Joining the Police
Discussion
Gmlgml said:
The basic problem with the test IMO is a) it’s set too low for some roles and should be higher and b) unlike most sensible organisations that use it the police don’t differentiate between age (definitely should) or sex (more contentious I guess.)
a) I still can't get my head around why air support are required to achieve a higher standard than a dog handler.b) The bar is set low. If they lower it any more then there is no need for a test as long as you are still breathing !
The age thing is contentious.
The sex thing is unlawful.
And the sex thing is plainly a nonsense under some circumstances.
I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
Gmlgml said:
And the sex thing is plainly a nonsense under some circumstances.
I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
It isn't nonsense because it is law ( direct sex discrimination).I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
I have to say I don't agree about bonuses for fitness.
Some of the laziest, crappest (is that a word ?) Cops are also some of the fittest.
Just because it’s law doesn’t mean it fits every circumstance. Could easily be amended for the right reason.
And I know plenty who are so fat, unfit and slovenly the only thing they could run is a bath.
I’m fairly confident a direct correlation could be drawn between a decent level of fitness and attendance. I’m not saying fit people dont get sick, I’ll or injured but I’d bet the rate for those that are unfit would be higher.
Windsor’s approach to failing fitness tests is about the only thing I would agree with him on.
And I know plenty who are so fat, unfit and slovenly the only thing they could run is a bath.
I’m fairly confident a direct correlation could be drawn between a decent level of fitness and attendance. I’m not saying fit people dont get sick, I’ll or injured but I’d bet the rate for those that are unfit would be higher.
Windsor’s approach to failing fitness tests is about the only thing I would agree with him on.
Red 4 said:
Gmlgml said:
And the sex thing is plainly a nonsense under some circumstances.
I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
It isn't nonsense because it is law ( direct sex discrimination).I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
I have to say I don't agree about bonuses for fitness.
Some of the laziest, crappest (is that a word ?) Cops are also some of the fittest.
Gmlgml said:
Just because it’s law doesn’t mean it fits every circumstance. Could easily be amended for the right reason.
What reason ?The only time discrimination is lawful is when it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
As both male and female officers do the same job you won't be able to justify different fitness standards.
The reason being as stated in earlier posts if we were to go down the route of paying bonuses for standards of fitness.
Many organisations that use incremental fitness testing apply different standards to age and sex. I agree it should be standardised for a particular role and everyone should hit that mark.
However if we went down the US military system of grading fitness 1/2/3 as part of a reward and recognition process there would have to be allowances for age and gender.
A 25 yr old male should be able to get to a higher standard on the bleep test than a 25yr old female. Similarly a 45 year old male should expect to get less than both the 25 yr olds.
all could be grade 1 in their respective categories once allowances/calculations have been made.
Many organisations that use incremental fitness testing apply different standards to age and sex. I agree it should be standardised for a particular role and everyone should hit that mark.
However if we went down the US military system of grading fitness 1/2/3 as part of a reward and recognition process there would have to be allowances for age and gender.
A 25 yr old male should be able to get to a higher standard on the bleep test than a 25yr old female. Similarly a 45 year old male should expect to get less than both the 25 yr olds.
all could be grade 1 in their respective categories once allowances/calculations have been made.
Edited by Gmlgml on Friday 28th December 17:40
Gmlgml said:
Windsor’s approach to failing fitness tests is about the only thing I would agree with him on.
... Ultimately, dismissal.Do you think Winsor's recommendations are really about fitness ?
HMG have done similar to the Fire Service.
A VO2 max test which the governments own research states most will fail in their 50s.
Increase pension age to 60.
Thank you and goodnight (and your pension will be frozen until you are 67/ 68).
Much £££ to be saved. Genius.
No idea how they get round the regs specifically other than to say it is discretionary to the chief con and not a given right.
The extra day is identifiable on the system and has to be used within the 12 month period.
If I remember rightly the starting point is a rolling period of 5 yrs with no sickness. Providing you stay sickness free for that initial 5 years, every calendar year after that where you don’t have any unplanned absences you get a little letter of thanks and the extra day added to your leave.
The extra day is identifiable on the system and has to be used within the 12 month period.
If I remember rightly the starting point is a rolling period of 5 yrs with no sickness. Providing you stay sickness free for that initial 5 years, every calendar year after that where you don’t have any unplanned absences you get a little letter of thanks and the extra day added to your leave.
