.

Yet we have yet to see any initiatives in teaching which would seem to be the most obvious profession to have a gender balance in , I wonder why that is?
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,840
Men can't complain. We continue to suffer and put up with the most appalling, vicious, and aggressive female management.
If we're not prepared to organise and take action against (little blonde whore) HR and make them justify their appointments then we deserve everything we get.

It's like the Indians Shi*tting, ars*e naked, from a great height on mankind.
Packed a lot in there, didn't you ?
 

JCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
6,584
The poor dog. It must have been very scared being carried by this woman who was not physically up to it. Hopefully some animal loving legal eagle will take a case against that police force for putting the dog in that dreadful situation?

In Michael Clifford's book about Maurice McCabe he reveals that McCabe failed twice to get into the gardai (1) he was 1/8" too short and (2) he failed the fitness test. He did not sue the gardai. He did stretching exercises and made the required 5' 9" and he addressed his fitness issues. He got in next time. Why could this lady copy not join a gym etc and take the test again when she felt up to standard?
Because boobs.
 


Top Bottom