Metropolitan Police to ban applicants from outside London
Somner
Posts: 9,412 Forum Member
✭
Thought I'd post this as anything relating to the Met and issues with ethnic diversity often become a hot topic on here.
Not to sure what to think of this, though I can see all sorts issues cropping up.
Surely those who have been joining recently are those who have achieved the highest score in the recruitment tests. As such how is banning people from outside of the Greater London area going to improve things? They are now going to limit vacancies to a smaller section of people and hence will be taking on people who will have scored lower in the tests, with the aim of improving the service. Is this an admission that the current recruitment tests are not fit for purpose, or that the current 'positive action' policies have failed? Can the tests not test somebody on their knowledge of the area? What about those who live just outside of the boundary but know the city just as well, if not better than some who live inside the area?
Will this work or will it be the subject of back-pedalling sometime in the near future?
The Guardian wrote:The Metropolitan police are to announce a ban on new recruits who do not live in London, to reverse the trend of officers commuting in from the home counties to police the capital's diverse communities.
Police chiefs hope the plan will help double the proportion of minority ethnic officers in Britain's biggest force, which has faced criticism for being too white compared with the city it serves. Four in 10 Londoners are from an ethnic minority, compared with 11% of Met officers.
Of recent intakes, about 10% of new officers from outside London (who make up 60% of new recruits) are from ethnic minorities. In contrast, of the 40% of the new intakes that come from London, 30% are from ethnic minorities.
Boris Johnson's deputy mayor for policing, Stephen Greenhalgh, said he was concerned that too many Met officers did not know the diverse communities they policed because they did not live in the capital.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/14/met-police-ban-recruits-outside-london
Not to sure what to think of this, though I can see all sorts issues cropping up.
Surely those who have been joining recently are those who have achieved the highest score in the recruitment tests. As such how is banning people from outside of the Greater London area going to improve things? They are now going to limit vacancies to a smaller section of people and hence will be taking on people who will have scored lower in the tests, with the aim of improving the service. Is this an admission that the current recruitment tests are not fit for purpose, or that the current 'positive action' policies have failed? Can the tests not test somebody on their knowledge of the area? What about those who live just outside of the boundary but know the city just as well, if not better than some who live inside the area?
Will this work or will it be the subject of back-pedalling sometime in the near future?
0
Comments
how can they argue that someone from, say, Barnes is more clued up in how to deal with, say, Brixton than someone from any other place.
It would seem so. The big job is to make a police career more attractive to people from ethnic minority backgrounds but its hard to believe that any of them will really approve of positive discrimination.
Just looks like another example of postive discrimination in action. The best person for the job is yesterday's news, it's all about the recruitment of black/brown/female/gay. If you are a white caucasian male, then best to see if Poundland have any opportunities.
That will be fine so long as you have a Latvian accent.
About 10% of the Met is made up of BME officers, and it hires more than any other force, so I reckon the white Caucasian males are safe.
The ones who live in London anyway.
The trouble is that rather than encouraging more BME to apply, they're just making it easier for those that do apply to pass because there is less competition. If those that are applying (of any race) are unable to pass the tests/compete with other applicants then either they're not up to the job, or the tests are not fit for purpose.
It's bizarre. I come from a rural background but spent the early years of my adult life living in various parts of a major city. I work for a rural force, covering a semi rural town, and an urban town with a large asian population. I also cover some smaller 'villages' that are basically tacked on to the edge of a large multicultural city with no buffer in between.
So what attributes do I need to do my job?
I've no idea, it would be interesting to see what the courts made of this should a challenge be made.
Very true, not to mention the fact that the Met now require applicants to either have served for 2 years as a Special Constable (minimum 16 hrs per month) or to have completed (at the applicants own expense) a CKP qualification, which costs in the region of £1000.
I'm struggling to see how a significant amount of Londoners will actually be able to afford to do the job.
The Met's 10% is the highest number in the UK, apparently.
I'd have liked to think that it might be for a practical reason such as a need to employ people who can be called into work at short notice rather than due to some poncey, right-on, "equality" nonsense.
But, erm, yeah.
Be interesting to see what happens if a private company tries to exclude candidates on a similar basis.
The only types of discrimination that an employment tribunal or court legally count is racial, age, sex / sexuality and disability. Of course an employer can choose to only accept applicants from the local area, it is their choice.
So the next time I'm taking on staff I could legally advertise for employees and give a whole list of people who need not apply ?
Like these : no scousers, no mancs, no fatties, no thinies, no gingers, no fuglies, no one from a council estate etc etc.....
Discrimination is ok as long as it's not against one of the chosen groups ?
Or does being a scouser count as a disability ?
Sort of similar to what I was thinking, except (what with being me) practicality wasn't the issue. Ethnicity issues aside, I do like the idea that the police are relatively local (yeah, as far as I know they don't patrol the actual bits where they live, but still, from the same city will do) and invested in the well-being of the community BECAUSE IT'S *THEIR* COMMUNITY.
Same as MPs, really. But that's never going to happen either.
In my experience people who have to travel far are less likely to commit to the job and tend to have issues with punctuality. They also come into work stressed before the day begins and can't wait to get out.
Yes you could
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination
This is what the law sees as discrimination.
That's it, if you are refused into a restaurant because somebody doesn't like what you're wearing, or the fact you have a certain hair style then that's ok. Employers can choose who they want to employ and discrimination law only covers a short list of ‘protected characteristics’.
If an employers chooses to only hire people that live locally that's absolutely their prerogative. There is extremely good reason for this as well, police officers generally do the job because they want to protect people and live in a good society and stop criminals, in events like riots or terrorist attacks, officers could be called upon quickly if they live within London, and the vast majority would come straight onto shift if called upon in times of need I'm sure.
Tosh because places like Luton and Leicester (say) have no diversity whatsoever. Just his usual, London is special and different line.
And of course the big question is with property prices going sky high, how on earth are these people are supposed to afford living on a police officer salary in London.
I dunno, London still seems to expect people living on a retail, or cleaner's, or hospital porter's salary to manage it.
Also, a lot of good coppers DO live in London. On a cop's salary. And seem to manage OK.
From a practical, operational point of view it makes perfect sense that you can get a certain number of officers on duty at short notice, if needed.
If however this turns out to be a desperate bid to get more BME officers then I share your concerns, they shouldn't be lowering the standards to get more diversity in the force, that's a very slippery slope.
10% isn't bad as it stands, considering you're dealing with a lot of cultural barriers that the Met has no control over anyway. I know one PC whose dad is absolutely furious that she went ahead with the job - "We'll never get you a husband now!". I know a few others in similar situations.
This local knowledge thing is nonsense anyway - you could have someone who has spent three years in leafy Chislehurst and then gets thrown onto the streets of Tottenham after their training, what kind of "local" knowledge would they possess. None whatsoever.
It sounds like something out of a movie but I think it does help if you really know and understand a place if you're going to be doing a job like that, you can't just get off the train from oop north and go on the beat in Tottenham or Tower Hamlets
Edit - I didn't even read the first post before I said that, but now I have it looks like that's pretty much what they're saying