"No-one should be given or denied a job on the basis of their sexuality. We now have (thanks to the EU) a battery of draconian anti-discrimination legislation which is supposed to outlaw discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Yet this is precisely what the police are now introducing -- on the grounds that this acts against prejudice!"

What rubbish.

The idea is that, by anonymous monitoring of intake in the same way that most large organisations currently collect information on ethnicity, it'll be possible to see whether the recruitment policies are working. Say, for example, that the number of applicants for positions in any organisation - not just the police - includes 10% of self-identifying gay or lesbian people; but that, after positions have been filled, the proportion is far lower. Would that not be a sign that something may be wrong? Is it not worth looking at why somebody felt worthy enough of the position to apply, but didn't make the grade? Sometimes it may be the applicant's lack of suitability, but there's also the _possibility_ that something dissuaded them, or that the selection process may have other faults.

And yes, in an ideal world it shouldn't matter whether a homphobic crime is handled by a gay, straight, male or female officer. From the vast majority of police officers' point of view it doesn't matter either. But too many crimes with a same-sex basis go unreported because victims think the police won't take their complaint seriously. Staffordshire police last week estimated that fewer than 10% of same-sex domestic violence cases go unreported, for example.

Oh, and the Sunday Times article is wrong. The aim is to increase the number of currently serving officers BY 10%, not TO 10%. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3368141.stm and http://uk.gay.com/headlines/5600 .

If I remember correctly, a few years ago the test of physical strength and fitness for police offers was changed because it was found that women failed it more than men (gasp!) and therefore the test must be "sexist". How long before the test is declared "homophobic" for the same reasons? After all, who dares suggest any more that if groups of people perform differently in tests, it means anything other than the lower-performing groups are put at a disadvantage?

And then we'll no doubt see people like Scott Matthewman demanding exactly the quotas whose suggested introduction he now declares to be 'rubbish'. Can you pledge now that you will always be opposed to hiring and firing policemen based on their sexuality, Scott? Or is this sort of thing just a trojan horse for more politically correct meddling?

"Can you pledge now that you will always be opposed to hiring and firing policemen based on their sexuality, Scott?"

Yes, absolutely. I'm 100% committed to ensuring that people are judged solely on the ability to do their job; I'm also committed to ensuring that people get the chance to do that job in the first place.

Well, that's certainly encouraging to hear, but it does seem to contradict the penultimate paragraph of your first post. For example, if it turned out that homosexuals aspiring to be policemen never surpassed 1 in every 200 candidates, and that of those who did apply only 1 in 5 actually made the grade, you would have a situation where the force is 99.9% heterosexual - and entirely on merit.

Could you accept that state of affairs, given what you said about the need to get more homosexuals in the police because "too many crimes with a same-sex basis go unreported because victims think the police won't take their complaint seriously"?

I'd certainly question that state of affairs in your hypothetical example, because I don't know of any reason why the proportion of gay recruits that "make the grade" should be wildly different to the proportion of straight recruits. If it was wildly different, then wouldn't you agree that it might be a sign that something is wrong? Wouldn't it be best to look at it in more detail, to ensure that people who have every possibility of becoming good officers aren't being discouraged by some other factor?

Surely you'd agree that we need to do everything to ensure that good potential officers aren't turned away for reasons other than their ability to do the job.

Scott,

Although I'm gay, I have to say that I agree with Peter and with Melanie on this one.

First, it is grossly intrusive to question candidates for any position as to their sexual orientation - no matter how nobel the 'ends' might be.

Second, the police force is in existence to deal with law and order and this should be done objectively and properly for all citizens.

Third, it is the ability (existing and potential) of the candidate to do the tasks required in policing that should alone determine the criteria that need to be satisfied to be recruited. Gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation should have no role in determining these.

Unfortunately, this type of initiative seems almost designed to cause further loss of confidence in the police and is also counterproductive to gay people because it carries (whether justified or not) the strong whiff of politically-correct social engineering.

The paramount objective of the police force should be to solve and prevent crime.

This new initiative does nothing towards this objective.

Melanie;

"What on earth, for heaven's sake, has sexuality got to do with being a good police officer?"

I agree, nothing - but try telling that to the homophobic officers who have harassed and abused lesbian and gay colleagues, many of whom I have advised. Some police officers obviously feel that someone's heterosexual orientation has everything to do with whether he or she is a good police officer.

In relation to monitoring sexual orientation at recruitment, it will or should always be carried out anonymously and so this will not be an exercise in positive discrimination as the information will be processed separately from the recruitment procedure.

