[arista]

[She frequently used the offensive term
'kuffar' to describe non-believers,
writing in July 2014: 'Kuffar lips have been all
over my mug there is no way I'm using
that thing again.'
Elsewhere she describes Pakistanis as 'p***s'.]


[Ruby Begum (above), 26 - a Muslim police officer
hailed as a role model for bravely confronting
anti-lockdown protesters - was facing an
urgent investigation last night after it was
revealed she tweeted a torrent of racist messages ]






Sure 2014
but still Her.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-messages.html

[Oliver_W]

You're burying the lede. Why focus on disgusting social media posts when the article also says
it emerged she communicated over many months with a woman thought to have fled Europe in 2014 to live under the Islamic State's so-called caliphate.

The woman would later acquire notoriety for appearing to defend male terrorists' use of minority group Yazidis as sex slaves.

She's not an actress or a reality TV "star" but a policewoman, so obviously higher standards should be applied to her, but it still takes a special brand of psycho to trawl through nearly a decade of social media to discredit someone.

[Crimson Dynamo]

disgusting

sack her immediately

[Niamh.]

The woman would later acquire notoriety for appearing to defend male terrorists' use of minority group Yazidis as sex slaves.

Gross.

Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The woman would later acquire notoriety for appearing to defend male terrorists' use of minority group Yazidis as sex slaves.

Gross.

Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk

Ikr. But who cares about that when she said she wouldn't drink out of a mug used by someone else?

[Ammi]

The woman would later acquire notoriety for appearing to defend male terrorists' use of minority group Yazidis as sex slaves.


…so presumably ‘the woman’ is Shamima Begum, the radicalised Isis bride, then…?…

…in 2014 she made these worrying tweets and was active in communication with someone who had been infamously radicalised and had gone to Syria in 2015…but in 2016 she was able to join the police force without any depth of background research…not even two years of any easily found social media history looked at…that in itself is surely hugely answerable for and deeply concerning…imagine if DBS searches etc for working with children were as surface and lacking in depth as that…an entire police force and only two years of social media to look back on to employ people of such weighty positions…I’m not quite understanding this at all, this seems very layered …maybe the checks were done and these tweets were known when the position was given…?….

[bots]

It's just not appropriate for the police to have that type of person in their employ

[Crimson Dynamo]

"hailed as a role model for bravely confronting
anti-lockdown protesters"

by who specifically?

[Cherie]

Waving unsuitable people into jobs to meet diversity targets will result in this

[Livia]

What Cheriebomb said.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

It's just not appropriate for the police to have that type of person in their employ

….but we’re being more or less told that ‘appropriate’ isn’t/wasn’t looked into in even the most surface of ways by an establishment who has so many sources available to them…and which the DM have ‘searched’ so easily, which is hugely worrying, I feel…if she was deemed ‘not appropriate’ then the police force are answerable …because even if they deemed ‘a dismissal’ appropriate now….the whole employment system has to surely be looked at of others within the police force…

[Ammi]

….diversity isn’t the issue, an absence of basic history searches …(…according to the article…)…is the huge concern and the issue if this person is now deemed unsuitable for a job that she was employed to do in 2016 …because any of her words/beliefs/prejudices etc were in quite open text prior to that employment beginning…

[Toy Soldier]

I agree, in 2021 having a quick scout over a person's social media history should be pretty standard in recruitment. Although I suspect that would just lead to people keeping the social media history locked down. Personally I deleted 95% of my Facebook before going for a "proper" job... nothing dodgy in terms of jokes etc. but an awful lot of pictures from Uni nights out where I'm utterly off my tits. Not really a good look for an employer.

One of my housemates also had a hobby of making lewd little sculptures out of Babybel wax and posting them all over my feed. Some of them were just ... just obscene ...

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

"hailed as a role model for bravely confronting
anti-lockdown protesters"

by who specifically?

If I had to guess, I'd say when pictures from the protests trickled out, condescending idiots were bowled over by the idea that a woman in a headscarf was doing her job.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree, in 2021 having a quick scout over a person's social media history should be pretty standard in recruitment. Although I suspect that would just lead to people keeping the social media history locked down. Personally I deleted 95% of my Facebook before going for a "proper" job... nothing dodgy in terms of jokes etc. but an awful lot of pictures from Uni nights out where I'm utterly off my tits. Not really a good look for an employer.

One of my housemates also had a hobby of making lewd little sculptures out of Babybel wax and posting them all over my feed. Some of them were just ... just obscene ...

…that’s a bit odd as well, that even if this information was known at the time and she was still deemed as someone they wanted to employ….wouldn’t it have been on condition that some things were deleted as they would know how this surely looks for them and shows a huge system inadequacy….whichever way it’s flipped, it looks not great for them…

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

….diversity isn’t the issue, an absence of basic history searches …(…according to the article…)…is the huge concern and the issue if this person is now deemed unsuitable for a job that she was employed to do in 2016 …because any of her words/beliefs/prejudices etc were in quite open text prior to that employment beginning…

Its not just diversity, they obviously have targets set for older/younger/female as well as diverse officers as why else would Wayne Couzens have got through, or that guy who has far right links, they are too busy filling quotas rather than doing proper background checks, so much for a DBS

[Ammi]

…sorry, I just don’t understand any diversity or ‘quota’ association in respect of this because I have no idea of any internal politic stuff …but that wouldn’t change the worrying lack of any checking of history if those tweets/views weren’t known…if they were known but it be deemed that this person still be employed by the police force then there there must be reasons for that considered decision being made and we’re only being given a part story by the media sources.…potentially following any quotas and employing correctly are two compatible things, they don’t work against each other and aren’t inter connected IMO….

[AnnieK]

As a recruiter, I always check people's socials when I get their CVs in. Most people do lock them down when looking for a job....the one's that don't tend to be the ones that have email addresses on their CVs like "sexychick23@hotmail.com"

Its a minefield though... you have to be careful not to let any unconscious bias cloud any judgements.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

As a recruiter, I always check people's socials when I get their CVs in. Most people do lock them down when looking for a job....the one's that don't tend to be the ones that have email addresses on their CVs like "sexychick23@hotmail.com"

Its a minefield though... you have to be careful not to let any unconscious bias cloud any judgements.

…I really don’t know what the entry requirements for the police force would be in terms of any social media activity and personal connections and followings etc …but it would seem like a basic police entry search…I know that existing officers can be suspended for social media/texting activity etc so it just feels so basic…

[Ammi]

…anyway, maybe there’ll be more information on this in the up and coming while…if her employment is something that shouldn’t have happened then it shouldn’t be being ‘exposed’ by the DM, it should be being exposed by the police establishment…

[Crimson Dynamo]

why would someone like her who obviously hates the UK want to be a policewoman never mind live here?

baffling

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…sorry, I just don’t understand any diversity or ‘quota’ association in respect of this because I have no idea of any internal politic stuff …but that wouldn’t change the worrying lack of any checking of history if those tweets/views weren’t known…if they were known but it be deemed that this person still be employed by the police force then there there must be reasons for that considered decision being made and we’re only being given a part story by the media sources.…potentially following any quotas and employing correctly are two compatible things, they don’t work against each other and aren’t inter connected IMO….

My point is tat they appear to be more interested in box ticking than doing due diligence?

Every public service job will have quotas to fill so their work force is diverse, that doesn’t just apply to skin colour, but to age, religion, sexual orientation, gender etc

[Ammi]

…yeah, there are many ‘quotas’ in many areas… which is why for me there is no connection at all with diversity and/or any type of quota in this ‘apparent issue of an individual person’s unsuitable history’….it’s not a diversity or gender or age or sexuality etc issue….as I say, maybe there’ll be more information but atm, there’s nothing really else to add….any potential ‘investigation/answerability’ should be into how the employment came about as well….

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

As a recruiter, I always check people's socials when I get their CVs in. Most people do lock them down when looking for a job....the one's that don't tend to be the ones that have email addresses on their CVs like "sexychick23@hotmail.com"

Its a minefield though... you have to be careful not to let any unconscious bias cloud any judgements.

I remember being told to always just use your name as an email for professional stuff ie CVs , applying for jobs etc . You're not going to be taken seriously if your email has swearing in it or anything innapropriate .