Vasco - the Judge looked at it and decided it WAS discrimatory

"Where a standard test had negative impacts on members of a protected group, here women, then it either needs to be changed or objectively justified, “ said the judge.

The judge agreed women were at particular disadvantage compared with men and awarded Miss Carter a total of £14,930 for indirect sex discrimination.


Sounds like they didn't or couldn't justify the test.........

In a very different field a Company I work for recently lost a case on much the same basis - "Custom & Practice" was not considered to be acceptable when these days you could do a calculation and document it.............

'Cos every fule nose no girl can light a Weber!

CG

Indeed HH-that is exactly what happened in the case of Alcock vs CC Hampshire. Said gentleman failed selection but his female counterparts passed because of the gender fair test. The tribunal said this was direct discrimination which suggests to me that an objective assessment has been done.

If this was a general test for selection to the police as a whole I could see the argument. This was however a test for a specific role therefore the test should be absolute.

I am not a betting man but I would argue that the nature of the test (i.e. gender neutral) was influenced by the previous ruling above-not Custom and Practice.

I very much doubt if a MALE OFFICER could carry his dog even 1 MILE ???.:ok::ok:

and the Police have never been a beacon of early adoption of any form of equality in any field

as I said if someone could show a copper carrying his dog or running 10 km in one go on duty I'd listen but .................................

Like I said earlier.....they dont....they arent required to in the test......
As for equality in the Police....what is your personal experience?

Mate that applies to virtually every thread here! :cool:

Let us suppose the standard is reduced so that more women can pass selection with the expectation that 50% of the force will be female. Now the force has a requirement for 48 dog handlers. Previously they had 44 men and 4 women. Now they have 20 fewer men.

By definition, there would be 20 men stronger and possessing greater endurance than 20 of the women. In terms of equality they would be penalized. Instead of paying >£15k compensation the force might be liable for £300k. Oops.

This is a specific test for a specific role, not a general one. As jayteeto says, his missus gets stuck in with the rest of them. In other words, she passed the test to be a copper (jayteeto, give her my respect). That is a good thing in that we need more women in the force. BUT; this was a test to meet certain criteria. I'm sure some ladies would pass it, the same as some men would fail it. That does not make in discriminatory.

Hero's, as I related elsewhere, my brother in law says they had an Army PUT on their team. She could beat many of the men so the men could nit complain as too hard.

What's the problem? An issue has been identified which the police must now decide how to mitigate.

I don't really think we'll be seeing Maltese terriers or the like on front line police duties in the near future.....

One would imagine it's a requirement for the simple reason at some points in service the handler will need to, such as over broken glass etc in certain situations. Hence the requirement to ensure they have the ability to do it. In the same vein as air loadies of both sexes on the VC10 had to demonstrate the ability to lift and drag the heavy life rafts from their storage area in the rear cabin ceiling to the doors and deploy them in a set time.

I do feel however the country is screwed with all this PC bull****, I am all for equality etc but at the end of the day someone somewhere has to recognise that women are simply not built the same as men in both skeletal structure and muscle, I for one cannot see how she was discriminated against, the fact that there ARE female dog handlers proves the course IS passable by females and has been in the past, so where is the discrimination? Or are we going to become a Country that rewards failure with financial recompense, as that appears the way we are going.

If anyone watched the biggest little railway tonight with that ex Army bod laying a model train track in Scotland, it has a section that showed PC madness gone to extremes laying track alongside but a distance away from a canal, the spotty kid in charge had them in full reflective gear with life jackets helmets and ear defenders, the whole 9 yards and was bleating on worrying they may miss the start of their 1 hour lunch period.... It was totally over the top PC crap and shows how far this country is going down the tubes, don't get me wrong, safety is paramount, but this appeared to be more worried about crossing the T's and dotting the I's to be seen to be complying with the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it.

And they still ended up with the quad bike in the canal :*

That is the good news. Down here in Melbourne it is different, largely due to the efforts of one Christine Nixon, who, when Chief of Police in Victoria insisted on very high degrees of gender and race 'equality', large numbers of women of varying race were recruited and fit, able men turned away. A seasoned sergeant I spoke to was very unhappy, as he pointed out, he would spend more time, on a Saturday night, trying to protect his patrol partner, the 5' nothing girl, of Indian extraction, from drunken mobs than he should rightfully have spent trying to restore law and order. Not unnaturally he wanted a fit and able man of equal size to himself to be able to physically tackle the trouble makers whereas his position was totally compromised by the inappropriate gender and race bias of Christine Nixon.

You just beat me to it, parabellum. Big Kev's legacy will forever taint both VicPol and the state in general, she who declared that there was no problem with Sudanese migrants who she blatantly stated were 'under-represented' in crime stattistics.

But her legacy of lowering the entry standards to allow new recruits who just couldn't and still can't pull their weight in a normal policing way, plus the call that they are there "to keep the peace, not enforce the law" is a travesty of what VicPol and policing in general stands for.

Then there was the branding of 'POLICE' on vehicles, helicopters, hi-vis vests etc into lower case as being less aggressive, the payment for members to march with her in the St Kilda 'Gay Pride' march on full pay and finally her hairdressing appointment while the State burned and she was supposedly in charge of Emergency Management.

Even had a similar thing in the RAF in the 70's-80's when we had to change from carrying our SLR's on our hip to carrying it facing down as it was seen as a less aggressive stance, the fact you were carrying a big **** off musket in the first place didn't seem to matter, checking someone's ID close up meant you would struggle to raise it, when on your hip you could at least use gravity to make sure they felt it.


Yes Tanker I agree, and it wasn't even close to the bank, that and running the other with no oil in it.

PN just seen reply about pisser, totally agree.

Herod is spot on. My missus agrees with him 100%.
The level required for a specialist role is just that, the level required. However the second thread starter stated a general whine about women in the military or the police. That’s wrong. Merseyside had one standard during her training.

Back to rubbishing this police dog nonsense, remember, the RAF fitness test always had split levels. I could never understand why it was ESSENTIAL for a male to be able to reach level 10.5 in order to do a job, when a female could do it at 6.6........... It’s the same job!!

The reason? It’s a general filter to exclude lardarses. The police don’t actually NEED that level, it just filters. That is why the girls CAN have a lower limit for some posts. It’s wrong of course, but it does sort of explain why they can.

Glad to see that the consensus on the decision to award compo by this 'judge' is a travesty and flies in the face of common sense.

This has the familiar smell of similar females who sued their force for providing handguns that they could not grip, and also made them do an assault course in body armour...like the men:mad:

"who sued their force for providing handguns that they could not grip,"

so what idiot handed them out?

Providing a gun they can handle is common sense rather than one size fits all. Wearing body armour OTOH seems perfectly sensible provided it fits!