Firearms Officer Wins Sex Discrimination Case Because Her Firearm Was Too Big For Her.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10643338/Petite-firearms-officer-wins-sex-discrimination-case-because-gun-was-too-big-for-her-hands.html

Well this just about takes the biscuit, why isn't there certain qualifications a person should reach before being accepted in certain positions in the police service?

[emmie]

surely the name of the game is security, protection, so in the event blow away the bad guy, and if she was good enough to join their service then the decent thing was to give her the tools to do the job.

[Gromit]

They should sack the stupid idiot who issued the weapons to them. An armed officer with a gun they cannt shoot is just daft. Surely it is easy to get a more suitable sized weapon.

[joeluke]

Surely they could have a simple test at interview to ascertain whether a potential recruit can operate all types of firearms accurately?

[Peter Pedant]

No AOG they have to give the equipment suitable for the person and job.

In a hospital you cant have X ray equipment that is too heavy for an ickle girlie to move and then say - oops sorry boys only. If you find the x ray equipment wont do kids then you are indeed in deep deep trouble.

The Glock 17 is what the SAS use I am told ( by Mrs Mopp down the road ) and it is OK for special ops but is it OK use on assassins outside barracks, taxi drivers and their passengers even holding a sock, or men with chair legs ?

No - the smart answer on the street is No it is not.

Did Mrs Ronald Reagan keep a Glock 17 in her bedside table in the White House ? No she did not. She kept a teensie gun with a jewelled handle there apparently. Saturday night special they called them.

when you put the article up - I thought the test she had failed was can you keep control of your gun whilst your having sex onl duty see......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10238776/Long-arm-of-the-law-saves-officer-caught-with-his-trousers-down.html

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// They are qualified to do a job, employed to do a job, so they should be provided with the correct equipment to carry out that job. ///

That is the whole gist of the augment, obviously they are not qualified because they are unable to use the equipment provided, so therefore should never have been passed as capable of carrying out such duties.

[emmie]

can all the blokes who are not all butch and manly, operate all the firearms, answers on a postcard.

[jomifl]

When I was doing fieldwork as a marine biologist a couple of females working with me complained that all the stuff was too big and heavy. They couldn't lift the outboard motors, they found it difficult climbing up into a boat, everything seemed to have been 'designed for men'. I'm still wondering about that 20 years later. :o)

[joeluke]

'An armed officer with a gun they can't shoot is just daft. Surely it is easy to get a more suitable sized weapon.'

......or a more suitable sized firearms officer?

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// They should sack the stupid idiot who issued the weapons to them. An armed officer with a gun they cannt shoot is just daft. Surely it is easy to get a more suitable sized weapon. ///

Or perhaps more suitable sized officers?

[ummmm]

AOG...this is on going training, maybe they initially trained with a different type of gun.

[anotheoldgit]

You got there first Joe.

[joeluke]

'can all the blokes who are not all butch and manly, operate all the firearms?'

If their petite hands also don't allow them to reach the trigger then the same should apply

[emmie]

a child can kill another child or adult, with a gun, just pull the trigger, however the chances are slim, as their hands are not large enough to pull the trigger, it could happen by accident though, i heard of a pet killing it's owner by stepping on the trigger, odd but there you are.

So the women are in a job, they need slightly modified equipment, not given, why?

[emmie]

gosh you would think some would be glad that women would put their lives on the line for their country, or to protect someone from attack, no pleasing some

[joeluke]

As she works as part of the armed unit which protects the Sellafield atomic complex the likelihood she will ever use a gun in anger is pretty small

So maybe they could give her one of these to carry round just so she can feel like one of the guys?

http://www.freestockphotosclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Plastic-Pistol-for-Children-520x390.jpg

[sp1814]

AOG

"She'd be better off working in the Police canteen"

"Or perhaps a derringer that they could keep in their handbags?"

How would you categorise these statements.

[ummmm]

SP...one of those comments was from JoeLuke.

[emmie]

as sexist botox.

[sp1814]

"She struggled with the grip of the pistol she was using - a Glock 17 - and her trainers failed to adjust it while carrying out a test shoot on which her job depends."

So in summary, the issue seems to have been that the gun was not adjusted to suit her requirements.

Is that right?

The gun could be adjusted?

If this is the case, why wasn't it.

[joeluke]

'"She'd be better off working in the Police canteen"

"Or perhaps a derringer that they could keep in their handbags?"

How would you categorise these statements.'


Appropriate?