January 18th, 2010

Tea & Medals

Posted in The Job - Comment by 200

Police Review reports this week that Hampshire Police has been awarded the most gay-friendly police force in Britain.

In Stonewalls 6th annual list of the top 100 lesbian, gay bisexual friendly employers in Britain Hampshire came top among police forces 2nd of any public sector employers.

The overall number of forces in the list fell from 21 to 17.

Other forces on the list were West Midlands (19), Met (21), Cheshire (23), Staffordshire (34), Sussex (34), BTP (39), Lancashire (47), North Wales (50), Suffolk (50), Hertfordshire (60), MOD Police (70), West Mercia (73) Wrst Yorkshire (79).

Well done to all forces concerned.

I checked through the rest of the Police Review but strangely, I couldnt find any awards for detecting crime.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0

11 comments

  1. Fee says:

    I just checked out their list – and my employer is on it! Woo-hoo. I’m thrilled. No, really. It’ll be a huge comfort to my gay colleagues, who until now were more worried about whether they (along with the rest of us) will still have a job in six months’ time. I hope that no-one ever does a survey on how parent-friendly the organisation is, though. That wouldn’t go quite so well.

    January 19th, 2010 at 13:41

  2. Joe says:

    Whether you are straight, gay or find sheep strangely attractive I’m sure, as Burgler Bill jemmies your door or Terry Thug applies his boot to your tender parts, you will be far more concerned about a force’s – sorry – a police service’s record on preventing crime or responding rapidly to incidents.

    January 19th, 2010 at 15:40

  3. Ben says:

    Ben and Joe: being a gay-friendly employer means (or should mean…you know how these things get corrupted) only that the employer has corrected pre-existing inequality, or is taking care to make sure inequality doesn’t appear.

    It’s just about making sure things are fair, is all. And it only exists because things weren’t fair for so very long, and that needs correcting.

    The only people longing for the “good old days” before this “political correct” stuff came along are the people who weren’t being harrassed and victimised by the inequalities the “political correctness” is here to prevent.

    January 19th, 2010 at 16:42

  4. Ben says:

    PS: Sorry, I meant “Fee and Joe”. Forgive my doziness.

    January 19th, 2010 at 16:42

  5. Ben says:

    Specifically to Joe: don’t you think that making sure aproximately 5-10% (depending on what measure you go by) of your force, and that same percentage of your potential recruitment base, aren’t being mistreated and pushed out of the force, or made to feel like they’re not welcome in the first place, is a great way of making sure you have a fully-staffed force full of happy, productive and EAGER officers, exactly what you need to chase down Burgler Bill and Terry Thug?

    January 19th, 2010 at 16:46

  6. Sergeant Twining says:

    Did you say Tea 200?

    Gay friendly my foot?

    This just means they have policies; doesn’t mean anymore. Even some of the policy makers in Diversity are useless.

    One wonders how many Forces are Black friendly or whether we should tick box monitor this now this also?

    Humbugs……

    January 19th, 2010 at 16:57

  7. 200 says:

    I think Twining gets today’s ‘hitting the nail on the head’ award.

    January 19th, 2010 at 17:11

  8. Tony F says:

    I don’t give a stuff about who is doing the job, so long as somebody is. I have always thought that the only discrimination to be used anywhere is to whether the person doing the job is competent. The fact that they have been included to, er, be ‘included’ is worrying if they cannot cut the mustard. I have had the fortune to work in the military with people of different background and gender, most of whom were excellent. However I did come across a couple of ‘make weights’ and to be honest, they were a hazard to all around them.

    January 19th, 2010 at 17:49

  9. Sergant T Twining says:

    200,

    Thanks you. And that’s Sergeant Twining LOL. Are you going to put up the picture of PC Fran Croucher?

    T

    January 20th, 2010 at 09:14

  10. Civ_In_The_City says:

    Awards for detecting crime?

    Let`s have vote on which year ‘detecting crime’ fell off the agenda.

    Throwing out the baby with the bath water doesn`t cover it. The job has been statisticalised into oblivion. All that`s left is the numbers..

    January 20th, 2010 at 18:16

  11. joe says:

    Hi Ben

    My point is that the police are there to do a job or indeed the “job”. The public of whatever sexual or ethnic persuasion would on the whole be happier if they did the job they are employed to do rather than faffing about putting in place tick lists based on social engineering which, at the end of the day, are just that – tick lists. They may earn plaudits from Stonewall and the SMT may advance their careers by showing how diversity friendly the initiatives they have introduced are but most customers don’t care about the colour or sexual orientation or whatever of the copper who turns up in their hour of need they just want someone who is doing the “job”.

    I believe that when you don the “blue suit of truth” you should become a police officer full stop. Not a gay/transgender/muslim/black/catholic/freemason/whatever/whatever officer – just a police officer. You don’t bring your own “baggage”; you do the “job” impartially. Equally outside that (and short of criminal activity) what you do in your private life is your decision and if you are not allowing your personal prediliction to interfere with your performance when on duty so what.

    No one these days gives a tinkers if you’re gay or anything else as long as you do the “job” – apart from membership of the BNP which seems to condem you to the outer darkness (in contrast to membership of extremist Islamist groups for example) – and before you come back on that, no – I’m not a member/supporter of the BNP; there just seems to be a lack of consistency in the way membership of this legal political party is viewed compared with the approach to other equally objectionable groups – ban one ban all!

    January 21st, 2010 at 21:56

Leave a comment