Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Police Inspector sues Greater Manchester Police after failing 'Riot Test'

13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭The Left Hand Of God


    If someone could give me cliff notes on Dudess's points I'd appreciate it.

    Devils advocate? :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Here are some cliff notes: read the thread. Others brought up the equality question, my posts were in response to that - as I already said, and which you can see.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,968 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    She is an inspector, top brass
    Next riot put her in the frontline and see how she manages to lead her team

    Follow me! she says while huffing and puffing and can't deploy to the correct position in time

    How are young fit sergeants and constables going to respect her?
    A leader doesn't ask someone to do what they can't do themselves

    Away to the offices with her, there's administration work to be done


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    Quite the blow for equality and an emarassment for womens rights movement.

    And its not a something which is unique to the UK either.

    Females in the Irish Defence Forces are set lower times and targets for their annual fitness tests than those of their male comrades.

    They also get to do modified push ups and sit ups.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Females in the Irish Defence Forces are set lower times and targets for their annual fitness tests than those of their male comrades.

    They also get to do modified push ups and sit ups.

    Reminds me of a female soldier in the UK last year who sued the Army and won £100,000 because they wouldn't supple child care. Amazingly, she also won a case racial discrimination because they won't fly her sister in from the Caribbean to look after the child:
    Mother of all defeats! Huge blow to Army as it faces £100,000 payout after tribunal backs single mother who went AWOL over childcare!

    Army chiefs face the nightmare prospect of having to consider their soldiers' childcare problems before giving them orders.
    The devastating blow follows a successful sex discrimination claim brought by a single mother.

    Tilern DeBique, 28, says she was forced to leave the Army because she was expected to be available for duty around the clock.
    She was formally disciplined when she failed to appear on parade because she had to look after her daughter.

    She was told the Army was a 'war-fighting machine' and 'unsuitable for a single mother who couldn't sort out her childcare arrangements'.
    Now she is in line for a payout of at least £100,000 for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and aggravated damages.

    The case could have massive implications if other recruits argue that their childcare rights must be considered.

    Tory politician Patrick Mercer, a former Army officer, warned last night: 'The defence budget is already hugely overstrained.

    'If specialist childcare arrangements have to be made for every soldier who doesn't have an extended family to help, it will be cripplingly expensive.'
    Fellow Tory Ann Widdecombe said: 'If you are in the Army, you must be available for duty.

    'The idea that someone can sue for sex discrimination is simply ludicrous. As for a £100,000 payout, that is just turning a grievance into a lottery win.'

    Miss DeBique also won a claim of race discrimination because Army chiefs did not let her bring her half-sister from the Caribbean to look after the child.

    The former corporal, whose daughter is now four, told the Central London Employment Tribunal that British soldiers could rely on their families for childcare, but her relatives were all on her home island of St Vincent, where she was recruited.
    This second victory raises serious questions about the Army's ability to recruit from Commonwealth countries if it will be held responsible for soldiers' childcare arrangements.
    Miss DeBique joined the 10th Signal Regiment in March 2001 after recruiters visited her home village.

    She became pregnant in 2004 and gave birth to her daughter Thalia in August 2005.
    At first she took the baby back to her family in St Vincent but brought her to the UK in September 2006.
    Soldier: Ms DeBique served as a signals technician, based at Chelsea Barracks

    It was initially arranged that she would work from 8.30am to 4.30pm and only on weekdays, so she could arrange childcare.

    As a signals technician Miss DeBique was responsible for fixing faulty cables and communications equipment but she was also required to have the skills to serve on the front line if required.

    She was given two-bedroom family accommodation at Chelsea Barracks and wanted her half-sister to become a live-in carer.
    British soldiers who become single parents are encouraged to ask relatives to live with them to help.

    But Army chiefs told Miss DeBique that immigration rules meant any relative of hers could enter the country only as a visitor and stay no longer than six months.

    In December 2006 she missed training after her daughter fell ill, and in January 2007 she failed to appear on parade because of childcare difficulties.

    It was then she was told that she was required to be available at all times and that she was working for a 'war fighting machine'.
    She feared she was 'on the path to dismissal' and quit the Army in 2008, after seven years.

    The Defence Ministry says she could have accepted an alternative posting.
    Miss DeBique told the tribunal it had been her 'dream' to join the Army and she had wanted to give her daughter a better life than she had.

    She said she would have seen out her full 22-year period of service if she had not suffered discrimination, but was now struggling financially because she could not find another job.

    The tribunal criticised the Army for not making childcare arrangements for her - especially after its costly recruitment drive in the Caribbean.
    It found that the Ministry of Defence could have liaised with the UK Border Agency to relax immigration rules.

    The Ministry appealed against the rulings but lost.
    Its lawyers say any payout for loss of earnings should be reduced because only six per cent of female soldiers serve their full 22 years. The compensation hearing continues.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,319 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    hondasam wrote: »
    The judge did say persons of her age group so that would mean men are at a disadvantage also.

    Then the judge is an idiot. It's a task based standard, not an age based standard. What, is the riot control squad now supposed to go up againt a bunch of (usually) under-40s at a riot at the pace of a 50-year-old? A team is as fast as its slowest link.
    Females in the Irish Defence Forces are set lower times and targets for their annual fitness tests than those of their male comrades.

    They also get to do modified push ups and sit ups

    As does the US Army. The saving grace is that it's a useless test anyway as I have not yet seen a battlefield task which requires performing two minutes of sit-ups or running two miles in shorts and runners. The other saving grace is that in the US Army and Marines, women are prohibited from the combat arms, so the distinction isn't as worrisome.

    NTM


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    I'm afraid I dont believe a word of it.

    We can all agree that the mail has an agenda right? I dont buy that they are reporting all the facts but i'd bet they are deliberately leaving out some information that actually did prove a discrimination case (comments on her gender etc) in order to paint a 'political correctness gone mad' picture.

    basically if its in the mail, its bullshít


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭not even wrong


    I'm afraid I dont believe a word of it.

    We can all agree that the mail has an agenda right? I dont buy that they are reporting all the facts but i'd bet they are deliberately leaving out some information that actually did prove a discrimination case (comments on her gender etc) in order to paint a 'political correctness gone mad' picture.

    basically if its in the mail, its bullshít
    Even from the information they do provide it's clear that the case was justified:
    - they told her that as a woman she wouldn't have to take the test
    - on the day of the exam they changed their mind
    - leaving her with no chance to train for it
    - unsurprisingly she failed while all the men passed no problem.

    Also note the "now stands to win up to £30,000" weasel words. She hasn't won £30k.
    Reminds me of a female soldier in the UK last year who sued the Army and won £100,000 because they wouldn't supple child care.
    Likewise here. "in line for a payout of at least £100,000", note how the journalist cleverly suggests she has been awarded 100k when she actually hasn't.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,834 ✭✭✭phill106


    The very fact that she brought the case is a form of discrimation imo. It is a known test with specific goals. If the start changing the rules because one person couldnt do it, for whatever reason, it makes a mockery of it.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,319 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Even from the information they do provide it's clear that the case was justified:
    - they told her that as a woman she wouldn't have to take the test

    Article says "Led to believe." Doesn't give a reason as to how she would be so led, or what any reasoning may have been behind it. And I can't believe she made it to the rank of "Inspector" without learning to read the written policies and regulations, which will always rule.
    - on the day of the exam they changed their mind
    - leaving her with no chance to train for it

    So she is expecting to get advance notice of any riots so that she can train for them? I'm a nice Commander, I tend to give my troops advance notice of PT tests to give them every chance of passing. I am not obliged to, however, and do let them know to bring PT gear every training day as I might spring something on them. They're supposed to be able to pass at all times, not just when they've been given a month or two's notice.
    - unsurprisingly she failed while all the men passed no problem.

    And several months later, when she did have warning, she still was given a head-start in order to pass, and a longer time limit.
    Also note the "now stands to win up to £30,000" weasel words. She hasn't won £30k.Likewise here. "in line for a payout of at least £100,000", note how the journalist cleverly suggests she has been awarded 100k when she actually hasn't.

    I don't care if it was three dollars and fifty seven cents, less tax. Unless there is information being withheld from us, it's an incomprehensible ruling which requires a change in practical requirements.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    I dont trust the mail either, but she's definitely at least an inspector; http://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/1565660.policing_team_gets_new_boss/



    DeV.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    I'm afraid I dont believe a word of it.

    We can all agree that the mail has an agenda right?

    All papers have an agenda, even the Irish Times.
    I dont buy that they are reporting all the facts but i'd bet they are deliberately leaving out some information that actually did prove a discrimination case (comments on her gender etc) in order to paint a 'political correctness gone mad' picture.

    basically if its in the mail, its bullshít

    Nonsense.

