• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Ex-Viking wrong colour to join the Met

#1
... apologies if posted elsewhere

HERE
Army Hero 'Wrong Colour' For Police


Saturday, February 09, 2008

Source: The Sun Online

A soldier who saw nine comrades killed in Afghanistan told yesterday how he was stopped from becoming a cop — because he is the wrong colour.

Brave Lance Cpl Ben Mayer, a regimental police officer with the Royal Anglians, was shown capturing Taliban terrorists on a telly documentary screened last week.

But when he quit the Army last month to fulfil his ambition of becoming a cop, the Metropolitan Police refused to even send him a recruitment pack — and told him in a letter they were only “actively seeking to raise interest from black and minority ethnic communities and females”.

But he could apply to be a volunteer special constable or a Community Support Officer.

Stunned Ben, 23, said: “After all I went through for my country to defend it, I just wanted to help the community at home — especially at a time when terrorism is such a threat.

“While I was in Helmand, I risked my life constantly to take on terrorists.

“To get back and learn that I am the wrong colour or sex to even be considered for the police has left me speechless.

"I feel discriminated against.”

Ben, of Billericay, Essex, was shown operating on Helmand frontline with 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, in Sky One's Ross Kemp In Afghanistan. He was seen interrogating terrorists in Army jails.

The soldier, who also served in Iraq, left the Army after seven years.

He added: “I’ve always wanted to be a cop and my experiences dealing with prisoners in Afghanistan just strengthened that because I enjoyed it so much. I find it very disheartening. ”

Non-white officers make up 24 per cent of the London force — an increase of seven per cent last year.

Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair boasted in October that success in recruiting minorities meant positive discrimination was no longer needed.

The Met confirmed Ben had been refused a recruitment pack — but said that the force was not recruiting right now.

A spokeswoman added: “This is the case for everyone regardless of gender or ethnic origin.”

In 2006, Gloucestershire Police were forced to pay £2,500 compensation after “deselecting” white male candidates who had applied to become coppers.
 
#2
Can't he sue them for discrimination?
 
#3
This does not surprise me in the least. This country has been skewed to the needs of "minorities" to the extent that those whose ancestors founded this land, and who abide by the laws, and who pay their taxes, or who take up arms in it's defence, are now the minority.

As such, and with no protection under the new rulings, all they can expect is to be treated as outcasts and pariahs. The greatest disadvantage it is possible to have today is a conscience and respect for others.
 
#5
rockape34 said:
instinct said:
Can't he sue them for discrimination?
It would seem that "positive discrimination" is legal under this (Neue Arbeit) administration :(
Yeah the Racist cnuts just call it "Positive Action."

Stand by for a possible thread by me on this subject at the end of the month!

Positive action is just positive discrimination spelt wrong!
 
#6
Mr_Deputy said:
'es one of us lot isn't he? he was talking about it here.

poor bugger.

if it is him, he did fully admit to perhaps talking about his past experiences a little too much in the interviews. Cops wanted to hear more about his future.
Thats as maybe but I'm sure even a minor lawyer could rip the living crap out of the Mets “actively seeking to raise interest from black and minority ethnic communities and females” statement.

It's unlawful for an employer to discriminate against you because of your race. You're protected against racial discrimination at all stages of employment.
The 1976 Race Relations Act makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against you on racial grounds. Race includes:

* colour
* nationality
* ethnic or national origins

Under the Act, it doesn't matter if the discrimination is done on purpose or not. What counts is whether (as a result of an employer's actions) you're treated unfavourably because of your race.

The Race Relations Act protects all racial groups, regardless of their race, colour, nationality, religious beliefs, national or ethnic origins.
The 1976 Race Relations Act
 
#9
rockape34 said:
... apologies if posted elsewhere

HERE
Army Hero 'Wrong Colour' For Police


Saturday, February 09, 2008

Source: The Sun Online

Blah blah blah...

The Met confirmed Ben had been refused a recruitment pack — but said that the force was not recruiting right now.

