More Recruitment Stats - Mod Note: One Post Per Person. Read Mod note in Post #1

TangoVictor

Mod note: I'm allowing this thread to remain open on the basis that people post their views once, and only once. On boards, it's called a "One Post Per Person" thread, and it reduces the possibility of conflict on what everyone agrees is a very contentious issue. This thread is a One Post Per Person thread. Moderator: psni.

First off; Mods I posted this here as I think it is of interest to applicants, however I cannot stress this enough, I do not wish to get into the whole politics surrounding 50/50. (For those who do can visit the Politics forum and banter all you wish!) So mods, take any action you see fit.

Reason for the post is im not entirely sure I agree with everything that has been said in the media piece and would be interested to see other's views (straight from the horses's mouth so to speak).

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/1000-nonCatholic-rejections-by-PSNI.6004909.jp

Also, worth pointing out the article is from January this year so perhaps a touch out-dated, I am just coming up with this now. (Anyone else googling "PSNI + xyz" every 10 minutes? )

Some quotes I find interesting are;

THE PSNI has rejected would-be recruits because they were not Catholic almost 1,000 times.

This is going back to all campaigns since 2001 but I would wonder is this spin? Is it possible that because the number of NRC applicants are seemingly substantially higher than RC competition is just very high? Another way; if the 50/50 rule didn't exist, would a NRC with a merit of 400+ still realistically be in the running in a campaign where only 240 places are available? Is it possible to say that 100% of the 945 candidates didn't get in simply because of their background?

The next one I think is entirely incorrect;

When the News Letter asked whether this meant that all Catholics who had made the merit pool, and passed all the assessment tests, had been offered jobs, police confirmed that this was the case to date.

What I take the above to mean is, if one is RC, passes IST, AC, Medical/SMT and ultimately vetting they ALLwere offered places?? Again I refer to the date of publish being January 2010 but it is my understanding that RCs from various previous campaigns have recieved Dear Johns despite making the pool??
I'm not sure what good quotes like that do for the general perception of RCs in the PSNI but I would imagine it wouldn't do new recuits any favours when they reach a station and meet serving officers whose Son/Daughter/Friend/Neighbour/Dog tried to join up but couldn't 'because they had to give the place to any RC with a pulse', never mind the perception of the public they serve....

Next one then,

Joe Stewart, the PSNI's director of human resources, explained that 50/50 in effect meant that "if no Catholics apply or pass the merit thresholds we do not appoint anyone at all".

Well, thats just weird!


RC/NRC or not bothered, I think we all share one thing in common - if we make this far and are fortunate enough to be offered a place, we all firstly want to be there because we are the right person for the job and not as a box ticking excercise. Secondly, we (all) better make dam bloody sure when/if we get there the opportuniy is seized with both hands and do the job with integrity never forgetting those who are still battling to be offered a fair chance.

As I said before, I hope the topic is not too controversial but we are all respecting adults here and I think we all appreciate the application process is not easy on anyone regardless of their background. I just hope something new to talk about while we watch the phone and ponder December might do some good!

- tv

Shield

In my experience running this particular forum, people cannot discuss 50/50 without getting emotional.

Is it discrimination? Absolutely.
Is it unfair to people who are not RC? Absolutely.
Have people who scored lower in the Initial Selection Test and lower in the Assessment Centre got the job solely on the basis of their religion? Absolutely.

These are the cold hard facts behind 50/50. Those of you who applied know what you're getting in to. You know 50/50 exists, you know it's discriminatory, unfair and probably against EU law.

I don't see how leaving this thread open will benefit the forum, but I'm going to leave it open anyway for the time being. Both myself and del will watch this thread closely, and any sign of people who can't control their emotions, bickering, bigotry, goading or trolling and we'll just lock the thread.

Post your views on the issue, have your say, and let others do the rest.

Taking off my moderator hat and posting my personal view on 50/50:

At the moment, there are not as many RCs applying as there are NRCs. Page 52 of this report states "Applicants with a RC community background are less likely to be successful than those from a non-RC community background.

A police force that has fewer than 30% RCs policing part of a land mass whose population is 50% RC is a politically imbalanced police force. Those in power are highly likely to be NRC, and are therefore likely to have the political views of someone who is NRC. In other words, those in power are likely to have Unionist views.

