Was that not tried already by the RM?

But could she fight for her life when she got there...

The selection course has been made substantially easier in the last decade or so anyway, even before this announcement. Once the LRRP role was usurped by UAVs, there was no need to select soldiers for their ability to carry large loads over long distances, so they shortened considerably the speed marches. The modern kit makes the conditions far more comfortable, and they even get water breaks now instead of having to carry or scavenge it all. The selection was probably at its most difficult in the eighties and nineties, when the core role was long range unsupported reconnaissance behind front lines.

NL, if that was a man pissing about he would have been arrested.

When lots of these women suffer injuries in training, while trying to meet the current standards, will the MOD lower the standards or pay out a shed load of money in compensation?

I can also forsee problems for a mixed unit in the field where " Basic" living conditions apply, in a hide perhaps.

As it happens series 3 began tonight. 24 men and 3 dropped out on first day. Couldn't take the psychological pressure.

Police ordered to change the way they recruit dog handlers | Daily Mail Online

Of course there would never be a lowering of the standards in the military...

It does say that the test could be objectively justified. This is exactly the reverse of Alcock vs the Hampshire force some years ago. Of course they could always give her a smaller dog to carry.

Talking to BiL, a retired dog handler from Avon and Somerset, one problem was carrying a strange dog. All DH had to repeat the test at the annual refresher. They carried their own dog but new recruits had to carry what was available. The dogs were not always happy.

The technique was to hold the legs tight and pull the dog tight into the back of the neck.

Not all men pass the tests either. He said they had one card though against people crying off. They had an Army female PTI and if she could do it . . . Apparently all the instructors took part in the tests too. The biggest problem was some recruits were not as fit as they thought they were.

He was ex-RN FAA Field Gun team too - all tea and sympathy like.

Females in the Police or the Front Line
 

Police can't retain their standards. It will be exactly the same in the military, and they will end up with much reduced physical' standards. Glad I am out of this equality garbage.

Police to review tests for dog handlers to avoid discrimination

My missus is a Merseyside bobby and she gets stuck in more than some of her male colleagues. She and many others are good at the job. Same for frontline; there are many Richards who I would replace with one of the girls

How can it be discrimination? The test is to ensure that the candidate can carry out the task assigned. What next? A child couldn't complete the test, so in future it will involve carrying a toy dog over fifty metres. If not, that is age discrimination.

my Ggd... this is 2018.................... well it is here

why do they have to be able to carry a dog? when did any copper last run 10 miles? (in fact when did they last WALK 10 miles??)

they are coppers not the SAS

The simple fact is that some male officers also fail to make the grade so why on earth is this classed as discriminatory? As for running 10 miles, the story as usual is incorrect...They aren’t carrying the dog for 10 miles. It’s a continuation track that involves picking up and carrying the dog at certain times. Some female candidates passed that particular course so this is even more unjustified.

I'd say that police and, e.g., infantry requirements and training are different.

A WPC* is useful as such and a desirable member of the team. She will have a peculiarly feminine approach and acceptability which will, in some circumstances, be useful.
If slightly reduced ability to carry a load is necessary, then I don't think that presents a training problem.

*Yes, I know that, like WRNS, WRAC and WRAF, they aren't actually called that any more. :)

Basil, but running endurance and ability to carry your dog were the criteria.

See the SAS thread and the movement to this very story. As stated there , this is a question of the relevance of said test. If it is relevant then the standard is absolute ie both genders must achieve the same level. A while ago a different police force lost a similar case but with the opposite ruling ie they must introduce a gender neutral test. If it is necessary to have different standards for females (don’t get me started on that) then what do they do -give her a Yorkshire Terrier to carry? The bit that really does bother me is that she has been given compensation before a review of the test validity has been carried out. Presumably if said review were to justify the neutrality aspect on operational grounds then no discrimination had occurred. What then does she give the money back?

What has this got to do with Military Aviation?

I don't know the exact deets of this case or what the ruling was based on as I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.

However, as HH says. Is a ten miler of death plus the dog carry actually a requirement in line with the job spec? If it is, fair one. If not, then it is inherently discriminatory because a higher % of men will pass it. This isn't rocket science. It's 2018 and "we've always done this" or "why should it be easier than my day" just doesn't cut it. As others have said, particularly in the fuzz, the female approach brings something totally different to the party and having a 50/50 split is inherently desirable.

Because she has to be a Hercules to run 10 miles with a 250lb landshark over her shoulders.