Discrimination at GCHQ

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by PoisonDwarf, Jul 11, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BBC News - 'Too few ethnic officers' and 'discrimination' at GCHQ

    There's a quote in there from some disgruntled nosher who says "The security officers ask questions which are culturally inappropriate, insensitive and offensive". Presumably he thinks that only non-WASPs get asked probing questions during the vetting process. Here we go, more supposed "institutional racism" and an act of self-flagellation that some dodgy types will use to attempt to weaken our national defences.
  2. of course, there is the other point of view which might suggest that lack of intelligence officers from ethnic minorities contributed to the sh*t intelligence picture which has undoubtedly aided Islamic extremists
  3. Presumably it is distateful to try and establish which side your potential new recruit actually wants to play for?
    Its just PC bullshit.
  4. Better to accidentally recruit a few militant Islamic's than risk offending a few people?
  5. Problems solved - they now have a diversity officer.
  6. Not really - a similar problem existed in the CS a few years back with the vetting of females, some of whom felt extremely uncomfortable at being asked what were (in their view) inappropriate questions about sexual and medical matters by male vetting officers.

    Vetting is an awfully intrusive process, certainly the first time around (I never got to like it, but it became easier) and since the recruitment of 'ethnics' to sensitive posts in any numbers is a fairly new phenomena I can imagine that much of this is from youngsters who have never been through the process before, with any cultural insensitivity (real or otherwise) being exacerbated by the general unpleasantness of the whole process.

  7. Or the alternative:


  8. No - but perhaps there is a need to realise that the folk you NEED to recruit aren't WASPs whose family have lived in Norfolk for 15 generations, and hence the vetting process needs to reflect that. Vetting is about reducing risk. When you're trying to recruit people with scare skills, be it linguistic, technical, etc you might be prepared to carry a slightly greater risk in order to secure that skill. It does happen - and the only time I've known the risk judgement to be wrong was with someone who was a WASP.

  9. Vetting is designed to be intrusive, nasty and uncomfortable, and make you answer questions you never thought you'd have to give an answer to - e.g. I was asked 'do I find young children sexually attractive' and 'do you look at any deviant websites' and 'how many men & women have you slept with including prostitutes'. The woman asking this remained straightlaced throughout!

    Frankly, if you have a problem with the DV then you are probably in the wrong line of work - it exists for good reasons - read 'Secret State' by Peter Henessey if you want to see how and why DVing came about and why its so important.
  10. I'm not arguing we don't need people with different skills (ie languages) all I am saying is that the vetting process is rigorous for a reason.
    We seem to have developed a culture in this country of excess sensetivity to such things.
  11. quote "Several dozen ethnic minority intelligence officers were interviewed during its preparation, and among the complaints recorded was: "I wasn't born here and although I have been security cleared, I am constantly challenged about my loyalty to Britain by my colleagues."

    Another employee said: "The security officers ask questions which are culturally inappropriate, insensitive and offensive."

    A third said they felt that ethnic minority employees had to work harder than white colleagues "and for less reward"."

    It would appear that "Trevor Phillips" of the biased EHRC has some followers in GCHQ trying to play the "race card"!
    FFS, GCHQ is a security organisation they should be recruiting the right people for the job, irrespective of race, colour or creed, HOWEVER if they (the applicants) feel that the vetting procedure is "culturally inappropriate, insensitive and offensive", then they are almost certainly NOT right for the job! After all they might possibly decide it was not "culturally appropriate, or sensitive" to report the truth about a coreligionists views on terrorism that they had overheard!!