If a police force has a majority of senior officers who, through no fault of their own, are unable to fully understand what issues would be important to RCs (or those with Nationalist views) and why, then in my opinion, that must be rectified. I'm not saying senior officers with Unionist views aren't aware of issues affecting those with Nationalist views. I'm saying they wouldn't understand how it feels to have Nationalist views and (for example) see a contentious Orange parade pass by their front door. (Please don't jump on the parading issue, it's just by way of example only)

We need to address that imbalance in some way, so that in the future, if there is a contentious parade passing through a Nationalist area, senior RC officers with a Nationalist views will understand how those Nationalists are feeling and will be able to assist or advise in making decisions, or offer a previously unconsidered viewpoint, which could help (in my example) the parade pass through without incident.

I am in favour of 50/50 because there doesn't seem to be any other workable alternative to address the lack of RCs in the PSNI. I don't like that it discriminates against people who statistically would have got the job, but for lasting peace, for a stable political climate, for all communities to know they are served equally and fairly by a politically balanced police force, 50/50 gets my reluctant approval.

Lucky23

I'm not going to debate the rights and wrongs of 50/50 either but from PSNI's post above it has made me look at the issue from a different perspective.

I feel there are 2 perspectives to look at 50/50:

Firstly the way I think most people on this board look at it is from a personal perspective. We care about what we do with our lives and are applying for the job as it is beneficial to our lives for X amount of reasons (personal satisfaction/money/job security etc.) Certainly being a NRC in the process I would stand by the argument that it's not fair because I want the job so to me how is it right that other people can be considered ahead of me in the line when statistically I have performed better than them in the application tests. Whilst I know the purpose of 50/50 is for good reasons I can't describe it as any other way than unfair and discriminatory. I want the best I can get from my life and if I feel I am not getting it due to no fault of my own I am opposed to it.

But

The second point of view is a view I feel a lot of us in the application process don't really see it from. And it wasn't until reading PSNI's post that I realised I have been very closed minded in only seeing from my perspective. I think the second point of view is the benefit that 50/50 provides to the community. We all know what the purpose of 50/50 is but I don't really think we look beyond the statistics of having a certain percentage of X and certain percentage of Y. The real impact of having balanced representation in the force can only be felt by the community as when problems arise their is an objective set of people there with experience of both sides of whatever the argument may be.

I've never been in favour of 50/50, i've understood the purpose but never really thought deeply about it. I feel my opinion has changed now that i've been made to look at it it out of a personal ‘trying to be recruited’ perspective. It is something that is in place to make the police force fair to everyone who lives in the country. At the end of the day to be a police officer you should be a fair person who makes objective decisions and wants to be there to help people no matter who they are. So something that is in place to make the service more balanced and fair to everyone can only be a good thing. As long as it doesn’t go to far.

Delancey

My view of 50/50 is that it is a ' necessary evil '.

I remember being stunned at the reaction of Unionist politicians to the Patten report , they complained about the provisions which was not all that surprising but they always spoke of the Police as '' our Police '' , the words '' our Police '' peppered their comments - did they not realise how this sounded ? how it showed one community perceived the Police ?

Patten made the very same point - at ' Town Hall ' meetings held by his commission team in NRC areas the public constantly referred to '' our Police ''.

What ever happened to the notion of a Police Service for the whole community ?

Reform of Policing in Northern Ireland was a fundamental and crucial part of the peace process , were the R.U.C. still in place along with their 95% NRC composition and other structural shortcomings I don't believe the level of stability that exists now would have happened.

Ideally 50/50 would not be required , ideally the P.S.N.I. would attract sufficient numbers of RC applicants to remove the need for it.
That day will come I believe but at this time it is still some way off .

I think a 30% RC representation figure is unambitious - I would like to think the Police can aspire to and reach 40-45 % in the future.
Few people can argue that a force 95% NRC could ever hope to command the confidence of the RC community - it simply had to change and 50/50 is the somewhat ' blunt instrument ' that was selected for this purpose.

By the way - when the R.U.C. was first established following partition the legislation called for 1/3 of places to be reserved for RC applicants . This ultimately fell by the wayside due to very few RC people applying but it goes to show that even then the composition of the Police in Norn Iron was a cause for concern.

