- Jan 17, 2011
That could work but......... I detect a flaw....perhaps have leaner ' sentences for unfit criminals .then theyll have to make a law that fit people cant be criminals as well....
The ability to be very unpleasant to other people, irrespective of their wishes, would I expect be crucial.If you're talking specifically about ground troops, possibly not. I'd need to research what other qualities are valuable in ground troops before being definitive
How would one go about figuring out the minimum distance that one would need to be able to carry a dog for a test like this?If the dog can weigh up to X kg and could need to be carried Y km, then I don't see how being able to carry the dog that weighs X kg Y km isn't an essential part of the job.
A principle that is entirely consistent with this ruling.If there's a physical job to do then everyone employed to take on that job has to be able to do it, otherwise they themselves become an extra liability and possibly danger for everyone else involved.
Of course we can. I repeatedly tell idiots that their 'entitled' requests are not being granted. Men and Women have idiots in their ranks and these morons get equally short shrift.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.
did you ever see road wars on the telly atall mate???? if theres glass or if the dog has to be got over fences they have to be carried....That could work but......... I detect a flaw....perhaps have ‘ leaner ' sentences for unfit criminals .
Back to the Opening post ; I’d get the dog to run the 10 miles....the dog might then be lighter .
How often are you going to have to carry a dog anyway...You don’t very often see people carrying large dogs...unless somebody is going to be advocating for unfit dogs to join the ‘ Pigs ‘ ( politically incorrect term for police people )
I suppose shooting criminals from the get go would be a bit extreme for most . How come no one has invented the ‘ Knock them into contention ( happiness ) Gun “ .....probably too many volunteers wanting to be shot with that gun .
The laws of Unfor-seen consequences are very hard to predict ‘especially about he future ‘ ( to paraphrase ) .
Why can’t we all just get along . Criminals ; Who needs em ? ...what are they good for ?
I anecdotally heard a story about the fire brigade up north. Lady failed physical test, challenged the test. Senior officer in the training area was asked by the judge when the last time he had to carry an x weight y distance. Rather than say ' I work in the fireman school, ask a frontline chap' he panicked and said never. Judge said then it was an unnecessary requirement (it isn't apparantly) and it had to go.A principle that is entirely consistent with this ruling.
The police weren't required to change the test because fewer women were passing it - they were required to change the test because they weren't able to justify it.
The legal principle at work here is that if you are a member of a protected class (women being one such class) and if a test tends to disadvantage members of that class (as a very physically demanding test would tend to do in the case of women), then those who set the test are under an obligation to either (1) Justify the test in question, or (2) change the test.
If the police had been able to show the judge that the test was necessary to establish whether someone was up to the task of doing the job (as opposed to one that was unnecessarily tough), then they wouldn't have been asked to change it.
Unfortunately, these facts don't tend to get mentioned in the newspaper reporting of the case. Instead, the reports misleadingly suggest only that the tests had to be changed because not enough women were passing them.