    Sure, newspapers can and often are very selective with the facts they present, most newspapers are though. Saying: "if its in the mail, its bullshít" is over egging your point somewhat. The real problem is cherry picking and presenting a story for the 'left' is more forgiveable than doing the same when presenting news stories for the 'right'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    All papers have an agenda, even the Irish Times.



    Nonsense.

    Sure, newspapers can and often are very selective with the facts they present, most newspapers are though. Saying: "if its in the mail, its bullshít" is over egging your point somewhat. The real problem is cherry picking and presenting a story for the 'left' is more forgiveable than doing the same when presenting news stories for the 'right'.

    no, cherry picking for any agenda is bad journalism. the mail is quite versed in sensationaist nonsense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    no, cherry picking for any agenda is bad journalism.

    Where did I say it was good journalism?
    .. the mail is quite versed in sensationaist nonsense.

    Liberal bull**** is just as sensationalist, it's just more palatable by society. Take the Daily Mirror that fell over themselves to put pictures of their soldiers urinating on Iraqis. People are just numb to liberal spin these days and so don't react to those papers the way the do to the Daily Mail. I doubt very much all the 'Oh no it's Mail' brigade are at home sipping tea, adjusting the bifocals, reading broadsheets.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Where did I say it was good journalism?.

    I am saying its bad journalism
    OutlawPete wrote: »

    Liberal bull**** is just as sensationalist, it's just more palatable by society. Take the Daily Mirror that fell over themselves to put pictures of their soldiers urinating on Iraqis. People are just numb to liberal spin these days and so don't react to those papers the way the do to the Daily Mail. I doubt very much all the 'Oh no it's Mail' brigade are at home sipping tea, adjusting the bifocals, reading broadsheets.

    Of course it is. Sensationalism is bad be it the daily mail or indymedia. I certainly wouldnt put the mirror down as a liberal paper. but then me and the rest of my brigade (we actually prefer the term battalion) wouldn't really know as we are too busy being offended at top gear


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    I am saying its bad journalism.

    Yep, but you said:
    no, cherry picking for any agenda is bad journalism.

    Thereby implying that I thought it was sometimes good :)
    Of course it is. Sensationalism is bad be it the daily mail or indymedia. I certainly wouldnt put the mirror down as a liberal paper. but then me and the rest of my brigade (we actually prefer the term battalion) wouldn't really know as we are too busy being offended at top gear

    Well, your .. battalion shouldn't be so quick to roll their eyes when they see the Daily Mail as a source. The bones of this story have to be true, otherwise they would be sued. Happens of course but it gets quite boring to keep on hearing the Mail dismissed as a news source, especially on a forum where news stories from that site, tend to be the most popular and oft used. The elephant in the room right now is: why was this story not carried by the rest of the media in the UK? What's their motive for avoiding this? Would seem to me that it is pretty newsworthy. An MP has spoken out against it after all, yet the Mail is the only site online that quoted him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Yep, but you said:



    Thereby implying that I thought it was sometimes good :)
    .

    well if you took it that way
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Well, your .. battalion shouldn't be so quick to roll their eyes when they see the Daily Mail as a source. The bones of this story have to be true, otherwise they would be sued. Happens of course but it gets quite boring to keep on hearing the Mail dismissed as a news source, especially on a forum where news stories from that site, tend to be the most popular and oft used. The elephant in the room right now is: why was this story not carried by the rest of the media in the UK? What's their motive for avoiding this? Would seem to me that it is pretty newsworthy. An MP has spoken out against it after all, yet the Mail is the only site online that quoted him.

    I will raise this at the next AGM of the oh no its the mail PC west brit battalion and return forthwith with a resoltion on the matter.

    did you ever consider that maybe other papers didnt carry it because when you take the sensationism out it was actually a non story?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    I will raise this at the next AGM of the oh no its the mail PC west brit battalion and return forthwith with a resoltion on the matter.

    Ah, exaggerating the points made to you in an effort to portray your comments as innocent, they were not. It was the usual: 'Ah sure it's the mail' comments that are made regularly, far more often than the 'west brit' remarks you eluded to.
    ..did you ever consider that maybe other papers didnt carry it because when you take the sensationism out it was actually a non story?

    No, why would I do that?

    We have a 52 year old Police Inspector suing the Greater Manchester Police force over a failing a 'Riot training' fitness test and an MP referring to it as "bizarre" and complaining about the judgement. Seems like more of a news story than some of the tripe I see being regurgitated 24-7 on Sky News and the like.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Ah, exaggerating the points made to you in an effort to portray your comments as innocent, they were not. It was the usual: 'Ah sure it's the mail' comments that are made regularly, far more often than the 'west brit' remarks you eluded to.
    .

    well i guess im guilty of something or other then.
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    No, why would I do that?