Like psni , my views are entirely personal and not voiced as a moderator.

minerdees

Having been on both sides of the recruitment process for PSNI ( I used to work for the company running it back during C1 and C2) I have seen 50/50 used as an excuse for anyone who did not get through at any stage. At one time I was dealing with 4 complaints from various MP's and MLA's regarding constituents of theirs. Unfortunatley it is very contentious and wll always be used as a stick to beat the recruitment process with until 70/30 ratio will be acheived and maintained.

At the end of the day I don't agree with anything that stops people from getting any job based on who they are not how the perform during assesments 50/50 is something that has been brought around by serious issues in our past, issues that I don't think any other force in the country or even AGS has had to deal with and has become necessary to help a large portion of our community feel safe and to respect the police when they need them. But from my experience all of my future colleagues will have been tested and trained to the highest standards and will be officers of the highest calibre.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think it had to be done at the start as a gesture to a community mistrustful of the RUC.

In my view that is now complete.

Most nationalists trust the PSNI as much as people in the republic trust the Gardai. The ones who don't cannot be swayed by demographical recruitment policies.

Anyone who still rejects the PSNI is the type of person who will never accept a UK police force in Ireland no matter what the demographical make up of said force.

Therefore all the continued 50/50 policy does is alienate the Protestant community.

We all know how it feels when you get rejected for a job. You cling to any suspicion you have that you've been treated unfairly or discriminated against until you get over the disappointment and look at it rationally. In the case of Protestants they have a legislative policy backing up their initial suspicions.

So I'm very happy to read this today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11732911

Paterson signals PSNI 50-50 recruitment should lapse

The secretary of state has said he is "not minded" to continue the practice of 50-50 recruitment in the PSNI.

Owen Paterson announced details of a consultation process on the practice which is due to expire in March 2011.

Mr Paterson said that currently more than 29% of serving officers are from a Catholic background which is within the target set by the Patten report.

He said although he favoured ending 50-50, he would "reflect carefully" on the outcome of the consultation.

The current 50-50 recruitment process was introduced to increase the numbers of Catholics joining the police.

When it was introduced in 2001, Catholics made up about 8% of the PSNI.

However the scheme has been strongly opposed by unionist politicians

Just one other thing OP, you're probably aware but the Newsletter is a staunchly unionist paper.

PurpleLadybird

Hi, I don't often post but I felt compelled to on this one. Let's see what you think after hearing this take on it:

If twenty men and four women apply for a job with four positions to be filled based on two women/two men, can the 18 men who didn't get a job feel hard done by because two women who (may have) scored lower than they in the selection process got the jobs? Clearly not. Maybe years ago yes, before equality prevailed. Most jobs, like the police force, require fair representation from all types of people.

So does that mean it's unfair and discriminatory to those NRC who don't get in? No. NRC should feel in competition with other NRC's, not RC's. If we want this country to have fair representation from all sides of the community, we need to shake off this idea that 50:50 is unfair to one party, it's there to serve a purpose which needs to be fully understood.

50:50 by true definition IS fair.

Dietcoke1

PurpleLadybird wrote: »

Hi, I don't often post but I felt compelled to on this one. Let's see what you think after hearing this take on it:

If twenty men and four women apply for a job with four positions to be filled based on two women/two men, can the 18 men who didn't get a job feel hard done by because two women who (may have) scored lower than they in the selection process got the jobs? Clearly not. Maybe years ago yes, before equality prevailed. Most jobs, like the police force, require fair representation from all types of people.

So does that mean it's unfair and discriminatory to those NRC who don't get in? No. NRC should feel in competition with other NRC's, not RC's. If we want this country to have fair representation from all sides of the community, we need to shake off this idea that 50:50 is unfair to one party, it's there to serve a purpose which needs to be fully understood.

50:50 by true definition IS fair.

Excellent post.

50:50 is fair and should remain.

thebakerboy

PurpleLadybird wrote: »

Hi, I don't often post but I felt compelled to on this one. Let's see what you think after hearing this take on it:

If twenty men and four women apply for a job with four positions to be filled based on two women/two men, can the 18 men who didn't get a job feel hard done by because two women who (may have) scored lower than they in the selection process got the jobs? Clearly not. Maybe years ago yes, before equality prevailed. Most jobs, like the police force, require fair representation from all types of people.

So does that mean it's unfair and discriminatory to those NRC who don't get in? No. NRC should feel in competition with other NRC's, not RC's. If we want this country to have fair representation from all sides of the community, we need to shake off this idea that 50:50 is unfair to one party, it's there to serve a purpose which needs to be fully understood.