A spokeswoman added: “This is the case for everyone regardless of gender or ethnic origin.” In 2006, Gloucestershire Police were forced to pay £2,500 compensation after “deselecting” white male candidates who had applied to become coppers.

Right, forgive me for actually trying extract truth from a Scum story, but the deal is that he didn't get a pack becuase they're not recruiting. Not because he's the 'wrong colour'.

So, yet anohter 'ethnic ate my hamster' hysteria fest.

Thanks for that.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#10
Mister_Angry said:
Right, forgive me for actually trying extract truth from a Scum story, but the deal is that he didn't get a pack becuase they're not recruiting. Not because he's the 'wrong colour'.

So, yet anohter 'ethnic ate my hamster' hysteria fest.

Thanks for that.
Which was what I said in the first thread on this, linked above.

"Bloke applies to force who aren't recruiting to be told they aren't recruiting" as a headline doesn't shift papers.
 
#11
Missed your link Sixty, soz.

The psychology of Tabloid readers never fails to facinate me. Day in, day out the process of suggestion, misnformation and general cack gets regurgitated (here and everywhere else) as if it was truth.

Makes it easy to see how the Nazis took power.
 
#12
Mister_Angry said:
Missed your link Sixty, soz.

The psychology of Tabloid readers never fails to facinate me. Day in, day out the process of suggestion, misnformation and general cack gets regurgitated (here and everywhere else) as if it was truth.

Makes it easy to see how the Nazis took power.
AND New Labour... :roll:
 
#13
Bad_Crow said:
rockape34 said:
instinct said:
Can't he sue them for discrimination?
It would seem that "positive discrimination" is legal under this (Neue Arbeit) administration :(
Yeah the Racist cnuts just call it "Positive Action."

Stand by for a possible thread by me on this subject at the end of the month!

Positive action is just positive discrimination spelt wrong!
Personally I think the whole thing is much of a muchness - but there is a difference between positive action and positive discrimination.

Positive Action - promotes the practice of choosing one group of people over another where it is shown that a group had been disadvantaged in the past. For instance in the Metropolitan Police it was found that black applicants had been treated unfairly (whether you agree with that or not simply does not enter into the equation - that was the finding - bust). So it would be completely lawful to appoint a black candidate over a white one under the terms of positive action.

Positive Discrimination - seeks to provide for favourtism over one group when compared to another (this does not require that the disadvantaged group had suffered some past wrong doing - as is the case with positive action). Positive discrimination is against the law (supposedly), however it does exist (albeit not in name) within the Disability Discrimination Acts. You will observe it in action in cases where companies are obliged to provide steps, lifts etc and to employ a certain number of disabled persons as part of their employment strength.

Do not misunderstand me - a disabled person deserves all the lucky breaks he can get - but the bottom line is that they are receiving favourable treatment. (I do not believe that anyone would kick off about it though, which is why it probably goes on unhindered).
 
#14
They are being very careful with their wording, but technically treading the right side of the law!

Its illegal for them to discriminate in recruitment, but not illegal for them to discriminate in their provision of "training" for underrepresented groups.

They are not actually "recruiting" at the moment, so reject his application

But, they then "encourage" minority groups by giving them priority for training places before recruitment.

so, technically they are not discriminating in the recruitment of police officers, but for all practical purposes the only way to get into training is by being a minority group member.

Only himself to blame - should have known to put that he was Gay on the application forms! ;)
 
#15
Sammy The Cat said:
Bad_Crow said:
rockape34 said:
instinct said:
Can't he sue them for discrimination?
It would seem that "positive discrimination" is legal under this (Neue Arbeit) administration :(
Yeah the Racist cnuts just call it "Positive Action."

Stand by for a possible thread by me on this subject at the end of the month!

Positive action is just positive discrimination spelt wrong!
Personally I think the whole thing is much of a muchness - but there is a difference between positive action and positive discrimination.

