Met PC found guilty of neo-Nazi membership
Discussion
I imagine a lot of the more serious ones will be older ones. You've got police officers still serving from the early 1990s and possibly even earlier. Standards of admission and standards of retention have changed in that period.
30 years is a big window.
As an example, there are some police officers with drink drive convictions from some time ago, acquired during their service. At the time they were convicted they were allowed to keep their jobs. Today that'd result in dismissal.
The dates of conviction would provide a much better insight.
Now there's a 'rebuttable presumption' anyone with a conviction should be rejected when applying, which I think was further strengthened in 2017.
30 years is a big window.
As an example, there are some police officers with drink drive convictions from some time ago, acquired during their service. At the time they were convicted they were allowed to keep their jobs. Today that'd result in dismissal.
The dates of conviction would provide a much better insight.
Now there's a 'rebuttable presumption' anyone with a conviction should be rejected when applying, which I think was further strengthened in 2017.
DocJock said:
You may think it's fine. I never stated anything of the sort.
An organisation of that size is never going to be 100% upstanding citizens. He lied on his application. When he was caught he was dealt with. What more would you have the Met do?
More stringent vetting?An organisation of that size is never going to be 100% upstanding citizens. He lied on his application. When he was caught he was dealt with. What more would you have the Met do?
I know someone who recently became a police officer, not sure I'd trust him to be one tbh. Clearly not hard to become one.
I did a bit of recruitment back in the day. The rules, regs, pitfalls and back-watching were soul destroying even then. They are, I'm told, even worse now.
If you are given a target for left-handed people, and you are overwhelmed with non-sinistrals, then choice often doesn't come into it. The target always takes priority.
That, of itself, is not necessarily a problem. Where it becomes a minefield is when an ambidextrous person who was rejected decides to sue. Then there're those who are right-handed. If one has dropped criteria in order to ensure one has enough left-handers to satisfy those demanding proportions, how can you not use the same criteria for them as for the others?
After receiving advice on recruitment (which doesn’t mean one is given advice on what to do of course) after the force was sued, and we paid, despite there being no partiality, when I was after a civvy for my unit, I took advice from personnel, or whatever its name was.
In order to ensure we had sufficient of particular demographics, recruitment ads were couched in wide terms. The problem was that we were overwhelmed by people applying who fulfilled all of them and more - 113 applicants for one post. All applicants could not be interviewed of course. The advice given to me was to make 9 piles and randomly distribute the applicants and pick any one pile.
However, and this was as an aside, as all applications would have to be kept for a period, it was essential that the minorities were more or less evenly distributed.
How can you cope with that? Evenly distributed meant that it was not random. To prove I was not discriminatory, I had to discriminate.
Farcical.
Four days of interviews, seemingly hours of writing our thoughts on each individual, lists of questions we asked (more or less the same for each of course, although their history could be taken into account, as could their replies) and a short list of 6 and then reports on not why we went for the top one, but why we refused the other 5.
To be fair, the one we chose was a diamond; hard working, used her initiative when required, and got on with everyone in her dept. Worth all the effort.
If you are given a target for left-handed people, and you are overwhelmed with non-sinistrals, then choice often doesn't come into it. The target always takes priority.
That, of itself, is not necessarily a problem. Where it becomes a minefield is when an ambidextrous person who was rejected decides to sue. Then there're those who are right-handed. If one has dropped criteria in order to ensure one has enough left-handers to satisfy those demanding proportions, how can you not use the same criteria for them as for the others?
After receiving advice on recruitment (which doesn’t mean one is given advice on what to do of course) after the force was sued, and we paid, despite there being no partiality, when I was after a civvy for my unit, I took advice from personnel, or whatever its name was.
In order to ensure we had sufficient of particular demographics, recruitment ads were couched in wide terms. The problem was that we were overwhelmed by people applying who fulfilled all of them and more - 113 applicants for one post. All applicants could not be interviewed of course. The advice given to me was to make 9 piles and randomly distribute the applicants and pick any one pile.
However, and this was as an aside, as all applications would have to be kept for a period, it was essential that the minorities were more or less evenly distributed.
How can you cope with that? Evenly distributed meant that it was not random. To prove I was not discriminatory, I had to discriminate.
Farcical.
Four days of interviews, seemingly hours of writing our thoughts on each individual, lists of questions we asked (more or less the same for each of course, although their history could be taken into account, as could their replies) and a short list of 6 and then reports on not why we went for the top one, but why we refused the other 5.
To be fair, the one we chose was a diamond; hard working, used her initiative when required, and got on with everyone in her dept. Worth all the effort.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff