Does this mean that the Met Police...........

[adonirum]

........are no longer an equal opportunities employer?

[Otta]

What?

[adonirum]

Hi Otta

It has been announced today that the Met Police will no longer accept applications, for the role of police officer,from applicants that do not live in London (have to have lived here for 3yrs). Clearly, this excludes a lot of the population. Therefore, can they still claim to be an equal opportunities employer ?

[Jeremy]

It seems like an unusual policy, but if it helps solve some of the met's obvious problems then I'd say it's a good thing.

[Otta]

Tend to agree with Jeremy.

Definitely don't think it means they're not an equal opportunities employer.

[Jeremy]

Depends what you mean by "equal opportunities".

How about if you only accept candidates with a degree? How about if you won't consider candidates who don't speak fluent English? Or have a criminal record?

Any of these could be interpreted as discrimination if you wanted to put that spin on it, yet they are all relevant criteria.

[????]

anyone of any gender, race or sexual preference can choose to live in London (or out of London) so this is nothing to do with Equal Opportunities.....

[StraferJack]

What quids said

[adonirum]

Very good point about the degree aspect, Jeremy, but can't agree on the criminal record point. It's always been accepted that a criminal record is unacceptable for the role of a police officer and, indeed, a prison officer. Fluent English would seem to be a necessity, but I can see what you mean.

Quite a few years ago, the police service had to drop the age criteria because it was felt/deemed to be discriminatory. The rule was that you could only be appointed between the ages of 18 and 30, unless joining straight from the armed services when the upper age limit was extended to 32. This obviously excluded a large proportion of the population for no good reason other than a number. I just pose the question that this is for no good reason other than geography.

Or should that read: other than geographical.

[????]

You can't do anything about your DOB, you can move

[Loz]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> anyone of any gender, race or sexual preference can choose to live in London (or out of London) so

> this is nothing to do with Equal Opportunities.....

Discrimination is generally divided into direct and indirect. Direct is the more obvious one, where a particular gender, race or sexual preference is specifically discriminated against.

Indirect is where a particular criteria or policy indirectly discriminates, as it favours or makes it harder for a particular group. For example, saying you must be over six feet tall would been seen to indirect discriminate against women, as they are far less likely meet that criteria.

I'm not saying that this is a case of indirect discrimination, but a lawyer might.

My goodness, I *did* learn something from those damn online anti-discrimination courses my last company made everyone do!

[adonirum]

????, surely you would apply for the job and if successful then you would move.

Loz, that is another policy that had to be dropped, in this instance, by the City of London Police. They did in fact have a policy that all applicants had to be six feet tall and,indeed, the overriding factor was just as you mention, that is was seen as particularly discriminatory against women candidates.

[Otta]

I imagine there will be some sort of transfer policy for police from outside London who move here to get in?

[uncleglen]

Maybe they can't afford the re-location fees so it is understandable.

[vgrant]

Its good that the met are accepting applicants with a criminal record now - it saves so much time a few years down the line when all coppers seem to have gained one by sheer hard work. Shame the ED police station isnt still functioning - They would have to raise the bar a bit to get new arrivals to fit in SE22 - a 5 stretch as a minumum entry qualification as least.