Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

PSNI Recruitment 1710 Campaign

1457910271

Comments



  • I haven’t even got it and was really starting to worry but if it is only a survey then that’s okay, their loss because I probably would have done it for them XD




  • Lockie101 wrote: »
    I haven’t even got it and was really starting to worry but if it is only a survey then that’s okay, their loss because I probably would have done it for them XD
    Yeah it's only a survey about how you thought the application form and IST was handled.




  • Wonder can we get extra brownie points for doing this? XD




  • Just finished the survery and it takes 2 seconds to complete, thankfully still mentions at the end of the survery we will be getting the results from the 8th, so at least that hasn't changed....... yet!!!!




  • I’m actually really concerned that following the survey, if X amount of people say the test was poor/unfair they may make us all re-test again.

    This campaign is a nightmare.

    Please no more delays Deloitte.


  • Advertisement


  • Maxi515 wrote: »
    I’m actually really concerned that following the survey, if X amount of people say the test was poor/unfair they may make us all re-test again.

    This campaign is a nightmare.

    Please no more delays Deloitte.
    I'd be very surprised if that happened.




  • Maxi515 wrote: »
    I’m actually really concerned that following the survey, if X amount of people say the test was poor/unfair they may make us all re-test again.

    This campaign is a nightmare.

    Please no more delays Deloitte.
    Don't worry mate, this survey is only used to give Deloitte an insight into the suitability of the IST and how it can be improved in the next campaign.




  • I don’t know guys. I mean, outsourcing the police recruitment to Deloitte was to ensure fairness.

    To ask questions regarding the issue of fairness of the IST is a signal that they may have fallen short.

    They’re aware there are candidates who have attempted this test up to 3 times. While they may have been given different questions every time, it could be argued some candidates who had to repeat had unfair advantage due to practise opportunities etc. Could their be a legal challenge by someone who only sat the test once? I’ve no idea. I’m playing devils advocate.

    Personally, I thought the testing was fair. What I am concerned about is candidates latching on to the tech difficulties and derailing the process even further. Nightmare. Fingers crossed tho.




  • Maxi515 wrote: »
    I don’t know guys. I mean, outsourcing the police recruitment to Deloitte was to ensure fairness.

    To ask questions regarding the issue of fairness of the IST is a signal that they may have fallen short.

    They’re aware there are candidates who have attempted this test up to 3 times. While they may have been given different questions every time, it could be argued some candidates who had to repeat had unfair advantage due to practise opportunities etc. Could their be a legal challenge by someone who only sat the test once? I’ve no idea. I’m playing devils advocate.

    Personally, I thought the testing was fair. What I am concerned about is candidates latching on to the tech difficulties and detailing the process even further. Nightmare. Fingers crossed tho.

    As it is a legal requirement for all public sector recruitment to be open and fair process then yes you can argue that those that had an extra two and half weeks to to prepare for the test had a small advantage. Deloitte's problem would be if a bunch of people who did the test without difficulty missed the pass mark by a tiny margin then they could take an industrial tribunal.

    So here's the issue that they have, if they continue with the process whilst an industrial tribunal carries on, carry out AC, form merit pull and call folk to medicals. Industrial tribunal is won by the complainants then the merit pool is voided.

    All appoint able candidates at that stage are no longer appoint able because the process will have been deemed to not be open and fair and as such in contravention of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 2001




  • Maxi515 wrote: »
    I don’t know guys. I mean, outsourcing the police recruitment to Deloitte was to ensure fairness.

    To ask questions regarding the issue of fairness of the IST is a signal that they may have fallen short.

    They’re aware there are candidates who have attempted this test up to 3 times. While they may have been given different questions every time, it could be argued some candidates who had to repeat had unfair advantage due to practise opportunities etc. Could their be a legal challenge by someone who only sat the test once? I’ve no idea. I’m playing devils advocate.

    Personally, I thought the testing was fair. What I am concerned about is candidates latching on to the tech difficulties and detailing the process even further. Nightmare. Fingers crossed tho.

    As it is a legal requirement for all public sector recruitment to be open and fair process then yes you can argue that those that had an extra two and half weeks to to prepare for the test had a small advantage. Deloitte's problem would be if a bunch of people who did the test without difficulty missed the pass mark by a tiny margin then they could take an industrial tribunal.

    So here's the issue that they have, if they continue with the process whilst an industrial tribunal carries on, carry out AC, form merit pull and call folk to medicals. Industrial tribunal is won by the complainants then the merit pool is voided.