50:50 by true definition IS fair.

This is a very good comparison, jobs are being equally split to each community. I had never looked at it from that point of view before.

Gee-22

thebakerboy wrote: »

This is a very good comparison, jobs are being equally split to each community. I had never looked at it from that point of view before.

But its not a equal split to each community.

Its 50% Rc and 50% other.

Anyway, the rule has served its "purpose" and will soon be removed.

Then noboby can complain, as it will be a fair process.

recruit2010

Gee-22 wrote: »

But its not a equal split to each community.

Its 50% Rc and 50% other.

Anyway, the rule has served its "purpose" and will soon be removed.

Then noboby can complain, as it will be a fair process.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble Gee-22 but it is actually currently 29% RC and 71% NRC...

now that is not a fair split ... for too long the police has been recognised as the police force for the unionists... this is to dispel that idea/myth and im glad to see that it is gradually working as more and more young RC's are joining up ... of course there will always be the minority who will hate the police but that isn't through any political reasoning ... they are just the dreggs of society who are looking for any excuse to riot/rob/harrass and cause mayhem in our communities and it is about time that these people are brought to justice...

i only wish that the judicial system could get a review as it is disgusting to see police working hard or trying to put together case files for prosecution (god knows how many man hours which we will find out in due course) and then the courts giving them a slap on the wrists...

i know this is off on a tangent but they should also bring in if you commit 3 serious crimes (not speeding etc) that you get your benefits removed and people on benefits for more than a year should be made to WORK!!...

too many people think they are owed money from society and that they shouldn't have to work for anything!...

sorry to go off on a tangent but you get my point...

we need more RC's in the police to change the points of view of normal nationalists/republicans to go to the police instead of seeking to sort their problems with vigilanties... you will of course not appease everyone ...

i personally would like to see the ratio around 40-45%

we are in a democratic society and need proper balance and representation....

i dont want to offend anyone of course this is just my personal opinion
:o

king_eric

Having been one of the candidates in the past who has been rejected due to religion it's an awful feeling to know that you have scored higher than people who are now serving police officers. And it's a likely event that it will happen this time, having a merit placing of mid to late 300s in c16.

I personally can't wait to see the end of this 50/everyone else recruitment policy and revert back to the policy where the most qualified candidates police our streets and not someone hundreds of places below them in the merit pool.

BoutYe

king_eric wrote: »

Having been one of the candidates in the past who has been rejected due to religion it's an awful feeling to know that you have scored higher than people who are now serving police officers. And it's a likely event that it will happen this time, having a merit placing of mid to late 300s in c16.

I personally can't wait to see the end of this 50/everyone else recruitment policy and revert back to the policy where the most qualified candidates police our streets and not someone hundreds of places below them in the merit pool.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - merit score in no ways mean you are going to be a good peeler. I'll wait until somebody is actually doing the job a while before I decide if they are better than somebody who scored lower in a couple of roleplays and didn't quite manage to read a data sheet just as well as somebody else. The recruitment process is a means to an end - not the yard stick that should be used to judge how good you are going to be once you hit your station.

And as for 50/50 in general - I coulndt agree more with PurpleLadyBird. If the split in people applying for a job is 80/20 NRC/RC then obviously the NRCs need to do better because they are competing with far more people for the same number of spaces. Thats just simple maths. Don't blame that on Patten or 50/50 or anything else - its a symptom of the past that HAS to be rectified.

All I'll say on this subject is that because Response is as near as can be a 50-50 split, very few people we deal with have complained of bias that I've heard. And speaking as a member of Response, I genuinely believe 50-50 should continue. If it doesn't, in 3-4 years, once people start moving sideways/upwards again, there will be a dearth of RCs in the place most visible to the public. Back to square 1.

wanadrum

My personal opinion on 50:50, although I can see why it was introduced, is that is completely unfair and in most other sectors/countries would be illegal.

I think that 50:50 actualy promotes inequality as it obviously prevents candidates from being treated equally.

The problem is that people confuse equal numbers of individuals from a certain background, gender etc. within the organisation with equality of opportunity to get into the organisation.


I feel that the important issue is that everyone is given equality of opportunity to apply to and throughout the selection process – not the headcount of people in a particular category at the end of the process.