Positive Action - promotes the practice of choosing one group of people over another where it is shown that a group had been disadvantaged in the past. For instance in the Metropolitan Police it was found that black applicants had been treated unfairly (whether you agree with that or not simply does not enter into the equation - that was the finding - bust). So it would be completely lawful to appoint a black candidate over a white one under the terms of positive action.

Positive Discrimination - seeks to provide for favourtism over one group when compared to another (this does not require that the disadvantaged group had suffered some past wrong doing - as is the case with positive action). Positive discrimination is against the law (supposedly), however it does exist (albeit not in name) within the Disability Discrimination Acts. You will observe it in action in cases where companies are obliged to provide steps, lifts etc and to employ a certain number of disabled persons as part of their employment strength.

Do not misunderstand me - a disabled person deserves all the lucky breaks he can get - but the bottom line is that they are receiving favourable treatment. (I do not believe that anyone would kick off about it though, which is why it probably goes on unhindered).
were they ever disadvantaged or was it not the case they just never applied not quite the same thing.
 
#16
cbgramc said:
Sammy The Cat said:
Bad_Crow said:
rockape34 said:
instinct said:
Can't he sue them for discrimination?
It would seem that "positive discrimination" is legal under this (Neue Arbeit) administration :(
Yeah the Racist cnuts just call it "Positive Action."

Stand by for a possible thread by me on this subject at the end of the month!

Positive action is just positive discrimination spelt wrong!
Personally I think the whole thing is much of a muchness - but there is a difference between positive action and positive discrimination.

Positive Action - promotes the practice of choosing one group of people over another where it is shown that a group had been disadvantaged in the past. For instance in the Metropolitan Police it was found that black applicants had been treated unfairly (whether you agree with that or not simply does not enter into the equation - that was the finding - bust). So it would be completely lawful to appoint a black candidate over a white one under the terms of positive action.

Positive Discrimination - seeks to provide for favourtism over one group when compared to another (this does not require that the disadvantaged group had suffered some past wrong doing - as is the case with positive action). Positive discrimination is against the law (supposedly), however it does exist (albeit not in name) within the Disability Discrimination Acts. You will observe it in action in cases where companies are obliged to provide steps, lifts etc and to employ a certain number of disabled persons as part of their employment strength.

Do not misunderstand me - a disabled person deserves all the lucky breaks he can get - but the bottom line is that they are receiving favourable treatment. (I do not believe that anyone would kick off about it though, which is why it probably goes on unhindered).
were they ever disadvantaged or was it not the case they just never applied not quite the same thing.
They were disadvantaged - i.e. they applied and were treated less favourably than they otherwise would have been if they were white.

The Metropolitan Police were found to be "institutionally racist" as I am sure you are aware. Like I said previously - who cares whether you, me or anyone else agrees with that - that was the finding. Hence the positive action to address it.
 
#17
I don't want to get drawn into this argument again or get off thread , we are meant to live in an equal and tolerant society, how about 10 vacancies 40 applicants so the best 10 get the jobs, not filling quotas or playing to the minorities a fair and just system of selection. Why should any organization reduce the standard and then select the least suitable to fill them female , black, white or Asian quotas. It is everything that makes this country the sh1thole it is rapidly becoming.

Should we not be raising the bar and addressing the problem if disadvantaged groups are being left behind then that is the issue we must resolve. There are just as many poor disadvantaged white kids out there who need a hand up in life and I am not saying we should only help them but I am say equal opportunities should be for all not just minorities and that standards should be maintained or we will end up as a nation who believe everything should be handed to us
 
#18
Sammy The Cat said:
cbgramc said:
Sammy The Cat said:
Bad_Crow said:
rockape34 said:
instinct said:
Can't he sue them for discrimination?
It would seem that "positive discrimination" is legal under this (Neue Arbeit) administration :(
Yeah the Racist cnuts just call it "Positive Action."

Stand by for a possible thread by me on this subject at the end of the month!

Positive action is just positive discrimination spelt wrong!
Personally I think the whole thing is much of a muchness - but there is a difference between positive action and positive discrimination.

