Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Stats: Applicants - Merit Pool - Appointed

  • 26-07-2011 9:00pm
    #1
    pastiesupper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭pastiesupper


    Some interesting numbers found in this FOI request:

    http://www.psni.police.uk/disabled_job_applicants.pdf

    Year|Applications|Merit Pool|Appointed
    2006|15,593|1,126|366
    2007|7,418|1,027|412
    2008|8,363|1,289|434
    2009|9,825|1,065|264
    2010|8,987|1,539|206


Comments

  • #2
    cesc77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 874 ✭✭✭cesc77


    pastiesupper wrote: »
    Some interesting numbers found in this FOI request:

    http://www.psni.police.uk/disabled_job_applicants.pdf

    Year|Applications|Merit Pool|Appointed
    2006|15,593|1,126|366
    2007|7,418|1,027|412
    2008|8,363|1,289|434
    2009|9,825|1,065|264
    2010|8,987|1,539|206


    The figures dont add up.

    At several points they have adjusted(drastically)the pass mark for the AC.
    The merit pool was pretty big for 2010 and the ratio appointed is way off with the previous few years.

    The ratios here stink.There is something very wrong when there is such a large inconsistency between people applying,reaching merit pool and being appointed.

    The number of people attaining merit pool in 2010 reeks of lowering of standards to attain the 30 percentile.

    These figures say a lot.Anybody else feel like this is a concerted effort to make the numbers up?

    This needs to be investigated,seriously.

    There is corruption in every other aspect of our lives,would it surprise you if something was amiss in this process?


  • #3
    TangoVictor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭TangoVictor


    Lies, damn lies and statistics! :D

    -tv


  • #4
    Arielle Icy Vigilante
    Posts: 0 ✭ Arielle Icy Vigilante


    Have to say I only glanced at those figures the other night, but looking at them again it does look while strange to have such a large merit pool last year yet such a small number appointed... Why was such a small number of appointments made last year?? Was this all they needed to reach the magic 30% so they stopped?

    On a side note...means I was pretty much in the middle of the pool then, doesn't make me feel quite so bad about my number then :o

    Gotta love FOI requests though :D


  • #5
    Delancey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    The March intake which was the last one for a very long time in all probability achieved 2 things - it brought the RC rate to 30% ( or as close to it as makes no odds ) , secondly , it brought the number of full time officers to the magical figure of 7,500 which was the strength suggested by Patten.


  • #6
    gigity gigity
    Registered Users Posts: 450 ✭✭gigity gigity


    It would be very interesting to find out exactly how low they went into the merit pool this time to make up the numbers before the end of march. Theres good reason to ask questions about why someone in the same group as you got chosen even if they were below you in the pool. I know people will say that its because vetting hadnt cleared on time, but its the PSNI who deal with that so it would be up to them to have it sorted Just because your vetting hadnt cleared doesnt mean that you werent suitable for the job.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Delancey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    Despite a lot of PR type talk to the contrary the fact remains that there is a serious absence lack of ' transparency ' in the process , this shortcoming in my opinion is particularly pronounced once Deloitte have completed their work and the PSNI take over.


  • #8
    cesc77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 874 ✭✭✭cesc77


    gigity gigity wrote: »
    It would be very interesting to find out exactly how low they went into the merit pool this time to make up the numbers before the end of march. Theres good reason to ask questions about why someone in the same group as you got chosen even if they were below you in the pool. I know people will say that its because vetting hadnt cleared on time, but its the PSNI who deal with that so it would be up to them to have it sorted Just because your vetting hadnt cleared doesnt mean that you werent suitable for the job.


    If your vetting hasnt been cleared then it doesnt matter if you are (merit place #1)the smartest,most able cookie in the jar.

    I get the impression that vetting is not the kind of thing that you want to rush ,though:rolleyes:.

    Deadlines had to be met,dont forget.


  • #9
    gigity gigity
    Registered Users Posts: 450 ✭✭gigity gigity


    Yeah I agree deadlines had to be met, but vetting in this case MAY have worked in the favour of some. As someone said before choosing on a basis of whos vetting is cleared makes a mockery of the merit list.


Advertisement