Gmlgml said:
My force do. Don’t have a day off sick in a12 month period (pre planned stuff for surgery doesn’t count) and you get an extra days AL.
That's not incentive enough though. One days leave. Everyone struggles with illness and sometimes something that effects you in the job.
I said I’d agree with Windsor on failing fitness tests being a standard for employment up to a point, but it’s the arbitrary nature of it that I’d have the issue with.
I’m sure I read that CNC officers retirement age is 68, and as AFO’s they’d have to all be athletes to get to that standard, post 60. Chances for the vast majority aren’t good but where is the common sense in expecting two people, potentially over 40 years in age apart to hit the same standard?
That’s why the system at the moment of a fixed standard for any age, gender, or fixed standard for a role doesn’t stack up with basic physiology and exercise science.
Whatever the answer is would certainly be contentious as it would have to reflect all of the above to be fair.
I’m sure I read that CNC officers retirement age is 68, and as AFO’s they’d have to all be athletes to get to that standard, post 60. Chances for the vast majority aren’t good but where is the common sense in expecting two people, potentially over 40 years in age apart to hit the same standard?
That’s why the system at the moment of a fixed standard for any age, gender, or fixed standard for a role doesn’t stack up with basic physiology and exercise science.
Whatever the answer is would certainly be contentious as it would have to reflect all of the above to be fair.
Edited by Gmlgml on Friday 28th December 17:53
Red 4 said:
Gmlgml said:
Windsor’s approach to failing fitness tests is about the only thing I would agree with him on.
... Ultimately, dismissal.Do you think Winsor's recommendations are really about fitness ?
HMG have done similar to the Fire Service.
A VO2 max test which the governments own research states most will fail in their 50s.
Increase pension age to 60.
Thank you and goodnight (and your pension will be frozen until you are 67/ 68).
Much £££ to be saved. Genius.
Gmlgml said:
I’m sure I read that CNC officers retirement age is 68, and as AFO’s they’d have to all be athletes to get to that standard, post 60. Chances majority aren’t good but where is the common sense in expecting two people, potentially over 40 years in age apart to hit the same standard?
That’s why the system at the moment of a fixed standard for any age, gender, or fixed standard for a role doesn’t stack up with basic physiology and exercise science.
Whatever the answer is would certainly be contentious as it would have to reflect all of the above to be fair.
I've got a mate in the CNC.That’s why the system at the moment of a fixed standard for any age, gender, or fixed standard for a role doesn’t stack up with basic physiology and exercise science.
Whatever the answer is would certainly be contentious as it would have to reflect all of the above to be fair.
Retirement age was 60 - now it is 67/68.
They are all AFOs and are required to get to level 7.6 on the bleep.
Apart from that, there are regular firearms assessments and other tests they must pass.
If they don't then they are dismissed on capability grounds.
HMG do not appear to give a s
t and the CNC Fed lost a legal challenge.That job really is fecked !
67 year old firearms officers ? Never going to happen for 99% of them.
And therein lies Pandora’s box.
Lower the standard for an AFO so a 68 year old can pass (over 65 means an “excellent” rating is anything over 7/2 male, 5/7 female). Or have the standard as is and mean an older workforce hasn’t much of a chance of passing it?
No easy answer to that one!
Lower the standard for an AFO so a 68 year old can pass (over 65 means an “excellent” rating is anything over 7/2 male, 5/7 female). Or have the standard as is and mean an older workforce hasn’t much of a chance of passing it?
No easy answer to that one!
Gmlgml said:
And therein lies Pandora’s box.
Lower the standard for an AFO so a 68 year old can pass (over 65 excellent is anything over 7/2) or have the standard as is and mean an older workforce hasn’t much of a chance of passing it?
No easy answer to that one!
I think you are missing the point.Lower the standard for an AFO so a 68 year old can pass (over 65 excellent is anything over 7/2) or have the standard as is and mean an older workforce hasn’t much of a chance of passing it?
No easy answer to that one!
They don't want an older workforce.
The fitness standards won't be decreased - if anything they will be increased.
Windsor wanted the PSNI test for a standard fitness test.
If that can be justified for mainland cops then it will probably be implemented in the future.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff