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
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.
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.
Banterbus28 wrote: » 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
Banterbus28 wrote: » On a positive note the Tattoo policy has been chilled right out.
Banterbus28 wrote: » Last time they mentioned those with sleeves would have to cover arms on duty, not anymore.
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.
Banterbus28 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)?
NiK9 wrote: » Banterbus28 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.
