A police whistleblower has finally revealed to the public what most of us who have worked in policing have suspected for a long time: that white officers (or potential officers) are being discriminated against in hiring policy, as senior managers continue to worship at the altar of diversity.
West Yorkshire Police (WYP) is currently preventing white candidates from applying as recruits to its constable entry programmes, the Telegraph reported this week. However, candidates from ‘under-represented’ groups can lodge their applications early and be safely shuffled along to the next stage of the recruitment process.
The discrimination is about as blatant as could be. Black and far east Asian candidates are provided with a ‘gold’ ranking, those of south-east Asian origin are ‘silver’, whereas white applicants are ‘bronze’ (interestingly, this includes candidates from under-represented Irish and eastern European backgrounds, but that doesn’t seem to matter so much).
I’ve written previously that it’s not the job of the police to get themselves involved in any form of social justice strategy, no matter how well intentioned. Their primary duties are to enforce laws impartially, maintain order and ensure public safety, devoid of external influences or political biases. Initiatives such as this risk alienating the police from the public at a time when confidence in the institution is already at an all-time low.
Yes, advocates of this racial tweaking will argue that it simply provides WYP with the opportunity to attract talent from a varied pool of applicants. And indeed, the force’s own website helpfully explains what so-called ‘positive action’ is and how it complies with the Equality Act 2010. Pressed on the issue this week, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was also of the opinion that WYP has complied with the guidelines of His Majesty’s Inspectorate.
Etc, etc, etc. If the entire system is soaked in this stuff, of course this programme will comply with policy and law. How else can anti-white racism be explained away?
It is a common refrain in modern policing that we should have a force which ‘reflects the community it serves’. This is never questioned and is uttered as a universal truth. But why? Why does the ethnicity of an officer have to be same as that of a victim of crime? Surely that’s a whole lot less important than an officer’s ability to investigate an offence and engage with the victim in a professional, sensitive manner? Well, apparently not, according to West Yorkshire Police.
In my career I never met a member of the public who said the most important thing was that the officers they engage with had to look like them. In fact, it didn’t feature at all, and it’s patronising to suggest that it is uppermost in the minds of people from minority communities. On some occasions, it is positively advantageous for officers to be of a different background when engaging with members of the public. When I worked with some communities, many would prefer to engage with me rather than a colleague of a different sect of their religion. Again, assuming that any community other than the indigenous one is a homogenous entity smacks of denigration and ignorance. Clearly, they haven’t thought it through. But I guess it is never about doing what’s right; more signalling one’s virtue.
When the WYP whistleblower originally raised concerns internally with senior management, they were warned off by supervisors. A few years ago in the Met Police, I was made aware of an alleged difference in pass mark requirements for BAME and white candidates at one stage of the sergeant to inspector promotion process. A scandal that needed to be brought to wider attention, one might think. Instead, another colleague concerned about this unequal process was subsequently threatened and advised not to make waves. And make no mistake: similar things will be happening across the country for all police processes, whether that be recruitment, promotion or lateral progression. The organisation is saturated with woke dogma, dripping down from senior leaders who are desperate to appeal to the chattering classes.
Aside from the moral shortcomings of WYP’s diversity programme, it could also have significant security implications. Police forces nationwide shout from the rooftops about the proportion of BAME recruits being successfully enrolled. Numbers and percentages are declared like Soviet tractor production figures. But they’re much more reticent to publish the disciplinary and misconduct statistics which result from this lack of diligence in the vetting procedures.
In fact, rather than rethink these lax police hiring processes for ethnic minorities, the National Police Chiefs’ Council is now looking at the disproportionate negative outcomes for those officers from ‘under-represented’ communities who fall foul of the disciplinary process. If an inadequately vetted officer crosses a disciplinary or criminal line, it can still be put down to some vague institutional ‘ism’. This is despite a key finding of a 2019 NPCC report into BAME misconduct cases being that a “BAME officer’s misconduct investigation and the final outcome is significantly more likely to result in low level or no sanction outcomes than their white colleagues”. Far from there being institutional bias against ethnic minority officers, it’s actually easier to sack a white officer than one from a minority background.
Whichever way you go in this maze of politically correct confusion, you come across further dead ends. Not only are such practices unprofessional, they are potentially dangerous for public safety. It also means yet further negative publicity for the police. In a force disproportionately at fault for by the rape gangs scandal as West Yorkshire has been, do they really need it right now?
Paul Birch is a retired police officer who spent 24 years in the Metropolitan Police, 16 of which in counter-terrorism. You can watch his recent interview with the Sceptic here, and subscribe to his Substack here.
Stop Press: Police officers at one of Britain’s biggest forces – Thames Valley – are being taught they have “white privilege”. The force has introduced “equity training”, covering topics such as “white privilege”, “micro-aggressions” and the difference between being “non-racist versus anti-racist”. The Telegraph has more.
Stop Press 2: Bosses could be forced to justify anti-white hiring practices via a complaints system for people who miss out on jobs because of ‘positive action’ under plans proposed by Conservative peers as an amendment to Angela Rayner’s Employment Rights Bill.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
That too could backfire & morph into a digital ID for children, the very society which needs to be avoided at all costs, for their ‘safety’.
It will be tracking & tracing of children. Truly terrifying.
How about parents take some responsibility for setting up controls? Difficult to do? Yes. But parenting isn’t easy.
treason
/ˈtriːz(ə)n/
noun
the crime of betraying one’s country.
