Drizzt
May 26, 2003, 02:43 PM
The Times (London)
May 26, 2003, Monday
SECTION: Features; 27
LENGTH: 682 words
HEADLINE: Police fitness and firearms
BODY:
Helping WPCs to make the grade; guns and law enforcement
I LEARN with dismay about the latest adjustment to the police fitness test that is being blatantly designed to discriminate in favour of female officers (report, May 21). Over the past five years, the fitness test has been changed no fewer than four times, each change preceded by research.
We now learn that the level to be reached on the run is only 30 per cent above the warm-up level. So are we to gather from this that the current research is telling us that all the previous studies were wrong, or is this a tale of lowering the fitness test to suit the number of candidates required for the job?
As the latter scenario has already been mooted, this is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog and beggars belief. Since when was "quantity, not quality" a professional motto?
Fitness has a direct impact on absenteeism and protection of the public, oneself and one's colleagues, and anyone who cannot see that ought to be questioning if they are right for the job.
Jerry Bolton, State of Jersey Police
Changes don't go far enough
THE Home Office may have made some concessions in the police recruitment test in an attempt to redress the appallingly low pass rate for women but they have retained the upper body strength element which, in its current format, clearly discriminates against females.
I have passed the agility run, bleep test and grip strength under the previous standards but due to my size, 5ft 4in (1.63m) and weighing 8st (51kg), cannot pass the Dynomometer machine which does not make any allowance for body weight/mass.
This is clearly anomalous as an 8st female has to pull the 35kg weight which equates to 67 per cent of her body weight, while a 15st male has to pull only 36 per cent of his body weight to obtain a pass on the same machine.
Quality and ability, rather than size, matter!
Lisa Greedy, Bath
Cowardly politics
THERE would be no need to pose the question if this Government had the moral courage to act. If draconian sentences were handed out for both the possession and use of firearms, that would be a sufficient deterrent for all but the criminally insane.
Yet, once again, we are faced with a familiar problem. The public does not want armed police, the police certainly don't, yet political cowardice will ensure the passing of the buck
If Tony Blair has the vision he is credited with, he would see law and order as his gift to political posterity, not the hackneyed and labyrinthine murk of education and the NHS. If he ducks it, his Iraq roll will be lost. His only comfort, though, will be the knowledge that nobody else will tackle the problem either.
So, armed police are just around the corner against the wishes of almost everyone.
Some comment on the state of our democracy, eh ?
D. R. Taylor, Leeds
Not only the police
SOME members of the public who are suitably qualified, such as military reservists, should also be allowed to have guns. At present a burglar is free to break into a property and sometimes endanger the lives of occupants. He would be deterred if he knew the occupants might be armed. There is a low rate of burglary in Switzerland where many householders, who are in the military reserve, have weapons.
Brian Gilbert, Hampton, Middlesex
Balance and control
GIVEN that armed police are evident in most other European counties, the further visible arming of British police may be the only way to balance the increasing use of firearms by the criminal fraternity, as changes to the law only appear to affect law-abiding citizens who have an interest in shooting.
Hopefully, there will be controls in place to ensure that police with firearms at their disposal show much greater discretion than those armed with speed guns, and there will be no performance targets to meet.
Kevan Wells, Westerham, Kent
Small, but deadly
PERHAPS if more British police officers were armed, they wouldn't have to run from irate badgers (report, May 14).
J. H. Lehman, Dayton, Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess all this also shows that some of these debates are not limited to the U.S.
May 26, 2003, Monday
SECTION: Features; 27
LENGTH: 682 words
HEADLINE: Police fitness and firearms
BODY:
Helping WPCs to make the grade; guns and law enforcement
I LEARN with dismay about the latest adjustment to the police fitness test that is being blatantly designed to discriminate in favour of female officers (report, May 21). Over the past five years, the fitness test has been changed no fewer than four times, each change preceded by research.
We now learn that the level to be reached on the run is only 30 per cent above the warm-up level. So are we to gather from this that the current research is telling us that all the previous studies were wrong, or is this a tale of lowering the fitness test to suit the number of candidates required for the job?
As the latter scenario has already been mooted, this is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog and beggars belief. Since when was "quantity, not quality" a professional motto?
Fitness has a direct impact on absenteeism and protection of the public, oneself and one's colleagues, and anyone who cannot see that ought to be questioning if they are right for the job.
Jerry Bolton, State of Jersey Police
Changes don't go far enough
THE Home Office may have made some concessions in the police recruitment test in an attempt to redress the appallingly low pass rate for women but they have retained the upper body strength element which, in its current format, clearly discriminates against females.
I have passed the agility run, bleep test and grip strength under the previous standards but due to my size, 5ft 4in (1.63m) and weighing 8st (51kg), cannot pass the Dynomometer machine which does not make any allowance for body weight/mass.
This is clearly anomalous as an 8st female has to pull the 35kg weight which equates to 67 per cent of her body weight, while a 15st male has to pull only 36 per cent of his body weight to obtain a pass on the same machine.
Quality and ability, rather than size, matter!
Lisa Greedy, Bath
Cowardly politics
THERE would be no need to pose the question if this Government had the moral courage to act. If draconian sentences were handed out for both the possession and use of firearms, that would be a sufficient deterrent for all but the criminally insane.
Yet, once again, we are faced with a familiar problem. The public does not want armed police, the police certainly don't, yet political cowardice will ensure the passing of the buck
If Tony Blair has the vision he is credited with, he would see law and order as his gift to political posterity, not the hackneyed and labyrinthine murk of education and the NHS. If he ducks it, his Iraq roll will be lost. His only comfort, though, will be the knowledge that nobody else will tackle the problem either.
So, armed police are just around the corner against the wishes of almost everyone.
Some comment on the state of our democracy, eh ?
D. R. Taylor, Leeds
Not only the police
SOME members of the public who are suitably qualified, such as military reservists, should also be allowed to have guns. At present a burglar is free to break into a property and sometimes endanger the lives of occupants. He would be deterred if he knew the occupants might be armed. There is a low rate of burglary in Switzerland where many householders, who are in the military reserve, have weapons.
Brian Gilbert, Hampton, Middlesex
Balance and control
GIVEN that armed police are evident in most other European counties, the further visible arming of British police may be the only way to balance the increasing use of firearms by the criminal fraternity, as changes to the law only appear to affect law-abiding citizens who have an interest in shooting.
Hopefully, there will be controls in place to ensure that police with firearms at their disposal show much greater discretion than those armed with speed guns, and there will be no performance targets to meet.
Kevan Wells, Westerham, Kent
Small, but deadly
PERHAPS if more British police officers were armed, they wouldn't have to run from irate badgers (report, May 14).
J. H. Lehman, Dayton, Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess all this also shows that some of these debates are not limited to the U.S.