Our thanks to William for this. Excerpts:
However the defence for the forces said that in order to succeed as a dog handler it is vital to be physically fit as tracking criminals over long periods of time in debilitating conditions and then arresting the criminal was especially challenging…
Judge Street said: ‘Where a standard test had negative impacts on members of a protected group, here women, then it either needs to be changed or objectively justified.’ [J4MB: Didn’t the police forces in question “objectively justify” the test as it stands (as above)? And if not, why not? The influence of senior female police officers, perhaps? So what will happen in a real-life situation where the dogs need to be carried by their handlers for some distance? Will only the male handlers go ahead, while the women – on the same pay as the men, obviously – stay behind and do nothing? If only a female handler – or handlers – are available, will the criminals escape arrest by the simple expedient of crossing ground where the Special Snowflakes would decline to go?]
The judge agreed women were at particular disadvantage compared with men and awarded Miss Carter a total of £14,930 for indirect sex discrimination.
Justice for Men & Boys 
There have been payouts because one fell over the dog and another who got damages when after back to back pregnancies, ie coming back from maternity leave pregnant, she was refused another dog.
LikeLike
Quite clearly the problem here is the size and weight of the dogs in question. The fitness and strength of the handler would not be an issue if the relevant authorities selected appropriately sized dogs for the job. An introduction of the fiercely underestimated chihuahua breed is the obvious solution here… As Paris Hilton has demonstrated, this particular breed can be comfortably carried over reasonable distances, without even the need to put down one’s handbag.
It’s a no brainer.
In addition, severe asthmatics and pregnant mothers could also then be recruited into the service, in line with ongoing ethical ‘diversity’ guidelines.
Come On Gloucestershire Police!… use some common sense!!
LikeLike
This shit will keep continue to keep happening so long as men continue to do nothing about it.
LikeLike
Why should we have to step in and clean up women’s shit? They want to claim that they are equal to/better than men at everything, and undermine all standards and procedures that show otherwise (frequently because it’s profitable), why should we run around propping up a crumbling system for no thanks and a hail of abuse? Western civilization has been taking its men for granted whilst shitting all over us for fifty years now (and many man have been enthusiastic or complicit in this).
So let’s just stop. Fixing this delusional corruption (£15,000 for failure) implies that we are ultimately responsible for guiding Western civ; well, I say we aren’t, and we owe the progressives nothing except our contempt. Let them create a worse police force and then lie about how equality is amazing. As with the USSR, the gap between the lines of official ideaology and reality on the streets will do more to make our point for us than a thousand post-fuck up fix ups.
LikeLike
Just as a matter of fact women are not a “protected group” either its mis reported or the Judge is wrong. In law its that sex is a protected characteristic. Thus by the same token if a test is harder for men (for instance a test of dexterity with small objects) it too would be indirect discrimination. The difference is of course there is an industry devoted to getting women to use the law while its only the occasional man who is clued up enough to use the law.
The difficulty the Fire Police and other services have is that often their standards are based on training for the worst cases. By definition these are rare and in the comfort of a court room surrounded by “office walahs” its easy to discount them. So of course in the comfort of the court its possible to imagine there will always be time to get another firefighter, Policeman, Paramedic, Soldier etc.if the situation requires strength, but of course reality is different.
I should also say that if the test is changed because it is “objectively” too hard it has to be changed for all. Otherwise there will be direct discrimination. If more men knew and used their legal rights I’m sure some of this nonsense would end.
LikeLike
Thanks. As always the bar has to be lowered to give the pretence women are equally able to do such jobs, while giving them equal pay for lesser effort and performance. The Wimbledon effect, again.
LikeLike
I know. And the litigious parasite remains a taxpayer-funded employee! (i.e. mainly by men)
LikeLike
‘If only a female handler – or handlers – are available, will the criminals escape arrest by the simple expedient of crossing ground where the Special Snowflakes would decline to go?‘
What if the dog is tracking not a wanted criminal but someone lost and critically injured, a child perhaps? Is he to die simply so that WPC Dog-Handler can feel that she’s being treated properly?
LikeLike
Yes, he is to die, because vagina.
LikeLike
Perhaps police women who wish to be dog-handlers could use thousand-metre long extending leads, the sort that wind back into the handle? For genuinely local crime the procedure could all be carried out from a desk. Show the police dog the photofit, set it loose, wait until the lead goes slack, then a simple push of the little “rewind” button on the handle would bring both dog back and the reprobate to the station to be charged. No need thus for wet hair, muddy shoes or any of that thing that we’re all told that women do instead of icky man-sweating. For crimes and pursuits farther afield I’m sure that with ingenuity several exending leads could be coupled together, perhaps using policemen as connectors, to extend the female dog-handler’s range and ensure that she is not geographically disadvantaged.
LikeLike
Great payola for not making the grade
LikeLike
Just when you think things in our emergency services can’t get any worse you read this…… £15,000 would be better spent on dog food would it not???
LikeLike
Yet another example – and one that has even more serious implications than others – of the increasingly idiotic pursuit of “equality” at the expense of quality.
LikeLike