+ve discrimination needed to meet race targets
Discussion
say police chiefs (reported in news.telegraph this morning). The online version of the Daily Telegraph continued:
"Police applicants from the ethnic minorities should get automatic preference over white candidates with the same qualifications for posts in the service, according to senior officers.
A growing number of chief and deputy chief constables want the law changed to legalise 'affirmative action' in recruitment to help forces meet Home Office targets for ethnic-minority officers.
One chief constable said: 'Many forces are nowhere near meeting their targets so radical steps need to be taken to ensure that police forces reflect the communities they serve. Affirmative action is the way to achieve that.'"
I take it that the emboldened text above means employing (so-called) 'travellers', muggers, burglars, etc., ... because those seem to be the 'communities' many senior officers appear to think the force (sorry, 'service') is there to 'serve'.
What next? If you can't meet the recruitment targets do you press-gang members of the ethnic minorities into the police?
Why not make it really easy? Advertise the post of (say) DCC with the words: "No previous experience necessary." Oh course, it would help if applicants were bleeding-heart liberals, totally anti-motorist, fully sympathetic with New Labour's current 'ideal-of-the-week', skilled at manipulating statistics (also known as 'lying'), and have a nice line in excuses for not providing the 'service' Joe Public wants.
But seriously though folks (as David Frost used to say on TW3); whilst I appreciate that this will be a ticklish subject, any BiB care to comment on the prospect of having their hard-worked for and long-earned promotions adversely affected by 'affirmative action'?
And isn't it wonderful how CCs, DCCs, etc. plead for changes to 'employment law' whilst being brow-beaten into toeing the government line on "householder's rights"?
Streaky
"Police applicants from the ethnic minorities should get automatic preference over white candidates with the same qualifications for posts in the service, according to senior officers.
A growing number of chief and deputy chief constables want the law changed to legalise 'affirmative action' in recruitment to help forces meet Home Office targets for ethnic-minority officers.
One chief constable said: 'Many forces are nowhere near meeting their targets so radical steps need to be taken to ensure that police forces reflect the communities they serve. Affirmative action is the way to achieve that.'"
I take it that the emboldened text above means employing (so-called) 'travellers', muggers, burglars, etc., ... because those seem to be the 'communities' many senior officers appear to think the force (sorry, 'service') is there to 'serve'.
What next? If you can't meet the recruitment targets do you press-gang members of the ethnic minorities into the police?
Why not make it really easy? Advertise the post of (say) DCC with the words: "No previous experience necessary." Oh course, it would help if applicants were bleeding-heart liberals, totally anti-motorist, fully sympathetic with New Labour's current 'ideal-of-the-week', skilled at manipulating statistics (also known as 'lying'), and have a nice line in excuses for not providing the 'service' Joe Public wants.
But seriously though folks (as David Frost used to say on TW3); whilst I appreciate that this will be a ticklish subject, any BiB care to comment on the prospect of having their hard-worked for and long-earned promotions adversely affected by 'affirmative action'?
And isn't it wonderful how CCs, DCCs, etc. plead for changes to 'employment law' whilst being brow-beaten into toeing the government line on "householder's rights"?
Streaky
As a member of the public who would like to see the best rise to the top in our Police Force (ok, Service), I think I'd rather see only the best move up, rahter than artificial lip service to lift the profile of the Police to the general public.
Let those who are able perform the duties of higher posts be given those jobs. If the best people in the Force are minorities, let them be promoted. If not, then then it has to be those in the majority who are given the job.
Let those who are able perform the duties of higher posts be given those jobs. If the best people in the Force are minorities, let them be promoted. If not, then then it has to be those in the majority who are given the job.
Surely it's a game being played by the Chief Constables because they can not attract recruits from ethnic minorities. They are scaremongering and trying to distract attention from recent highy publicised cases where forces have been shown to be blatantly discriminating against minority Officers.
Most of the Black and Asian friends I have would not dream of joining the BiBs for two reasons; firstly because of the long history of dicrimination and victimisation, secondly, because in the current climate any "success" they achieve would be attributed to "positive discrimination" and their achievements would be constantly undermined.
Don't let the rhetoric of the Chief Constables distract you attention from the very real problems at the core of the Police Service. It's a very "white" organisation showing little intention of changing. Positive discrimination is just a ruse to draw attention away from this real problem.
pp
Most of the Black and Asian friends I have would not dream of joining the BiBs for two reasons; firstly because of the long history of dicrimination and victimisation, secondly, because in the current climate any "success" they achieve would be attributed to "positive discrimination" and their achievements would be constantly undermined.
Don't let the rhetoric of the Chief Constables distract you attention from the very real problems at the core of the Police Service. It's a very "white" organisation showing little intention of changing. Positive discrimination is just a ruse to draw attention away from this real problem.
pp
not going to go to deeply into this one as its not only affectng the Police but its an issue everywhere.