The problem of the police not being representative of the community was not caused by a discriminatory recruitment process, and I don’t feel that it can ever be completely resolved by a discriminatory recruitment process – in fact I feel that it offends those who are being discriminated against – and let’s not forget people have missed out on the career they wanted just because of their religion (I am aware that a lot of people may use it as an excuse, when it may not necessarily be true – but invariably there are individuals who were not offered a place who should have been – this is absolutely wrong).


Also, for those who say you are only competing with those from the same RC/NRC background and we need to think about it this way – yes obviously, because of 50:50 we compete with those from the same background, but, in my opinion, thinking about it that way doesn’t help – it simply clarifies the unfairness and discrimination in the process. On that note, dual merit lists do not change the facts and it is better that we see where we truly stand on merit rather than masking the truth under two lists.


The reason most people, including politicians tried to justify 50:50 is that Patten recommended it, yet now that the Patten requirement have been reached, the same individuals want the discrimination to continue, even though Patten recommended it should end.......


I completely agree that Merit placing does not show how good you will be at the job, this is a flaw in the selection process, but that in itself is completely irrelevant to 50:50. If applicants are assessed on the basis of the IST and AC (regardless of whether or not the assessment is effective in terms of aptitude for policing), then clearly the merit score is the only factor that should be considered when places are being allocated.


People in this country need to move on and stop using religion as a way of labelling people – religion is absolutely irrelevant to your ability to do a certain job, and therefore should not be considered at all. The selection process should be amended to select the best people on the basis of merit - for example it should most definitely involve an interview and a fitness assessment.


I accept that policing ideologically should be representative, but this should be achieved by encouraging people from all backgrounds to apply and treating people from all background fairly in the application process – not by forcing through a ‘false equality’.


If other employers applied 50:50 type recruiting and informed someone that they were unsuccessful with a job application on the basis of their religion there would be absolute uproar – and rightly so!


I feel that 50:50 has to go, it has served it’s purpose, and if continued it could only serve to create ill feeling on the part of those being discriminated against.



We, as a community need to let go of the religious labelling, and using religion as an excuse to fight/argue etc, we are all people we all have the same human rights and the same human responsibilities. The very fact that employers have to monitor religious background is terrible and we really need to get over it.


I believe fairness/equality and 50:50 recruitment are completely in conflict with eachother.


Whilst there are obviously strong emotions on all sides of this debate, I honestly feel that my opinion is reasonble, and not simply based on sour grapes.

shampon

I agree with most of your overall post there Wanadrum, the only problem I have is with an interview being introduced. If it was done by the same means as the AC, which having been through the interview for AGS, is a fairer way of doing business, people might not think of it as fairer but the Deloitte AC's and IST's seem a little fairer and more accountable then the southern way of doing things, there is a lot less room for vested interests at the initial selection stage, something I think blights the Irish public service completely.

I worked my balls off to get the score I got in the AC regardless of my background, I put the work in and it's breaks said balls to see people of 500 getting in before NRC's in the hundreds, alas it is for the greater good of the society in general.

Bubbles34

PurpleLadybird wrote: »

Hi, I don't often post but I felt compelled to on this one. Let's see what you think after hearing this take on it:

If twenty men and four women apply for a job with four positions to be filled based on two women/two men, can the 18 men who didn't get a job feel hard done by because two women who (may have) scored lower than they in the selection process got the jobs? Clearly not. Maybe years ago yes, before equality prevailed. Most jobs, like the police force, require fair representation from all types of people.

So does that mean it's unfair and discriminatory to those NRC who don't get in? No. NRC should feel in competition with other NRC's, not RC's. If we want this country to have fair representation from all sides of the community, we need to shake off this idea that 50:50 is unfair to one party, it's there to serve a purpose which needs to be fully understood.

50:50 by true definition IS fair.

50:50 (I my opinion) can only be described as completely fair if you are dishing out jobs solely on religious background. I suspect though that the many people who are displaced each campaign due to their religious background would argue that merit should be the only factor taken into account. (Like every other EU country) However, in this wee country, its never normally that simple. I do believe that 50:50 has been necessarry and has served its purpose of hopefully helping to build confidence and trust towards the psni. It cannot be described as fair to the candidate, but perhaps fair to the community?