    All appoint able candidates at that stage are no longer appoint able because the process will have been deemed to not be open and fair and as such in contravention of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 2001


    This is what I was thinking. I can see this falling apart. I really hope it doesn’t pan out this way.


  • Advertisement


  • Pm me




  • On a positive note the Tattoo policy has been chilled right out.




  • On a positive note the Tattoo policy has been chilled right out.

    Can you point me in the direction where it tells you about the tattoo policy. Cheers.




  • Last time they mentioned those with sleeves would have to cover arms on duty, not anymore.




  • Last time they mentioned those with sleeves would have to cover arms on duty, not anymore.

    Thank you.




  • Personally I don't think they should have changed the head, neck and hand tattoo policy. Not that I disagree with tattoo, far from it. But everyone should be "uniformed" and not stand out from one another.




  • NiK9 wrote: »
    Personally I don't think they should have changed the head, neck and hand tattoo policy. Not that I disagree with tattoo, far from it. But everyone should be "uniformed" and not stand out from one another.

    So you feel that having some ink on your body affects your ability to Iron a shirt and trousers, polish boots, shave (keep a beard tidy), tie up hair (for females and longer haired gents)?




  • NiK9 wrote: »
    Personally I don't think they should have changed the head, neck and hand tattoo policy. Not that I disagree with tattoo, far from it. But everyone should be "uniformed" and not stand out from one another.

    So you feel that having some ink on your body affects your ability to Iron a shirt and trousers, polish boots, shave (keep a beard tidy), tie up hair (for females and longer haired gents)?

    You know rightly when I said uniformed I didn't mean clothing. Everyone should look exactly the same when in clothing nothing about them should make them stand out differently from the rest of the other constables working. No matter if that be tattoos, piercings or crazy hair colour (excluding us gingers of course lol).
    People don't have good memories, if someone wants to make a complaint etc and they can't remember who it was but they remember 1 cop had a tat that's the one they will report. Same reason UK forces only use shepherd breeds for general purpose dog work and even then they never use white ones because they stand out too much. Everyone should look exactly the same when in uniform.




  • You are in a uniform

    Discriminating against non-offensive tattoos is like discriminating because of skin colour

    How does having mum tattooed on your knuckles affect your ability to be a police officer?

    Because it's grotesque?

    By that logic missing a finger is just as un-uniform. Just as "identifying"

    No they use Shepherd Breeds because they work and have a lot of excusive breeders for the services emergency and armed forces. If it's not broke why fix it?


  • Advertisement


  • NiK9 wrote: »
    NiK9 wrote: »
    Personally I don't think they should have changed the head, neck and hand tattoo policy. Not that I disagree with tattoo, far from it. But everyone should be "uniformed" and not stand out from one another.

    So you feel that having some ink on your body affects your ability to Iron a shirt and trousers, polish boots, shave (keep a beard tidy), tie up hair (for females and longer haired gents)?

    You know rightly when I said uniformed I didn't mean clothing. Everyone should look exactly the same when in clothing nothing about them should make them stand out differently from the rest of the other constables working. No matter if that be tattoos, piercings or crazy hair colour (excluding us gingers of course lol).
    People don't have good memories, if someone wants to make a complaint etc and they can't remember who it was but they remember 1 cop had a tat that's the one they will report. Same reason UK forces only use shepherd breeds for general purpose dog work and even then they never use white ones because they stand out too much. Everyone should look exactly the same when in uniform.

    Again same logic you are applying means a female officer shouldn't go to an incident if she is the only one there...




  • Well my opinion. You are free to disagree :)




  • Nice insight into prejudices there mate.




  • Thinking everyone should be equal isn't really going against anyone but anyway. If someone chooses to change their body with tattoo. Like most if us have. It has been our own decisions what we get and where we get it. It may not effect their ability but in my opinion everyone should be the "grey man".




  • The police needs to be representative of society though...




  • By your logic someone who doesn't conform to your belief of what a police officer should be, shouldn't get to be one. That's not equality, that's discrimination.




  • Some people get tattoos on their face or facial alterations for religious reasons...




  • Like I said all opinions so neither of us are wrong or right lol. No point arguing/debating.




  • You want to be a police officer, yes you are entitled to your opinion, but need to be careful how and where you voice it.

    Those opinions expressed as you did would be seen as discrimination in a work place. Especially use of the word "should"

    The recruitment and selection process maintains equality and the policy is now no offensive tattoos and no tattoos that may conceal your identity.


  • Advertisement


  • PSNI officers are watched like hawks and so many levels of oversight that complaints are frequent and claim culture means that anyway the public can make money they will take the opportunity.


Advertisement