Its just news when it involves a law enforcement organisation. Positive descrimination has been present in the Police for many years and is unlawfull. The chief officers here are aware of this and are seeking appoval to do it officially.
If people don't like the way the Police Forces are today then just wait to see what happens in the next ten years.
It wont be long before Government ( probably Labour) try and find a way of making the public pay for the service they get.
Let me explain...History shows that year on year local councils have to top up the grants from central government to make up the total budget. this comesout of the community charge. Dont we all know it..
Demands on the Police in relation to responds from the public for more trivial matters have always made it difficult for officers to concentrate on areas in which they are measured. Eg Neighbour disputes, civil matters, welfare, preventing breaches of the peace(never liked that phrase), Investigating low level fraud for banks. The list is huge..
We already have telephone reporting for victims of crime..What sort of service is that. One Station in the Met is piloting a hole in the wall type do it yourself crime report..Great service that is.
The point i am making is that at some point in the futurethe public may be charged for the service they receive. That charge may even be then offset agianst insurance. Ie household for burglary or car for M/V related incidents. When this day comes im off!!
Its just news when it involves a law enforcement organisation. Positive descrimination has been present in the Police for many years and is unlawfull. The chief officers here are aware of this and are seeking appoval to do it officially.
If people don't like the way the Police Forces are today then just wait to see what happens in the next ten years.
It wont be long before Government ( probably Labour) try and find a way of making the public pay for the service they get.
Let me explain...History shows that year on year local councils have to top up the grants from central government to make up the total budget. this comesout of the community charge. Dont we all know it..
Demands on the Police in relation to responds from the public for more trivial matters have always made it difficult for officers to concentrate on areas in which they are measured. Eg Neighbour disputes, civil matters, welfare, preventing breaches of the peace(never liked that phrase), Investigating low level fraud for banks. The list is huge..
We already have telephone reporting for victims of crime..What sort of service is that. One Station in the Met is piloting a hole in the wall type do it yourself crime report..Great service that is.
The point i am making is that at some point in the futurethe public may be charged for the service they receive. That charge may even be then offset agianst insurance. Ie household for burglary or car for M/V related incidents. When this day comes im off!!
Prof Pat Pending said:Here's an idea: Premium Rate Numbers for crime reporting - with lots of your expensive telephone call spent pressing buttons to navigate an Automated Call Distribution system, interspersed with a spiel on how well the police is serving the community, what role you can play, the number to call to apply to become a PCSO, how to report your neighbour for speeding, etc., etc., etc.
[ ... ]
It wont be long before Government ( probably Labour) try and find a way of making the public pay for the service they get.
[ ... ]
The point i am making is that at some point in the futurethe public may be charged for the service they receive.
Pah!
Streaky
Pickled Piper said:
Surely it's a game being played by the Chief Constables because they can not attract recruits from ethnic minorities. They are scaremongering and trying to distract attention from recent highy publicised cases where forces have been shown to be blatantly discriminating against minority Officers.
Most of the Black and Asian friends I have would not dream of joining the BiBs for two reasons; firstly because of the long history of dicrimination and victimisation, secondly, because in the current climate any "success" they achieve would be attributed to "positive discrimination" and their achievements would be constantly undermined.
Don't let the rhetoric of the Chief Constables distract you attention from the very real problems at the core of the Police Service. It's a very "white" organisation showing little intention of changing. Positive discrimination is just a ruse to draw attention away from this real problem.
pp
Rubbish. There is no "long history of dicrimination and victimisation". The vast majority of Police are not, and never have been, racist and there has certainly never been a campaign or policy in the Police to unfairly target people from ethnic minorities. There have been some racist Police, just as there have been racist butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, but these are a tiny minority.
As for the Police being a "very white organisation", you need to remember that this is a "very white" country. More than 90 per cent of people who live here are white. All indigenous people are white. Why is this a bad thing?
There are very few racist Police Officers, unless you use Macphersons idiotic definition (in which case every Cop is and everyone else is as well).
But there are some.
However, rather than deal harshly with this tiny minority of seriously racist officers, the Police "Service" decides on endless awareness courses for everyone, repeatedly , PR/Media nonsense, and victimising other coppers who would be horrified to be considered racist for using words like "black" as opposed to whatever word is currently de rigeur.
The racist coppers will ignore/laugh off the courses, not even bother with the media stuff and use the victimisation to reinforce their POV (Cor, look at that, can't do anything these days).
Example ; the Secret Policemen program.
The problem is *not* that some racist can get on and through the Training course. That's more or less unavoidable, sadly. (though the fact that a journalist gets on doesn't say much for the pre-course checks !)
It's the response to the program.