When should 50:50 come to and end? I dont know, but I would of thought that the only way the recruitment process can be desribed as completely fair, would be one where nobody is descriminated against. I for one (nrc) would be happy for it to continue, sometimes things in life have to for their own reasons be unfair, and if it helps in its own way to keep us all from edging back towards the bad old days, then fine.

Shield

This is a moderator post:

The forum moderators are in agreement that this thread will remain a One Post Per Person thread.

The reason for it being a OPPP thread was so people could, once and for all, get how they felt about 50/50 off their chest, and let people know where they stood and why. It provides a simple way for people to state their case and is permitted in the forum so people can learn what shapes other people's opinions and viewpoints.

It was not, and is not, a thread for discussing 50/50. That's what the Politics forum is for.

Thanks for reading.

weepete

I know this thread has been quiet for a while but i think i'll throw my 2 cents in.

50/50 wether its fair or not which i don't believe it is it should always be the best man/woman for the job.

A few of you have posted saying that a more representative police force will help put the communities minds at ease. But do they post the RC officers in RC areas and vice versa? Don't think so! And with the current 29/70 split if you happen to be an RC stopped by an officer and their partner the odds are against you that either of them will be RC, and even if one of them was RC you probably won't be able to tell, that is unless their NRC partner is (and please don't chew me up for this) wearing a sash, a jewish skull cap, a turban or one of the hindi marks (Pardon my ignorance as i don't know what there called). The fact of the matter is the police and community should have faith in the officers to carry out their job with respect and dignity, of course the police will have to branch out and win the hearts and minds of the community, which they are doing in some areas.

As a current recruit still waiting to hear the outcome of my process it still stings to know that RC recruits with a lower merit score are in G'ville as we speak.

MustBeCrazy

weepete wrote: »

I know this thread has been quiet for a while but i think i'll throw my 2 cents in.

50/50 wether its fair or not which i don't believe it is it should always be the best man/woman for the job.

A few of you have posted saying that a more representative police force will help put the communities minds at ease. But do they post the RC officers in RC areas and vice versa? Don't think so! And with the current 29/70 split if you happen to be an RC stopped by an officer and their partner the odds are against you that either of them will be RC, and even if one of them was RC you probably won't be able to tell, that is unless their NRC partner is (and please don't chew me up for this) wearing a sash, a jewish skull cap, a turban or one of the hindi marks (Pardon my ignorance as i don't know what there called). The fact of the matter is the police and community should have faith in the officers to carry out their job with respect and dignity, of course the police will have to branch out and win the hearts and minds of the community, which they are doing in some areas.

As a current recruit still waiting to hear the outcome of my process it still stings to know that RC recruits with a lower merit score are in G'ville as we speak.

Hi there

Of course it stings and I understand why you feel the way you do but your point about RC officers dealing with RCs they stop etc etc isn't what it's about. It's about a representational police service (we don't refer to it as a 'force' these days). I'm sure you can understand that when a police service is widely known as having only 8% RCs in a society with over 40% RCs it can appear as one sided. Whatever the reasons were for RCs not joining the RUC I believe it was something that definitely needed to be addressed to try and help the peace process as a whole move along. It was never going to be straightforward or agreeable to everyone but I can't think of any other way the balance could have been achieved.

MBC

mal4893

I'm not going argue over this either! Nearly all RC want 50/50 in the police and NRC want things to move on! The PSNI should and would be a fair representation of the people who want to be a part of it and those who applied for the job, if the top canadites got in! If RC's want more RC in the PSNI then they should apply and make the difference!!!! If less people apply from one side then there should be less in it from that side! But again that's only one side of the story, I understand where the other site are coming from and except it too! (but still as with ALL JOBS the best candidates gets the job, why should the PSNI be any different. As one of the mods brought up, in EEC law, the 50/50 probaly breaches it under equal rights etc)

I've held off posting in this thead since it appeared as I'm still not even entirely exactly sure where I stand on the 50/50 issue, but figured I might aswell chuck in my two cents anyways eventually!

I dislike the actual idea of 50/50 itself (I'm NRC), but having said that it does have it's benefits for everybody, not just wannabe RC coppers. The introduction of it has blessed us with garaunteed recruitment campaigns every year, without it I imagine recruitment would be done simply when it was needed, and thus it has given us all more opportunities to go for it.
Also, 50/50 meant the number of places on offer in each campaign was more than what was on offer before it. I'm not sure of what the actual intake figures were like pre 50/50, but I do recall reading this somewhere, so whilst it means tougher competition for NRC's to get the golden ticket than RC's, it does mean more there's more places to be competing for overall.

