Police dog handler test discriminates against women says judge

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Police to review tests for dog handlers to avoid discrimination

Apparently women were required to do the same test as the men with disastrous consequences.

Judge 'Barking up the Wrong' Street declared:“Where a standard test had negative impacts on members of a protected group, here women, then it either needs to be changed or objectively justified."

I should have thought the objective justification was pretty obvious and along the lines of "What's the point of having a high speed, highly fit and highly trained furry crocodile who can run down anything on two legs, if the handler's a wheezing monster who can't make a decent fist of staying within woofing distance?". Not only does the dog have to spend more time one on one with a scrote before the adipose mess that aspires to be a handler can deploy effectively to support him (or her, this isn't a sexist rant), but, the further away the handler is, the greater the control issues, they may even lose track of the dog.

Happily most of the Alsatians I've encountered could effortlessly run down Usain Bolt whilst dragging the entire committee of the Greggs Appreciation Society behind them but it's still irksome to discover that some creature aspiring to public service has, apparently, played the discrimination card and trousered over £14K for being crap.

Personally I'd let the creature in question be a handler but only on the proviso that the dog gets the salary and the handler makes do with a tin of Pedigree Chum. I've discussed this with my Springer Spaniel and he agrees.

Every time I see a Mr Woofy in a police van I thank God that something in the law and order fraternity still knows what it's trying to do. Here's my candidate to replace Judge Street:

 
Last edited:
#3
'The tribunal was told that women were under represented as dog handlers in all three police forces. Of 48 dog handlers in the Gloucestershire force, only four were women. Avon & Somerset had three women out of 24 handlers, while Wiltshire had four women among 12. The tribunal was told that there was a higher pass rate among men than women because women had different levels of strength and stamina than men and that the “qualifying situation” need to be reviewed.'

So in a few years time the women who passed the same course as the men will be classed as having got the qualification because it'll have been made easier for girlies.

I bet the eleven current female dog handlers'll be chuffed to bunnies that some woman who failed the course that they passed is tarnishing their reputation and achievements.
 
#5
Will the course also have to be made accessible to wheelchair users ( another ‘protected group’)?

Mind you, with a landshark clipped on your chair you won't be hanging around...
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Will the course also have to be made accessible to wheelchair users ( another ‘protected group’)?

Mind you, with a landshark clipped on your chair you won't be hanging around...
 
#7
How many black police dog handlers are there though.....





.....the handlers not the dogs....
 
#10
Police to review tests for dog handlers to avoid discrimination

Apparently women were required to do the same test as the men with disastrous consequences.

Judge 'Barking up the Wrong' Street declared:“Where a standard test had negative impacts on members of a protected group, here women, then it either needs to be changed or objectively justified."

I should have thought the objective justification was pretty obvious and along the lines of "What's the point of having a high speed, highly fit and highly trained furry crocodile who can run down anything on two legs, if the handler's a wheezing monster who can't make a decent fist of staying within woofing distance?". Not only does the dog have to spend more time one on one with a scrote before the adipose mess that aspires to be a handler can deploy effectively to support him (or her, this isn't a sexist rant), but, the further away the handler is, the greater the control issues, they may even lose track of the dog.

Happily most of the Alsatians I've encountered could effortlessly run down Usain Bolt whilst dragging the entire committee of the Greggs Appreciation Society behind them but it's still irksome to discover that some creature aspiring to public service has, apparently, played the discrimination card and trousered over £14K for being crap.

Personally I'd let the creature in question be a handler but only on the proviso that the dog gets the salary and the handler makes do with a tin of Pedigree Chum. I've discussed this with my Springer Spaniel and he agrees.

Every time I see a Mr Woofy in a police van I thank God that something in the law and order fraternity still knows what it's trying to do. Here's my candidate to replace Judge Street:

I try to be politically correct when I speak of a frogmanlady or a policemanwoman, firemanlady even dinnerladyman.
 
#11
I'm sure all those championing females in the infantry will be along in a minute to say this sort of thing will never happen in the armed forces.
 
