Police equality?

---

I have decided recently that I would really like to become a member of the police force. Because I want a rewarding and exciting job etc. I have my reasons.

The thing that is REALLY bugging me about the police force at the moment is their racial equality crap and sexism policys. They WANT more colored people or people from other cultures and women on the force, which is fine yes, Im all for people having equal opertunitys, it makes society a better place to be. But the thing that is bugging me is that these people are MORE likely to get onto the force not necicarily because they are more qualified for the job but because of the way they were born. That in itself is sexist and racist.

Ok lets say you have your average steryotipical English man. Hes your typical white male. He is in AMAZING physical and psychological shape (which isnt stereotypical of English people lol). He is perfect for the job and highly qualified for it.

Then you have person two, a small arab woman. She is at a fair level of fitness for the job and is fairly qualified but a little less than person 1.

Person 1 is the more logical person for the job as they are more qualified, this is not racism as the most qualified SHOULD get the job, not because of skin color. But then the what would be classed as the "minority" would get the job to add cultural diversity to the work place. Because there are too many white caucasion police officers. Now THAT IS racism. Who would you rather have watching your back as you patrol? Person 1 or person 2. Think about that one.

On the police page I read they said they wanted MORE women and ethnic minoritys on the force. Um why? Why do you need them? Their skin color and vigana doesnt give them magic powers, they do the job the same as anyone else. So why do we NEED them, they have some special comodoty? No there is no difference, they should be encouraging everyone to join. Its a rewarding job that anyone should be entitled to do.

Sometimes I think this whole equal opertunities thing goes a bit too far in which the rasicm and sexism is reversed.

A while ago when the police force had hight requirements the womens minimum height limit was lower than the males hight limit. Why? So a say the lowest womens height is 5foot2 and the males was 5foot4. That in itself is sexism. But why isnt it seen as that? Its like ooo women can join the force good for them. Yer fine it is but its not good for all the guys who are 5foot4 who could get in the force if they had a fadge, but cant because they have a penis.

Rather than always lowering the bar to be politically correct why not keep it the same and if they can do the job fine theyre in? This probably applys for allot of places other than the police

Please correct me if I have been misled anywhere but this is what I have observed from researching the career I would like to have in the future. If I get in, because I am a white male so that lowers my chances.

Ya know, you're gonna have to get rid of the mohawk to be in the police. My girlfriend had to shave off her mohawk to get into the army and I'm pretty sure its the same deal with other organisations like that.

this "afirmative action" bullshit keeps showing up here and there. The concept of equality in hiring is so basic it still surprises me when it's an issue.It's rediculous when anyone starts to filter the pool of qualified candidates by ethnicity or gender. It was stupid when only white males got the jobs and it's stupid when there are minority quotas.I used to work at the local University (internationally respected for engineering). At one point they decided in their infinate wisdome that they should have a 50% female hiring policy for engineering faculty. At the time, they had less than 15% female enrolement and less than 10% graduation for female students. If there's a problem, it's in the recruting of students, not the recruting of faculty.anyway, my ranting aside, the bottom line in my opinion is this...if the QUALIFIED candidate pool is 27% white male, 21% black female, 12% asian male, 31% hispanic female, and 9% transgendered, then the work force should be 27% white male, 21% black female, 12% asian male, 31% hispanic female, and 9% transgendered.

Yeah I know, its not somthing I am that bothered about ^^, also I am pretty sure I will have to get rid of the lip piercings too. I dont know if they will accept clear retainers in the holes even. But I have allot of things to do before the time of joining comes as I need a full driving lisence etc etc.

Aye pretty much, I dont think they should even take gender or race or all that bull shit into account in any way. It doesnt make a shred of differance when it comes to the persons capability to do a job which is what its all about. Obviously gender is relivent in some cases like why women are not allowed in the front line at war because the men feal more obliged to go back for them etc but in most cases it really isnt an issue.

But then what happens if they go back to hiring only white people, as the police forces around here did a few decades ago? Sixty years ago, it was known that Jews wouldn't be hired for certain jobs (even in places like New York City).The civil service provided a stepping stone for a lot of minorities who otherwise wouldn't have been hired for decent jobs, regarless of their qualifications. Thankfully for the Irish in Boston, jobs as police officers began opening up (even though there was still a widespread belief that "Paddys" tended toward criminal behavior).Forget about affirmative action. What about simple discrimination?

discrimination isn't a bad thing. We can't live without it.
Any employer should be able to discriminate between qualified and unqualified. Unfortunately, that's a simple wisdom that's overlooked when racial and sex equality issues are brought up.
There was a big stink here a few years ago that there weren't enough women in the fire department. Fine... any woman that can carry a couple hundres pounds of Mr U out of a burning house is more than welcome to the force!
It may be a bit of a naive on my part but I think any individual who can do the job effectively is a viable candidate.

I understand the basic message you're getting across here and there is sense in a lot of it. To my mind the person hired for the job should be the person best capable of doing it, regardless of race, gender etc, and if you think about it, these policies that open avenues up for certain categories of people aren’t fair on those people either because once having gotten the job they'll always have to wonder was it a genuine achievement or was it allocated on race or gender grounds. I wouldnt fancy a career where I always had to have that lurking at the back of my mind.I only have issue with two things you have said and they are these:"Obviously gender is relivent in some cases like why women are not allowed in the front line at war because the men feal more obliged to go back for them etc but in most cases it really isnt an issue"It's not an issue in that case either, or shouldn’t be. If men feel they 'have to go back' to rescue women in a battle situation then they are taking sexism onto the battlefield and as such aren’t capable of functioning as effective soldiers themselves. Anticipation of out dated chivalry on the battlefield should preclude women from fighting? Come on!"A while ago when the police force had hight requirements the womens minimum height limit was lower than the males hight limit. Why? So a say the lowest womens height is 5foot2 and the males was 5foot4. That in itself is sexism. But why isnt it seen as that?"Because it's not: women are generally built smaller than men, in weight, width and height. That is the reason for the 2 inch disparity in height requirement there; nothing more.

That is the reason for the 2 inch disparity in height requirement thereThen what is the reason for the height requirement itself?

Tsk Tsk. And I found we're equal... Smaller is a difference? They also have to run less. Suicide runs?

We still have a height requirement for the Gardai (as the police are known here) I don’t know what it is now but I do know it is considerably lower than it was in times past. As far as I am aware the height requirement is in place as a means to ensure that the Gardai would be physically well built in order to adequately deal with all the difficult and dangerous situations they come in contact with in the course of their work, and that height is regarded as a starting point in ensuring that. Now I know there is what we might provisionally call 'heightism' there, but hey, I don’t make the rules! Height alone doesn’t open doors either; I've no doubt if a man of 6.6 attempted to join the force and was very unfit and overweight he wouldn’t get a look in, the physical examinations are pretty stringent from what I've heard.

there are a few cops in town here that are physically small, including a few women and a Chinese guy. Based soley on stature, I could easily knock any of them down and steal their guns and hats. But I have to asume that they have both the skill and strength to kick my sorry ass because if they don't, they shouldn't be cops.

yeah, the whole political correctness thing has gotten out of hand. its so patronizing too- its like, 'we want more minorities so we can prove that competence is not relevant to ethnicity' but i mean, if you want to prove that race is not an issue, isnt it an oxymoron to then actually seek out ethnic people to create some kind of stupid sense of diversity? i mean, diversity; who cares? taxpayers want the best police available, being 'diverse' shouldnt come into it. in short, i totally agree with you HP

> As far as I am aware the height requirement is in place as a means to ensure that the Gardai would be physically well built in order to adequately deal with all the difficult and dangerous situations they come in contact with in the course of their work, and that height is regarded as a starting point in ensuring that.

So why can't men start at the same point as women? I doubt that the average 5'2" man is any weaker than the average 5'2" woman. Unless, of course, they're giving women a leg-up....which is what affirmative action is.

I'm not judging affimative action here, one way or the other.

I used to be on the "we should all be treated equally" bandwagon. But what really rocked my boat is this little gem:"In order to be treated equally, we first must be equal"It doesn't mean we should all have the exact same social standing regardless of race, gender etc, that's not feasiblely possible. But closing the gaps does encourage a better society.Here in New Zealand lots of middle class white folk bitch about how we should all be treated equally (one of our main political parties came up with "one rule for all" slogan), but if we are all still treated equally then the rich tend to say rich and the poor tend to stay poor.Something like "affirmative action" as you guys call it in the US is definately in order (this coming from an upper-middleclass-well-schooled-now-doing-a-law-degree-white-kid). Now as for the police force, as sexpot said, the makeup should reflect cultural makeup of the community.If you want to put on a cynical hat you could say that it doesn't allow criminals to play the race card while trying to excuse themselves from crimes. But more positively, it does help communities to build trust in the police.

In reply to: or would you trust one that was filled with young white guys with too much anger No offence, but this really is the pot calling the kettle black (pun not intended). You can't go around challenging stereotypes then make them yourself.

it does help communities to build trust in the policeGood point. When the makeup of the police force does not reflect the makeup of the community, tensions tend to arise; trust is a big issue.

Very well said, No1sexpotinusa! Affermative Action is discrimination ( by law! ) I think you already knew that, hehe. I don't see much young black women getting hired anymore! White women are now just trying to topple everything, leaving minorities(like me) to try to climb hirer and hirer. What I find even more funny is, if a white women doesn't get hired but a man or a black woman does, she immediatly thinks it's sexist or racist. That really pisses me of! Still, Affermative Action is discrimination no matter what. I hope no one still hires people based on race or origin( I wouldn't get a job in Alberta ) or sex! Heres an interesting story: My dad works from R.I.M, he was moved to the Tech Support section as a Leader or something. He had to hire some people for his team. There were 2 people applying for a job. Some 40 year old white woman and a 31 year old black woman. Both were qualified for the job, just the white woman had more college years. My dad hired the black woman, and the white woman already started complaining of discrimination and everything! and all this Habeas Corpus and Affermitive Action garbage came up. Yea, I thought it was interesting.

In reply to:I wouldn't get a job in Alberta Why do you say that?

Remember the political drama in the 70's-90's? Yea, probaly thats why. I don't think people like the French there anymore. The referendums might be a cause too. Alberta is oil heaven, wonder if Bush will attack it?