[Ammi]

…is that Annie giving her email out on the forum again…?….

[Cherie]

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.

LT exposed

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…is that Annie giving her email out on the forum again…?….

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Cherie

LT exposed

i am a hot male

[LeatherTrumpet]

well in the 90s

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

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 .

You'd be surprised how many people have dodgy emails on their CVs...a lot with drug references too.

We always advise candidates change their email addresses and not add photos either.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well in the 90s

You're in your 90s?!

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

You're in your 90s?!

[Livia]

There are countless cases where positive discrimination has backfired and this looks to be one of those cases. She's a bigot and should never have been employed. Can't see how anyone could disagree with that. I guess it proves again that bigots aren't just white.

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

The top paragraph sounds similar to the new era of Doctor Who where they were all there just to tick boxes.

Tbf I can understand why the Police Force tries to be diverse, however terrorist lovers might be taking it just a step too far.

[Oliver_W]

There's a difference between making an effort to recruit more women or minorities ... And lowering or relaxing standards in order to do so.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

The top paragraph sounds similar to the new era of Doctor Who where they were all there just to tick boxes.

Tbf I can understand why the Police Force tries to be diverse, however terrorist lovers might be taking it just a step too far.

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[DouglasS]

Originally Posted by Livia

There are countless cases where positive discrimination has backfired and this looks to be one of those cases. She's a bigot and should never have been employed. Can't see how anyone could disagree with that. I guess it proves again that bigots aren't just white.

[DouglasS]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's quite racist to assume standards are being lowered to allow more minorities in, you're essentially suggesting they couldn't compete with white people and so the bar has to be lowered for them. Bit of a Freudian slip there.

Positive discrimination is exactly that, not always hiring the best person fit for the job, therefore a lower quality. This is obviously not always the case where the best candidate regardless of race or religion get the job, but some positive discrimination backfires as Livia said.

When I went to an assessment centre a few years ago, there was a total of about 12 of us, there were 11 guys and a black girl. They literally said they were keeping the girl to the final round to fit diversity quotas despite the fact she performed terribly . I am a firm believer of hiring the best person for the job. No one knows everyone’s back story, there may be applicants who are white who actually have never had a parent go to uni / be part of a poor developing neighbourhood and a company may actually be favouring a millionaires child as a form of positive discrimination because they are ethinically diverse

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[Ammi]

….this whole story isn’t about anything other than whether basic security checks were done for employment and ‘based on activity history’ and nothing else whatsoever…this could be someone with a different skin colour but the same activity being the thing and it would be equally concerning…employing for diversity is not the issue of the story ….what we’re being told is that the security screening/vetting etc just wasn’t carried out efficiently….that whole system of employment and everyone involved in it in the police force…are we saying that they’re all in their jobs because of ‘diversity targets and quotas…’…as well… is that why something that seems as though it was a basic history check for a high security position such as a police officer was apparently not carried out….?….because those involved in that employment process were all incorrectly placed in their screening and security roles, how ironic….and indeed a whole much bigger investigation than could ever have been imagined would be having to be looked at….


…we would hope that if 1000 people with any skin colour and any religion and any gender and etc ..were employed by the police force…?..every single one of them would have adequate security background/history/connections check and social media posting is an obvious source of checking, even to us who are t employing, it would be obvious and a basic …two years of social media history with some very concerning tweets in the vein of those tweets is such a basic thing and is it that they’ve been overlooked….that’s a basic security error or an inadequate vetting system that needs to be tightened…?….or is it that these things were known and found through the vetting and searches etc…but that the establishment felt that someone still had suitability for the role and we only have a part story that feels lacking but isn’t…?..….that’s the whole investigation that we don’t know because it’s yet to be established…an ‘urgent investigation’ shouldn’t be being carried out several years into an employment role because another source has uncovered but the police establishment didn’t ….the DM are saying that they’ve ‘uncovered something’ and that the police should surely have answers immediately to that without an ‘urgent Investigation’ being needed….the colour of her skin, her religion etc are not ‘the issue’…diversity is not the issue….security in police force employment vetting is the issue it would seem…

[bitontheslide]

i think the major issue is that a very significant proportion of the police would fail the criterea if full background checks were implemented. Imagine if say they had to sack 30% + of them which isn't an unrealistic percentage of "dodgy coppers"

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's quite racist to assume standards are being lowered to allow more minorities in, you're essentially suggesting they couldn't compete with white people and so the bar has to be lowered for them. Bit of a Freudian slip there.

How else would she have slipped through the cracks?

[Swan]

Another racist cop then.

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[Alf]

A racism thread. Where are you in here, Slim? Is the accused not White enough for you. You're usually first on the scene to shout racism.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

A racism thread. Where are you in here, Slim? Is the accused not White enough for you. You're usually first on the scene to shout racism.

I'm going dizzy. One minute what I think means nothing to you, and the next you want to know what I think. I've been fighting the Rona so haven't been around at all over the last week before today.

Yes, she's a racist.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I'm going dizzy. One minute what I think means nothing to you, and the next you want to know what I think. I've been fighting the Rona so haven't been around at all over the last week before today.

Yes, she's a racist.

Wishing you a speedy recovery