The abuse of our language becomes more aggregious day by day so I thought it pertinent to provide a dictionary definition and this is from ‘Oxford Dictionaries.’
Is anybody, certainly on here, under any allusions that our government is and has been for over 2.5 years acting daily in a treasonous manner?
We are being insulted, betrayed, denigrated, laughed at on a daily basis. Just one example from yesterday, the F & C spending, whoops ‘investing,’ £11.6 million, or was it billions, and who cares, in taking over coffee plantations in Mexico. Yet this government knows very well that people in this country will shortly be facing live or die questions such as ‘heat or eat.’ If this is not bald, naked treason I don’t know what is.
Would it be surprising if the BBC even now was rehearsing some funeral footage or doctoring some old Stalingrad films in order to present the nation’s dire Winter plight? The queues outside the soup kitchens doubling as warm centres and the pitiful sites outside food banks.
Let’s be in no doubt and no need to corrupt our wonderful language, we are being assaulted and betrayed by a treasonous government.
Government = Mafia
I wish I felt this wasn’t an eternal truth.
Knowing this makes a lot of things easier to understand and deal with.
I’ve posted this before but it bears reposting as it seems to me an excellent from the horse’s mouth insight into how these people think. It’s from Michael Wendling of the BBC disinformation unit, in answer to a complaint I made about unbalanced reporting of an early anti-lockdown protest. He clearly doesn’t see his customers as adults and he’s not ashamed to admit it.
“Of course those who believe in conspiracy theories are not going to call their beliefs conspiracy theories, and are going to call themselves mainstream, moderate people.
We viewed footage of the speakers and spoke to people who were there.
We have no obligation to give a platform to erroneous ideas. We don’t, to take an extreme example, broadcast the manifestos of mass murderers alongside police statements so that people can “make up their own minds”.
I’m not saying the people there were violent. Some of them were (as the story reflected) were drawn by legitimate concerns. But the speakers (Mr Icke and others) were not expressing mainstream views that would benefit from airing and debate.”
It’s that 1% again… 99% are worried about energy costs, rising prices, jobs, crime/policing, education, medical care, but top of the agenda for the 1% is climate change, ‘misinformation’, Russia/Ukraine, gender/homosexuality, racism, hate speech.
Indeed
A nut job conspiracy theorist would think that small groups of powerful people are manipulating the narrative and pushing the 1% issues for their own ends
I have a YouGov account and every second survey has questions about sustainability and diversity etc regardless of the subject- they want to make people think these things are what we should be worrying about
Why do you have a YouGov account?!
I started during covid when they kept quoting polls that said the public supported lockdowns. I thought I should try and correct the imbalance. I’ve carried on doing the same thing with questions regarding their or their clients’ woke agendas. They give you a bit of money from time to time, though that’s not my main reason for doing it.
Fair enough. I tried that for the same reasons but the endless questions about B list personalities was eroding my brain.
I’ve never heard of any of them so I just switch off for those bits
I find it an interesting insight into what the enemy are thinking
I would pay good money to know the extent to which all the woke agenda type questions are requested by clients or suggested by YouGov staff. I reckon mainly the latter as they are almost always worded the same.
The left are better at pushing their causes in general because they find the most abhorrent opponents to their causes and then paint everyone who doesn’t support them with the same brush.
If the right did the same thing then anyone who even said a peep in favour of the Online Safety Bill, even if the views were reasonable like wanting to make sure children didn’t see pornography, then we would loudly and aggressively call them totalitarians.
Our “problem” is that we don’t do that. We try to engage reasonably. But of course it’s a losing battle. We’re bringing knives to the fight while they’re bringing semi-automatic assault rifles.
Funny you should mention this, because this popped up in my YouTube suggestions today and Victor Davis Hanson from just under 4 minutes in has some interesting things to say on this subject: Victor Davis Hanson: This is why the left feels ‘morally superior’ – YouTube
Good stuff. VDH is a legend. I love the clarity with which he conveys his messages.
Unless some mandatory, digital ID scheme which can’t be forged, at least not easily, is introduced, there’s no way to determine if someone sitting in front of a web browser is legally minor or not. Hence, it makes ‘fuck all’ of a difference if this bill is said to be about child protection or about the proper rearing of wild Tibetan donkeys. The effect will be universal censorship by default in order to ensure that no unsupervised children can ever access something the goverment says they must not access.
Policing their children’s behaviour is responsibilty of the parents.
“Policing their children’s behaviour is responsibilty of the parents.”
Absolutely, and there are already lots of tools available to help with this, though I still think the best approach is to talk to them, set an example, and trust them as long as they repay that trust.
Precisely. To see what happens when it goes wrong, look to the publicity given to Ian Russell
Yes, but where ARE the adults these days, hm?
I would argue that the greatest source of misinformation in the last 50 years has been the US Government.
The list of prohibited subjects will be attached in a Statutory Instrument because that can be amended almost immediately by a Minister if “there is an emergency” – with no oversight by Parliament whatsoever.
It will be a Dictators charter.
We have been bombarded with misinformation by the Government for the past 2 years but they have sought to silence whistle-blower experts who were challenging the official narrative. That alone is proof that an Online Harms Bill should never go ahead. It will silence dissenters and critical-thinkers. It’s the equivalent of the Medieval Inquisition and the ban on the Bible being translated from Latin into languages ordinary people could understand for fear it would “challenge the Priesthood.”
But how can we posibly disagree with more censorship when Ian Russell is assuaging his feelings of guilt over his daughter’s suicide by emoting all over the MSM?