Let's not forget that the RRA has been in existence for nearly thirty years, but that certain elements within the police are still comfortable about making racially abusive comments - as in the recent BBC undercover documentary. It is those same elements who will quite happily vandalise a gay colleague's car or scrawl grafitti on his locker - very 'cohesive and professional.' What annoys me is that, never having experienced homophobia, you have no idea of the extremely vitriolic and physically violent forms it often takes in the workplace, and the toll that has on the recipients.

Surely the whole problem with the approach of Scott Mathewman and others is that they deny our essential humanity.

Either empathy, sympathy and compassion exist or they don't. To suggest that you have to be a particular type of person in order to appreciate other peoples situation is nonsense.

Unfortunately its plain to see from the thousands of jobs advertised in The Guardian each week, that increasingly politicaly correct opinion requires that in order to be of service to someone,that you should share as many of their characteristics as possible.

Given that we are all genetically different the politically correct lobby will one day run out of people the same as their targeted client groups.

It is ironic in the extreme that the political correctness that we have to endure in this country is usually peddled by the political left. They have preached a philosphy of collectivism for over a century yet now seem intent on convincing us that we are all so individualistic that we are impossible to deal with unless an identikit official sharing our every characteristic is found.

However a solution is at hand for these people. In the future we shall all be able to produce a limitless supply of clones so that we can all enjoy immediate access to our own genetically identical, highly emphatic personal outeach workers, policepersons, social workers etc.

I wonder if that type of society is what people like scott mathewman want?

Boy, cousins, this one is a doosie!

And I thought we had problems in the US with political correctness as well as unaffirmative, "affirmative" action. LOL (Except it's not funny.)

Condolences. :-(

Lili

I agree with Kevin. In California we had a case recently where a white public school principal had done an outstanding job at turning around a tough, low-peforming school serving mostly black students.

Despite a stellar acheivement record, the principal was attacked because she "couldn't possibly understand the special needs of African-American students" according to the politically correct school board and administrators. I believe she was even made to step down, (but not 100 percent positive about that.)

A society that puts social group orientation ahead of achievement is a foolish one indeed, and one not likely to survive challenges from other, more meritocratic cultures.

Another thing that strikes me one hundred percent wrong about politically correct orthodoxy in the US is the insistence that it is "wrong" for white parents to adopt black children. I actually sat through a "diversity training" exercise once in which the presenters vigorously asserted that placing an orphaned black child with a white family was the "worst thing that could ever happen" to that child.

Really? Worse than being shunted about from foster home to foster home with no sense of security ever? Worse than being raised by a natural parent who may be an irresponsible drug addict?

The funny thing is that the political correctness orthodoxy about cross-racial adoptions only apply to black children, not children of other non-white races. Affluent white couples who adopt Latino or Chinese babies are a dime a dozen where I live, and no one accuses them of being "racist" or wanting to perpetuate "racial genocide" because of it.

Many of these white adoptive families would be happy to take an American black orphan over the expense and bother of going to China to adopt a Chinese orphan, but they are counseled against this by social agencies and societal disapproval which would regard their actions as "racist."

The upshot is that there are US black children in need who could be placed with a loving, well-off family, but who are deprived of this opportunity by the obscene and contradictory creed of political correctness, the creed of valuing skin color or ethnic orientation over character, achievement and heart.

This is not what Martin Luther King wanted, as he argued for a society where all would be judged according to the "content of their character" rather than the color of their skin.

Good posts, Kevin and Susan. It certainly is ridiculous to suggest that only a dark-haired, middle-aged white woman can represent the views of dark-haired, middle-aged white women and sympathise with their problems. Genuine social progress should be about ignoring such issues, not making them the basis of an individual's identity.

Scott, I do agree that no one should be turned away for any reason but their ability to do their job. But I don't see any reason to think that is happening to homosexuals.

I don't think quotas or positive discrimination are a real danger, mainly because they are thankfully unworkable (any heterosexual who feared being discriminated against could just claim to be homosexual in the form). What I do fear is that if it turns out that homosexual candidates on average do less well at certain things like physical tests than heterosexuals, then the standards will be lowered to allow more of them to pass. If that takes place, everyone who relies on the police for the protection they offer will suffer.

Equally, if a huge effort is put into recruiting homosexuals at the expense of other possible candidates, then a lot of more qualified heterosexual men will never apply in the first place, and the selection will have to be made from those who do apply. That will ensure more homosexual policemen, but again it will be at the expense of having the best police force we can manage.

The fair way to avoid such problems is for tests for jobs like this to be focused on ability and blind to sexual preferences.