Positive Action - promotes the practice of choosing one group of people over another where it is shown that a group had been disadvantaged in the past. For instance in the Metropolitan Police it was found that black applicants had been treated unfairly (whether you agree with that or not simply does not enter into the equation - that was the finding - bust). So it would be completely lawful to appoint a black candidate over a white one under the terms of positive action.

Positive Discrimination - seeks to provide for favourtism over one group when compared to another (this does not require that the disadvantaged group had suffered some past wrong doing - as is the case with positive action). Positive discrimination is against the law (supposedly), however it does exist (albeit not in name) within the Disability Discrimination Acts. You will observe it in action in cases where companies are obliged to provide steps, lifts etc and to employ a certain number of disabled persons as part of their employment strength.

Do not misunderstand me - a disabled person deserves all the lucky breaks he can get - but the bottom line is that they are receiving favourable treatment. (I do not believe that anyone would kick off about it though, which is why it probably goes on unhindered).
were they ever disadvantaged or was it not the case they just never applied not quite the same thing.
They were disadvantaged - i.e. they applied and were treated less favourably than they otherwise would have been if they were white.

The Metropolitan Police were found to be "institutionally racist" as I am sure you are aware. Like I said previously - who cares whether you, me or anyone else agrees with that - that was the finding. Hence the positive action to address it.
the trouble is that they are now "institutionally racist" towards whites etc. And will they correct this? will they hell!

the best person should get the job - full stop !!!

however, the government should help disadvantaged groups to access training, but that should also be open to all, including disadvantaged whites!!!
 
#19
cbgramc said:
I don't want to get drawn into this argument again or get off thread , we are meant to live in an equal and tolerant society, how about 10 vacancies 40 applicants so the best 10 get the jobs, not filling quotas or playing to the minorities a fair and just system of selection. Why should any organization reduce the standard and then select the least suitable to fill them female , black, white or Asian quotas. It is everything that makes this country the sh1thole it is rapidly becoming.

Should we not be raising the bar and addressing the problem if disadvantaged groups are being left behind then that is the issue we must resolve. There are just as many poor disadvantaged white kids out there who need a hand up in life and I am not saying we should only help them but I am say equal opportunities should be for all not just minorities and that standards should be maintained or we will end up as a nation who believe everything should be handed to us
I agree with all that you have said - it should be the best person for the job irrespective of their background.

The problem is a political one - if it has been proved (in court) that an organisation has wilfully discriminated against a particular group of people - it is OK to say... "Oh sorry about that - anyway moving on..." or would it be more appropriate to offer some form of tangible compensation.

After all, if you personally had suffered some form of wrongdoing at the hands of another, would you be content to say "never mind, there are probalby more deserving cases out there that should have their complaints heard".

I don't know - maybe you would - but most people would not, hence the positive action we have now to right those wrongs (which have been proved and accepted).

I do not say that I personally advocate it - however I can understand why such a practice is in position.
 
#20
Mister_Angry said:
rockape34 said:
... apologies if posted elsewhere

HERE
Army Hero 'Wrong Colour' For Police


Saturday, February 09, 2008

Source: The Sun Online

Blah blah blah...

The Met confirmed Ben had been refused a recruitment pack — but said that the force was not recruiting right now.

A spokeswoman added: “This is the case for everyone regardless of gender or ethnic origin.” In 2006, Gloucestershire Police were forced to pay £2,500 compensation after “deselecting” white male candidates who had applied to become coppers.

Right, forgive me for actually trying extract truth from a Scum story, but the deal is that he didn't get a pack becuase they're not recruiting. Not because he's the 'wrong colour'.

So, yet anohter 'ethnic ate my hamster' hysteria fest.

Thanks for that.
"and told him in a letter they were only “actively seeking to raise interest from black and minority ethnic communities and females”. "

So yes, as the police have been forced in to doing for ages, to make that government percentage target they will turn away potential officers who are the wrong colour.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top