C

count_duckula

Guest
#12
I vaguely remember something similar happening in the US. I've checked snopes.com by the way but I can't be arsed to wade through eight pages of results for "firefighter"... Anyway, the story was that Trumpton over there had a fitness test that comprised in part of carrying a heavy dummy over the shoulders or dragging it out of a building, the idea being that if your massive mate dropped then you could carry him to safety. This was deemed too hard for females so as a result they dropped the requirement to a lighter weight. I don't know if it's ever happened but I'd love to know if anyone has died or been injured as a result of HnS being tinkered with to allow those not good enough to join.

I know that when I was at AOSB the females had lower fitness standards and a considerably smaller assault course. I know this has probably been done to death and I can hear JohnG's heavy breathing now but I really do think it's a lie that the MoD say that fitness standards haven't been changed for women: they have but the argument is they are the 'same' as they are 'gender-fair' as opposed to 'gender-equal'. I wait with baited breath for the first female to pass P-coy...
 
#13
I vaguely remember something similar happening in the US. I've checked snopes.com by the way but I can't be arsed to wade through eight pages of results for "firefighter"... Anyway, the story was that Trumpton over there had a fitness test that comprised in part of carrying a heavy dummy over the shoulders or dragging it out of a building, the idea being that if your massive mate dropped then you could carry him to safety. This was deemed too hard for females so as a result they dropped the requirement to a lighter weight. I don't know if it's ever happened but I'd love to know if anyone has died or been injured as a result of HnS being tinkered with to allow those not good enough to join.

I know that when I was at AOSB the females had lower fitness standards and a considerably smaller assault course. I know this has probably been done to death and I can hear JohnG's heavy breathing now but I really do think it's a lie that the MoD say that fitness standards haven't been changed for women: they have but the argument is they are the 'same' as they are 'gender-fair' as opposed to 'gender-equal'. I wait with baited breath for the first female to pass P-coy...
https://nypost.com/2015/05/05/fdnys-unfit-the-perils-of-pushing-women-into-firefighting/

In this or last months soldier magazine someone brought up the PFA being sexist again and got the stock answer that its a fair test, they never say why women have to do half the press ups though.
 
#15
Police to review tests for dog handlers to avoid discrimination

Apparently women were required to do the same test as the men with disastrous consequences.

Judge 'Barking up the Wrong' Street declared:“Where a standard test had negative impacts on members of a protected group, here women, then it either needs to be changed or objectively justified."

I should have thought the objective justification was pretty obvious and along the lines of "What's the point of having a high speed, highly fit and highly trained furry crocodile who can run down anything on two legs, if the handler's a wheezing monster who can't make a decent fist of staying within woofing distance?". Not only does the dog have to spend more time one on one with a scrote before the adipose mess that aspires to be a handler can deploy effectively to support him (or her, this isn't a sexist rant), but, the further away the handler is, the greater the control issues, they may even lose track of the dog.

Happily most of the Alsatians I've encountered could effortlessly run down Usain Bolt whilst dragging the entire committee of the Greggs Appreciation Society behind them but it's still irksome to discover that some creature aspiring to public service has, apparently, played the discrimination card and trousered over £14K for being crap.

Personally I'd let the creature in question be a handler but only on the proviso that the dog gets the salary and the handler makes do with a tin of Pedigree Chum. I've discussed this with my Springer Spaniel and he agrees.

Every time I see a Mr Woofy in a police van I thank God that something in the law and order fraternity still knows what it's trying to do. Here's my candidate to replace Judge Street:

Why would this one struggle? Answers on a Greggs sausage roll c/o new Scotland Yard

E4AB7F65-2789-4420-9A54-FB657EF7222E.jpeg


Could be worse though, it could be this one from across the pond trying to join

B4E45599-2204-49EB-8F4F-D9202C06F0B5.jpeg
 
#17
#18
I think we the whole system is flawed, and skewed to discriminate against people who're scared of dogs.

Cynophobics have rights too you know!
 

Top