Then we have the obvious benefit, a more representative police service. Yes, something had to be done to address the issues of having a majorly under represented side of the community, and yes, 50/50 has had a major positive impact on the issue, but I do not believe it was/is the right way to do it. In my mind it's very much a quick fix for the issue and is the easiest way of practically forcing up the NRC numbers within the PSNI, but it is not a sustainable long term option.

There is still a substantial difference between the numbers applying from both sides of the community, greater than the difference in the total proportion of RC/NRC's in our society, and there has to be a reason behind this. In my mind it is far more important that this reason be looked into and rectified than it is to superficially force the numbers up from one side. In my opinion quite a bit of the problem is education, specifically careers education within schools and colleges.
The PSNI is one of the best possible careers in the world if you ask me, yet when I was in school (and that wasn't really all that long ago) the PSNI was never once mentioned. We had constant career days with all manner of different types of careers coming to give talks and advice, including army, navy, and RAF all separetly. The PSNI? No. As a result the idea of being a police officer never even crossed my mind till 2 years ago. Had there of been a talk from the PSNI at school, I most definately would've been applying since the day I left school. I went to a mixed school, pretty much 50/50, and I know quite a few people from school who are the same as me now, never thought about till it was too late really.
Good represetation from the PSNI within school careers I believe could go a long way to removing some of the barriers and misbeliefs that some people from a Catholic background probably do still have about the organisation. People need to be educated, and the best time to do that is when they're still young. The PSNI need to think long term now, how are they going to maintain the better representation of RC's they have at the moment? 50/50 is not the answer, the answer is getting sustantially more RC's applying than are currently. Educate.

A better way they also could have done it (though still not great) would be on a proportionate system for each campaign. Say if out of the total applicants for a campaign 35% were RC and 65% were NRC, then make appointments on a 35/65 basis etc for each individual camaign. It would take longer obviously to reach the target but I think it's a slightly fairer way to go about it. One side should not have a tougher time to get in than the other just because more of them apply.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly bitter about 50/50, it does have benefits, but I disagree with simple idea of it. No competition which runs in the manner the 50/50 system does could ever be called a fair competition. I will admit I did get a bit peeved off a while ago when I read something on here which really did show to me the extent of the difference being labelled either RC or NRC can have on you're chances. Whilst my merit score was pretty p*ss poor by any means and definately did deserve a dear john straight away, I do recall reading an RC either getting the call or being pretty close to it with a merit number that was a good 100 or more places worse than mine. That is the only real time 50/50 has ever aggravated me.

Society should learn to have faith in it's police service regardless of it's religious make up, personally I think it is very sad that this day and age we still have to even think about it.

Rant over.

Goonerdee

Any future campaign based on religious lines should base appointments on those representative of the merit pool.

Basic example.400 candidates in the pool.40 places up for grabs. If 100 candidates are Catholic then they should be fighting for 10 places and the other 300 for 30 places, everyone has a 10% chance of success. Run along the lines of 50/50 means that Catholics would have a 20% chance of success and non-Catholics only 6% chance.

If people want it to be 50/50 then they need to encourage more of the Catholic side to apply.

rookie_boarder

PurpleLadybird wrote: »

Hi, I don't often post but I felt compelled to on this one. Let's see what you think after hearing this take on it:

If twenty men and four women apply for a job with four positions to be filled based on two women/two men, can the 18 men who didn't get a job feel hard done by because two women who (may have) scored lower than they in the selection process got the jobs? Clearly not. Maybe years ago yes, before equality prevailed. Most jobs, like the police force, require fair representation from all types of people.

So does that mean it's unfair and discriminatory to those NRC who don't get in? No. NRC should feel in competition with other NRC's, not RC's. If we want this country to have fair representation from all sides of the community, we need to shake off this idea that 50:50 is unfair to one party, it's there to serve a purpose which needs to be fully understood.

50:50 by true definition IS fair.

really...?RC, i hit 150-160, vet med etc done aug 09, last year hit 25-30, vet med done aug 10, i'm sitting here with vetting on-going, while scores in the 1200's get called...