Peter,

"I don't think quotas or positive discrimination are a real danger, mainly because they are thankfully unworkable (any heterosexual who feared being discriminated against could just claim to be homosexual in the form)".

That's rather too complacent, Peter. Just because something may seem difficult to put into practice won't stop zealots from trying to find a way. Also, there are examples in other countries (the US, for example) where quotas have (correct me if I am wrong, Susan) been in place for a while in recruitment to certain jobs as well as entry procedures for certain universities.

Positive discrimination is bad for everyone - including those from the minority group in question who have the talents necessary to do the job and therefore welcome compete with everyone else on the same basis.

Matt,

"try telling that to the homophobic officers who have harassed and abused lesbian and gay colleagues, many of whom I have advised. Some police officers obviously feel that someone's heterosexual orientation has everything to do with whether he or she is a good police officer".

I agree that this is a problem. But, the question is: is the problem actually solved by introducing quotas? My view is that the problem is compounded. Surely, just as in other walks of life, if gay and lesbian people can prove over time that their sexual orientation does not in any way prevent them from doing an excellent job (whatever it is) then this is the proof that will slowly silence those who seek to prove the opposite. However, quotas are a gift to bigots who can claim that those from minorities who enter a job in which quotas exist have done so not on the basis of talent but on the basis of 'positive discrimination' (another ghastly Orwellian term...)

Sexuality, Religion and Political affiliations are nothing to do with anyone. You judge people by how they do their job. As a matter of interest how are the public going to know if they are dealing with a gay policeman - is he going to wear a different uniform? The whole idea is ludicrous. The next thing will be that there are not enough disabled people working down the mines or employed as scafolders.

David,

I agree with you - I'm not at all in favour of quotas or positive discrimination, but I do think that the make-up of a public body should reflect that of the community it serves. Anonymous monitoring, which is I think what is being proposed here, would allow the police force to achieve this in relation to lesbians and gay men. The problem is that there are no reliable statistics about the incidence of homosexuality in the general population; the DTI puts it at around 3 or 4%, but this is probably higher in major cities. These figures sound about right to me. As has been pointed out, the police force does not want to achieve a target of 10% L&G officers as Melanie said, but to increase the numbers of existing officers by 10% - a much smaller figure. Because sexual orientation is not a visible characteristic, monitoring is the only way to find out what proportion of a force is L&G. If it is found that the numbers are significant and rising, then in my opinion this would allow others who have not declared their sexual orientation to feel more confident about doing so. Increased visibility then leads to increased acceptance, support and hence on to a situation where sexual orientation is not an issue and all officers are judged on merit and performance alone, as should be the case. The fact is that many perfectly capable employees suffer from stress, under-perform or are forced out of employment because they have been on the receiving end of harassment because of their sexual orientation, and they are not given a chance to prove that they can do as well as anyone else.

" I'm not at all in favour of quotas or positive discrimination, but I do think that the make-up of a public body should reflect that of the community it serves."

Don't you think that those two statements are inherently contradictory?

I think it is quite possible for a public body (or private business) to give a proper service to the public without necessarily reflecting the demographic profile of the public at large. WRT the police specifically, people from middle class backgrounds are significantly underrepresented within the force, but it does not follow that the police therefore need to recruit more of the middle classes in order to provide them with an adequate service.

I do not see this questionnaire on sexuality as serving any useful purpose. This is intrinsically a private matter, and should remain so.

Sean-

Sexual orientation is a private matter, and as far as I am concerned private companies can do what they like so long as they do not discriminate and so long as they protect all of their employees from bullying and harassment whether on the grounds of race, sex, hair colour or whatever. I'm not saying that only lesbian and gay police officers can give a good service to the lesbian and gay community - that's nonsense. But lesbians and gay men are the victims - and to be honest the perpetrators, like any other group - of crime, and have a right to be treated no differently in their dealings with the police than anyone else. You are very naive if you believe that the so-called 'canteen culture' within some police forces does not include homophobic attitudes. You can't police what people think, but by allowing lesbian and gay officers to be 'out' in their places of employment, safe in the knowledge that they are supported and protected by legislation and policy, you can go some way towards demonstrating to colleagues that they are as capable of performing their dutues as anyone else - or not, as the case may be; as I said, I strongly belive everyone should be judged on merit and capability.

Well of course they have the right to be treated equally by the police. But it's something of a non-sequitur to argue that therefore, all police officers must declare what their sexuality is, and that the police force must have targets for the recruitment of homosexual officers.

Why should a homosexual officer wish to be "out"? He or she may not wish to be. Yet, if they are not prepared to fill in this questionnaire, or lie, they presumably face the potential for disciplinary action.

As we have seen with ethnic monitoring and targetting throughout the public sector, the police will be under pressure to appoint people simply on the basis of a headcount; and any force where the proportion of "out" homosexuals in the force is less than their proportion in the population as a whole, will be assumed to be guilty of discrimination.

Sean,

If the monitoring is done properly it will be;
a. anonymous, and
b. give an opportunity for someone to decline to declare his or her sexual orientation.
It is the right of any gay man or lesbian to be out if he or she wishes to be, safe in the knowledge that s/he will be protected from harassment. It is equally his or her right not to come out and not to be outed. The Human Rights Act and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private and family life, precludes an employer disciplining an employee who refuses to declare his or her sexual orientation. If you look at the ACAS guidlines on the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which are on the ACAS website, they enshrine this principle, of the right to be out or not, as preferred.

I am still unpersuaded that the monitoring will (a) serve any useful purpose (b) not lead to the type of positive discrimination and group rights politics that is such a feature of the public sector.

Sean,

To go back to your earlier post where you say that it is contradictory for me to say that i am not in favour of quotas but that the make-up of a public body should reflect the community it serves, i'd make the following point -

However many lesbians and gay men there are in the UK, presumably the same proportion of them have jobs as the proportion of heterosexuals that have jobs. There is no link between sexual orientation and particular skills or qualifications, so that presumably already lesbians and gay men are represented in every sector of employment, from engineers to teachers to street-cleaners to sales assistants to investment bankers to whatever, in the same percentage in which they exist in the general population. Therefore, if you can identify a type of employment where they are under-represented, there must be a reason for that, whatever it might be. I wouldn't be at all surprised however if the numbers of lesbians and gay men in the police force are already representative of the numbers in society, although many might not be 'out'. What really worries people about monitoring is that they would prefer lesbians and gay men to be invisible unless they conform to some kind of stereotype, and that knowledge of the true numbers would force people to accept that we are present in society and the same as everyone else, apart from our sexual orientation, which conclusion only serves to undermine homophobia.

Peter Cuthbertson -

"What I do fear is that if it turns out that homosexual candidates on average do less well at certain things like physical tests than heterosexuals, then the standards will be lowered to allow more of them to pass."

What, you mean all those effeminate queers who are bad at sports? This is really laughable - we come in every shape and size, including those of us who would put a lot of heterosexual men to shame in terms of physical fitness.

Matt,

"What, you mean all those effeminate queers who are bad at sports? This is really laughable - we come in every shape and size, including those of us who would put a lot of heterosexual men to shame in terms of physical fitness".

Well said! I guess that there are some people on this blog who think that people like the late Quentin Crisp (bless him) the former pop star Boy George, the not-seen-on-TV-recently comedian Julian Clary and the so-popular-stateside-I-wish-he'd-emigrate Graham Norton are actually representative of gay men in general...gulp...

These people have clearly never been anywhere near The Coleherne at closing time and seen the men who look like they are on a constant marine fitness regime...;-)

There are nearly three hundred postings on the 'Abandonment of Marriage' thread on this blog most of them deal with issues connected with those raised by Melanie on this thread. Reuben Chapple has lain out therein, in explicit, deeply researched and sometimes-robust terms, why it is that the militant homosexual fraternity wishes to insinuate its 'life style' into all aspects of the essential services. And how they intend to do it. Reuben was dogged by David (above) and others including Scott Matthewman (also above), both defenders of the froth. They lost the debate by 299 – 1. It probably means that this thread will go twice round the earth.

This latest excruciating and ludicrous suggestion from Scotland Yard proves two things (a) that Mr Chapple has got it right - QED above (b) that John Stevens (for those that don't know, he is Her Majesty's Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and a Knight of the Realm), who has shown signs of increasing bewilderment over the past couple of years, has now lost it completely.

The pink tail and left wing have been wagging the old dog for some time now (makes a change from the rolled up left trouser leg – I’d better get that in before the old lags on this blog say it for me), but even I didn't think it would come to this. When I saw a large group of police parading in front of the Gay Pride March a couple of months ago, I thought it was a bit over- policed. Then it was pointed out by the TV newsreader that they were actually part of the parade, I knew the end was nigh..

The Metropolitan Police is being systematically buggered, the Monarch-in-waiting is being systematically buggered, the BBC has already been buggered to death, the Daily Mail has recently been buggered by the head bugger at NSY, the Conservative party is assuming the toe-touching position. All in all it seems that the United Kingdom is well on the way to being buggered all round and Western Civilisation generally seems in no better state: echoes of the Roman Empire, our depraved ancestors. I suppose it was in the genes all along.

When Lord Montgomery said in the House of Lords, after the amendments to the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 were introduced, “Does that mean it will soon not only be permitted, but also obligatory” (or words to that effect – it’s never made the Oxford Book of Quotations, or at least my elderly copy) people thought he was joking. Now we all know he wasn’t.

Dealing particularly with the suggested prerequisite intrusive question posed for potential recruits to Bobbyhood, I wonder what would occur if a candidate marked up his sexual orientation box with “I quite like shagging sheep”. I suppose that would disqualify him – but only on the grounds that a sufficient quota of Welshmen was already serving.

Stand by for everlasting postings on this thread. You’ll be pleased to hear, David (not Welsh I hope?) that no more will be mine.

PS

Any potential gay recruits to the police: if you find this type of humour offensive, then prepare to be offended often, or shelve your application for a couple of years yet.

Changed my mind, sorry, just another postscript. Do they want to increase the quota by ten per cent, or by ten per scent?

Frank,

Just 2 comments:

1) if you are going to refer to my opinions then please do so accurately. If you take the trouble to read what I have posted earlier on this thread you will see that I actually agreed with Melanie and condemned this politically-correct proposal;

2) You are keen to assert that there are totalitarian tendencies that are a real danger to your freedoms. What nonsense. Your freedom of speech is totally intact. I guess you have never visited or lived in a fascist/communist state or you would not make such over-defensive comments - I actually have lived for several years in a an ex-fascist state and know from reading and listening extensively exactly what mind and group control methods were used to keep people in their place. (If you're interested to see more go to the 'marriage' thread). They were far more sinister and serious than admonitions to people who are meant to be professional not to use words like 'kike', 'nigger' or 'shitpoker' to civilians or colleagues.

I expect you'll just laugh this off...and perhaps you're right: comparing the antics of gay militants (who let's face it will never interfere with your freedoms) with real fascists is a joke, albeit a sick one

Actually Matt, I think your assumption is wrong. I think it is quite possible that there will be professions in which the proportion of gays and lesbians will be greater than their proportion in the workforce as a whole (such as the arts and theatre). But it follows that if the proportion is greater in one field, it will be smaller in another.

And on a wider scale, there are many public sector jobs where the workforce is wholly unreflective of the workforce as a whole (80% of Primary School teachers are women for example, 25% of doctors come from ethnic minorities) without there being anything necessarily sinister about this.

Sean-

Okay, that's a fair point. I think it's a bit of a false assumption about the theatre though, because there are all of the technical staff as well, and theatre is a very small industry anyway - although I suppose it's true of the media generally. But I think that this may be where there are a lot of *visible* lesbians and gay men - I work for an organisation that advises lesbians and gay men about employment issues, and our statistics show an even distribution over most sectors, with slightly higher in the caring professions.

The gay lobby likes to portray itself as beleaguered and powerless. Nothing could be further from the truth. Homosexuals make up a tiny proportion of the general population, and yet, through the arts, media and entertainment worlds - in which, proportionate to their numbers, they are vastly over-represented - they have the ability to manipulate public opinion and, more sinisterly, apply pressure on legislators and other decision-makers.

Politicians are terrified of upsetting the gay lobby, since they are fully aware of the disproportionate power and influence that it wields.

Neil,

"Politicians are terrified of upsetting the gay lobby, since they are fully aware of the disproportionate power and influence that it holds".

Come on Neil! Do you really think that politicians sit around quivering at the thought of upsetting the gay lobby because it is powerful? They may not wish to upset any group from whom they may be able to win votes - that is more likely to be the cynical truth.

Who are all these gays exercising power through the media? Do you mean the Daily Telegraph (hardly a radical gay screed...) or one of the tabloids? Or the Guardian - with its tiny circulation and wishy-washy hand-wringing do-gooding liberal agenda? Hardly influential except among some parts of the public sector intelligentsia.

"apply pressure on legislators and other decision-makers".

Well, Neil, like it or not, interest group pressure on politicians is now an integral part of all modern democracies. Stonewall has been effective because it has donned the suits and learned to argue responsibly for changes. There are also family associations, men's (heterosexuals) groups etc that have also formed and lobby on a range of issues.

This is a healthy part of the democratic process surely?

Aren't we fortunate that we don't live under fascism, communinism or an islamic dictatorship where such precious freedoms don't exist?