The *first* response was to prosecute the journalist (almost literally shoot the messenger) for damaging a flak jacket by putting a camera in it and wasting the Police money (despite the BBC offering to pay the costs) and something else I can't remember which was equally witless.
No action was taken against the racist cops.
Following this - which obviously wouldn't work and caused an even bigger riot in the press - the racist cops were "persuaded" to resign. I do not believe any other action was taken against them. The prosecution of the journalist was withdrawn.
It's the thicko manager approach.
We have a target - in this case more non-white coppers. A good thing IMO - (though there will always be more white coppers if they are representative)
We can either work hard to regain the trust of the ethnic community and deal harshly with the minority of real racists in the force - the operative words being "harshly" and "real".
This approach requires a lot of *real* work. It is relatively easy to pick on PC Honest for using "coloured" rather than "Afro Caribbean", and hard to catch PC Racist, largely because PC Honest may not realise he's done something wrong (and he hasn't really !), and PC Racist covers his tracks.
Or we can cheat by having minorities jump the queue, offer bursaries, and all the usual dodgy +ve discrimination things.
The lazy solution.
This kind of approach never works, except that the figures may be successfully fiddled. It doesn't solve the problem though.
If anything it makes it worse. The recruit may get criticised by his non-racist colleagues because he's not up to the job. If he is a good cop, he may be accused of getting in via +ve discrimnation anyway. He may have to leave because he can't do the job which will reinforce the community view.
Sure, have systems to encourage non-white people to apply and target them in recruitment drives. But once they are into the selection and training you must treat them the same as anyone else.
The Police must deal openly honestly and RATIONALLY with the few bad coppers - the ones who kicked the black guy in Manchester spring to mind and not try to hide them, allow them to retire and so on as they do now.
If they don't, and persist on the easy cop out, things will get worse.
But there are some.
However, rather than deal harshly with this tiny minority of seriously racist officers, the Police "Service" decides on endless awareness courses for everyone, repeatedly , PR/Media nonsense, and victimising other coppers who would be horrified to be considered racist for using words like "black" as opposed to whatever word is currently de rigeur.
The racist coppers will ignore/laugh off the courses, not even bother with the media stuff and use the victimisation to reinforce their POV (Cor, look at that, can't do anything these days).
Example ; the Secret Policemen program.
The problem is *not* that some racist can get on and through the Training course. That's more or less unavoidable, sadly. (though the fact that a journalist gets on doesn't say much for the pre-course checks !)
It's the response to the program.
The *first* response was to prosecute the journalist (almost literally shoot the messenger) for damaging a flak jacket by putting a camera in it and wasting the Police money (despite the BBC offering to pay the costs) and something else I can't remember which was equally witless.
No action was taken against the racist cops.
Following this - which obviously wouldn't work and caused an even bigger riot in the press - the racist cops were "persuaded" to resign. I do not believe any other action was taken against them. The prosecution of the journalist was withdrawn.
It's the thicko manager approach.
We have a target - in this case more non-white coppers. A good thing IMO - (though there will always be more white coppers if they are representative)
We can either work hard to regain the trust of the ethnic community and deal harshly with the minority of real racists in the force - the operative words being "harshly" and "real".
This approach requires a lot of *real* work. It is relatively easy to pick on PC Honest for using "coloured" rather than "Afro Caribbean", and hard to catch PC Racist, largely because PC Honest may not realise he's done something wrong (and he hasn't really !), and PC Racist covers his tracks.
Or we can cheat by having minorities jump the queue, offer bursaries, and all the usual dodgy +ve discrimination things.
The lazy solution.
This kind of approach never works, except that the figures may be successfully fiddled. It doesn't solve the problem though.
If anything it makes it worse. The recruit may get criticised by his non-racist colleagues because he's not up to the job. If he is a good cop, he may be accused of getting in via +ve discrimnation anyway. He may have to leave because he can't do the job which will reinforce the community view.
Sure, have systems to encourage non-white people to apply and target them in recruitment drives. But once they are into the selection and training you must treat them the same as anyone else.
The Police must deal openly honestly and RATIONALLY with the few bad coppers - the ones who kicked the black guy in Manchester spring to mind and not try to hide them, allow them to retire and so on as they do now.
If they don't, and persist on the easy cop out, things will get worse.
Mon Ami Mate said:
...As for the Police being a "very white organisation", you need to remember that this is a "very white" country. More than 90 per cent of people who live here are white. All indigenous people are white. Why is this a bad thing?
Good point. While we see all races/colours on TV (and especially children's TV I think -- try watching CBBC and spot a white person -- the reality is that the vast majority of the country is white. Boring perhaps, but true, even in London.
By all means let's have a representative mix of ethnicities, but let it be representative rather than token, and let it happen on merit rather than by positive discrimination.
Edited to say: the corollary should be that there is no negative discrimination either, on any basis.
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Sunday 3rd April 15:40
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff