Not wanted: white male police

Anthony Butcher · 29-11-2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

A police force was warned yesterday that it may have acted illegally by rejecting 186 job applications from white men in favour of those from women and ethnic minorities.

The Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, accused Avon and Somerset of positive discrimination in a recent recruitment drive. It claimed that the force turned down some strong candidates on grounds of race or gender.

A spokesman for the force said that all successful applicants had undergone the "same rigorous selection process".

When the recruitment process opened last summer, 242 white men were put forward, 40 per cent of the total, with the rest from under-represented groups, including women, people from minority ethnic groups and disabled men and women.

The force confirmed the majority of the rejected applications were white males.

Paul Hazel, Avon and Somerset's head of personnel and training, said: "The majority of those deselected were white men because the force's workforce is over-represented by white men."

However, Andrew Palfreman, the chairman of the local Police Federation branch, said: "What we want, and what I am sure the public wants, is for the force to have the best possible candidates.

"Our view is that they are denying access to the recruitment process to some very strong candidates purely on the grounds of their gender and ethnicity. It is unfair and may be illegal."

He said the force was right to try to encourage ethnic diversity, but this was not the best way to achieve it. Mr Palfreman added that the issue had been raised with the chief constable, Colin Port.

Avon and Somerset has 3,314 officers, 2,622 of whom are male, and 51 are from ethnic minorities.

The force's recruitment policy states: "We will continue to provide positive action for people from under-represented groups."

The Commission for Racial Equality said that it would like to see the force's recruitment policy. "Under the Race Relations Act 'positive discrimination' or shortlisting or appointing on racial grounds is unlawful."

Anthony Butcher · 29-11-2005, 01:20 PM

Clear evidence that political correctness promotes racism.

mkpdavies · 29-11-2005, 01:51 PM

Best advert I have seen for the BNP in ages.

eublues · 29-11-2005, 08:19 PM

Needs someone to actually mount a legal challenge, or nothing will change.

In fact the 'progressives' in charge are probably pleased with the publicity.

prober · 01-12-2005, 06:03 PM

If the Telegraph report is correct, Avon & Somerset Police are not only guilty of a disgusting act of racial discrimination but seem to think they can get away with it . It is notable that ( Just like the BNP ) this police force has a racist mindset dividing society INTO phpbb_white ethinic versus non white ethnic groups. However the 2001 census shows that 30% of ethnic minorities are white ( ie non indigenous) . These are the easiest to target for exclusion in colour based PC racist number game employment plans , as they are tend to be diverse and unorganised ( yet) . So when the force says " we will provide "positive action for people from under represented groups" this is pc speak for active discrimination against under represented white ethnic minorities. The whole thing stinks. Hopefully one of the candidate victims of this discrimination will take legal sction under this being a racist incident with the Chief Constable ending up sacked and forced to pay mega damages in compensation.

IF this police force is up to these tricks maybe your local one is also - check their website and write to the Chioef Constable . This is exactly the sort of thing UKIP should be challenging.

IceDragon · 01-12-2005, 11:58 PM

I the govt go with "positive" discrimination to gain the trust of ethnics by aquiring ethnic officers then they by the same rule are prepared to lose the trust and co-operation of the majority British population.

claire stone · 02-12-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Telegraph

Quote:

A police force was warned yesterday that it may have acted illegally by rejecting 186 job applications from white men in favour of those from women and ethnic minorities.

The Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, accused Avon and Somerset of positive discrimination in a recent recruitment drive. It claimed that the force turned down some strong candidates on grounds of race or gender.

A spokesman for the force said that all successful applicants had undergone the "same rigorous selection process".

When the recruitment process opened last summer, 242 white men were put forward, 40 per cent of the total, with the rest from under-represented groups, including women, people from minority ethnic groups and disabled men and women.

The force confirmed the majority of the rejected applications were white males.

Paul Hazel, Avon and Somerset's head of personnel and training, said: "The majority of those deselected were white men because the force's workforce is over-represented by white men."

However, Andrew Palfreman, the chairman of the local Police Federation branch, said: "What we want, and what I am sure the public wants, is for the force to have the best possible candidates.

"Our view is that they are denying access to the recruitment process to some very strong candidates purely on the grounds of their gender and ethnicity. It is unfair and may be illegal."

He said the force was right to try to encourage ethnic diversity, but this was not the best way to achieve it. Mr Palfreman added that the issue had been raised with the chief constable, Colin Port.

Avon and Somerset has 3,314 officers, 2,622 of whom are male, and 51 are from ethnic minorities.

The force's recruitment policy states: "We will continue to provide positive action for people from under-represented groups."

The Commission for Racial Equality said that it would like to see the force's recruitment policy. "Under the Race Relations Act 'positive discrimination' or shortlisting or appointing on racial grounds is unlawful."

One could imagine the row that would have broken out if instead it was Black males that the police had deliberatly rejected!

prober · 02-12-2005, 03:12 PM

I checked with my local police force and found displayed on their website staff numbers according to two categories , white and non white. I complained that this indicates a potential policy of discrimination in that white ethnic minorities are airbrushed out and I demanded to know what % of police in that force are from WEMs ( they have to tell you under the freedom of information act). I had a reply saying my complaint was being looked INTO phpbb_- with an interim statement that the home office require forces to monitor & report % of "visible" ethnic minorities following the Steve Lawrence report. Howver this does NOT allow police to get out of their legal obligations to monitor all minorities and does not give them any right to introduce racial discrimination.

Alex McKee · 03-12-2005, 12:36 AM

Just the day before this news broke, I applied for a job with the local constabulary as an IT admin officer. With it came a "Diversity" booklet, which waffled on about some **** about promoting the differences in society (surely the wrong way to go about binding a mulit-cultural society which is what they claim to wish to do) and also a monitoring form.

This form was the most intrusive one I've seen yet. Asked for age, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, marriage status, disability, and even something else which escapes me at the moment. On the form was an assurance that it would only be used to check how many applications were being received by the force for certain "under-represented" groups. It also assured that the data would not be seen by the recruitment panel.

However, say that the force were recruiting too many white, straight, british, men without disabilities and who were not single parents then what would be done about it. With such a wealth of data readily available to use to choose (read: discriminate) then is it possible that they would not use it?

Needless to say the form remains unfilled.

C_steam · 03-12-2005, 08:15 AM

No, fill it out! I have great respect for you openly admitting that you are a homosexual single parent.

Or at least put yourself down as gay. If challenged later, you can say you got better.

Or a transexual? Perhaps you used to be called alexa?

29-11-2005, 01:51 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	Best advert I have seen for the BNP in ages. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

29-11-2005, 01:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,731 Party: None	Clear evidence that political correctness promotes racism.

29-11-2005, 08:19 PM	#4 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,970	Needs someone to actually mount a legal challenge, or nothing will change. In fact the 'progressives' in charge are probably pleased with the publicity.

01-12-2005, 06:03 PM	#5 (permalink)
prober Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 827	If the Telegraph report is correct, Avon & Somerset Police are not only guilty of a disgusting act of racial discrimination but seem to think they can get away with it . It is notable that ( Just like the BNP ) this police force has a racist mindset dividing society INTO phpbb_white ethinic versus non white ethnic groups. However the 2001 census shows that 30% of ethnic minorities are white ( ie non indigenous) . These are the easiest to target for exclusion in colour based PC racist number game employment plans , as they are tend to be diverse and unorganised ( yet) . So when the force says " we will provide "positive action for people from under represented groups" this is pc speak for active discrimination against under represented white ethnic minorities. The whole thing stinks. Hopefully one of the candidate victims of this discrimination will take legal sction under this being a racist incident with the Chief Constable ending up sacked and forced to pay mega damages in compensation. IF this police force is up to these tricks maybe your local one is also - check their website and write to the Chioef Constable . This is exactly the sort of thing UKIP should be challenging.

01-12-2005, 11:58 PM	#6 (permalink)
IceDragon Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,048	I the govt go with "positive" discrimination to gain the trust of ethnics by aquiring ethnic officers then they by the same rule are prepared to lose the trust and co-operation of the majority British population.

02-12-2005, 03:12 PM	#8 (permalink)
prober Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 827	I checked with my local police force and found displayed on their website staff numbers according to two categories , white and non white. I complained that this indicates a potential policy of discrimination in that white ethnic minorities are airbrushed out and I demanded to know what % of police in that force are from WEMs ( they have to tell you under the freedom of information act). I had a reply saying my complaint was being looked INTO phpbb_- with an interim statement that the home office require forces to monitor & report % of "visible" ethnic minorities following the Steve Lawrence report. Howver this does NOT allow police to get out of their legal obligations to monitor all minorities and does not give them any right to introduce racial discrimination.

03-12-2005, 12:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,637	Just the day before this news broke, I applied for a job with the local constabulary as an IT admin officer. With it came a "Diversity" booklet, which waffled on about some **** about promoting the differences in society (surely the wrong way to go about binding a mulit-cultural society which is what they claim to wish to do) and also a monitoring form. This form was the most intrusive one I've seen yet. Asked for age, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, marriage status, disability, and even something else which escapes me at the moment. On the form was an assurance that it would only be used to check how many applications were being received by the force for certain "under-represented" groups. It also assured that the data would not be seen by the recruitment panel. However, say that the force were recruiting too many white, straight, british, men without disabilities and who were not single parents then what would be done about it. With such a wealth of data readily available to use to choose (read: discriminate) then is it possible that they would not use it? Needless to say the form remains unfilled.

03-12-2005, 08:15 AM	#10 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Anwhere far away from the cabalistas Posts: 7,460	No, fill it out! I have great respect for you openly admitting that you are a homosexual single parent. Or at least put yourself down as gay. If challenged later, you can say you got better. Or a transexual? Perhaps you used to be called alexa?