    We have a 52 year old Police Inspector suing the Greater Manchester Police force over a failing a 'Riot training' fitness test and an MP referring to it as "bizarre" and complaining about the judgement. Seems like more of a news story than some of the tripe I see being regurgitated 24-7 on Sky News and the like.

    well maybe you should. She won the case based on descrimination on her gender. we dont know what went on inside the court room, we dont have the arguements or details of the judgement, we only have an article in the daily mail to go on, a newspaper that has always demonstrated a right wing agenda.

    No other paper be it broadsheer or tabloid thought it newsworthy. One MP complained that it was 'bizarre' you say. Who was this person, were they an MP for the constituent, do they have a background in law, are they remotely qualified to assess the judgement? it may well have been bizarre to them but bizarre to one person does not equal wrong.


    You can swallow it wholesale and be outraged if you like. I really dont care all that much. some of us will take it with quite a lot of salt


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭citizen_p


    bull****, she didn't make the cut of a standard procedure. therefore she failed, if it was a man the same thing would apply, and he too would be sent away from the course, there is no sexual discrimination there.

    the fact she is old also has little to do with it if she could keep up with the younger officers.

    I hate these bullsh!t cases that pop up from time to time.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    One MP complained that it was 'bizarre' you say.

    What do you mean "you say"?

    It's in the Daily Mail article in the OP. Which sounds to me like you didn't even read.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    What do you mean "you say"?

    It's in the Daily Mail article in the OP. Which sounds to me like you didn't even read.

    I think now you really are looking for things to be upset about pete.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,107 ✭✭✭booboo88


    What a load of bollix, she couldnt do it as she wasnt fit enough and thats discrimintion, as they raised time limit to 3 mins, that could be alot of people killed in 2 mins and 15 seconds if something did happen, but ah sure she was humilated cuz she ate all the pies:rolleyes:

    something a lil less physical,
    if she failed a driving test, would she have won damages as she was humiliated as she didnt cut the mustard???? I think not


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    I think now you really are looking for things to be upset about pete.

    What makes you think I'm upset?

    Did you read the article or not? Your comments would suggest you didn't.

    Look, we all have the salt cellar handy when reading newspapers, but to just dismiss EVERYTHING that a newspaper prints as "bullshit," is as I say: over-egging your point. You asked me did I think that maybe it wasn't considered by other media outlets because it was a "non-story", well let me ask you - did you consider that perhaps it wasn't covered by the rest of the media because of what it says about our over PC culture?

    The facts speak for themselves. They extended the time for her after she failed and she still sued.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    "Liberal" as perjorative - one-way ticket to Derpsville.

    mod: poster banned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Dudess wrote: »
    "Liberal" as perjorative - one-way ticket to Derpsville.

    LOL and you were in the Feedback thread complaining about "snide" posts?? :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    What makes you think I'm upset?

    Did you read the article or not? Your comments would suggest you didn't.

    Look, we all have the salt cellar handy when reading newspapers, but to just dismiss EVERYTHING that a newspaper prints as "bullshit," is as I say: over-egging your point. You asked me did I think that maybe it wasn't considered by other media outlets because it was a "non-story", well let me ask you - did you consider that perhaps it wasn't covered by the rest of the media because of what it says about our over PC culture?

    The facts speak for themselves. They extended the time for her after she failed and she still sued.

    yes of course i read the article. over PC culture aye, no, i will only believe it if there is at least one other source other than a highly biased news paper.

    The 'facts' are not aparant. we have one article from a sensationalist news paper. If even one other newspaper reported it we could at least do a comparison.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    LOL and you were in the Feedback thread complaining about "snide" posts?? :p
    As responses to well supported, well thought out posts simply because the person can't argue back. In fairness, you wouldn't be someone I'd have thought would resort to the "liberal as perjorative" tack. Maybe the Daily Mail is one hundred per cent accurate, but I think sensibleken raises a fair point. I also think this "Liberal media bullying anyone who disagrees with them" notion is inaccurate. Between here and Britain there are plenty of right-wing red tops, the Mail, the Express (a more hardcore Mail) and here, Independent Newspapers just seems to get more right-wing by the minute.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,819 ✭✭✭✭g'em


    OutlawPete and Dudess banned


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,674 ✭✭✭Dangerous Man


    g'em wrote: »
    OutlawPete and Dudess banned


    But you're banning the best ones?


Advertisement