ER Editor: The GB News video report below reveals this problem applies to a number of hiring areas. ‘BAME‘ below is an acronym referring to Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic, basically everything except White.
ANTI-WHITE RACISM: Three white police officers refused promotion by Thames Valley Police win discrimination case after bosses appointed an Indian to ‘increase diversity’.https://t.co/bh4Pwq9wpV
— David Kurten (@davidkurten) August 14, 2024
📣 Statement following Employment Tribunal judgement on race discrimination
An employment tribunal has found that Thames Valley Police had discriminated against three white police officers because of their race when appointing an officer to a Priority Crime Team. 🧵1/5 pic.twitter.com/PSQSZrpLED
— Matthew Barber (@matthew_barber) August 14, 2024
We have #TwoTierPolicing, welcome to TwoTierCareers. Det Insp Phillip Turner-Robson, Insp Graham Horton & custody inspector Kirsteen Bishop won their case that Thames Valley Police “directly discriminated” against them.
They promoted an Asian person to get their senior diversity… pic.twitter.com/UnqziBukWT
— David Atherton (@DaveAtherton20) August 13, 2024
How on earth did @ThamesVP get itself into a situation where, despite a ZERO TOLERANCE approach to racism, they not only racially discriminated against their officers but then, extraordinarily, decided to fight an Employment Tribunal they had NO chance of winning? pic.twitter.com/mMJ6mxELTC
— The Fair Job Initiative (@FairJobUK) August 14, 2024
I never thought my old force could ever be sued for positive discrimination. Shame on you @ThamesVP. Don’t you think officers already have enough to contend with?
Bravo to those who challenged.
“Supt Baillie’s decision… clearly constituted positive discrimination.” https://t.co/NXZlx6Pz56
— Steve Bridges (@Steve_Bridges) August 13, 2024
***
The latest from the BBC —
PCC orders review into force’s race discrimination
*********
White British Cops Win Discrimination Case; Were Not Considered For Promotion Due To Skin-Color
Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news
Three Thames Valley Police officers have won an employment tribunal in which they charged they had been disadvantaged by employers for being “white British”.
The Telegraph reports that the tribunal was informed that a superintendent at the police force was tasked with ‘improving diversity’, specifically by seeking to appoint an “Asian” sergeant to the rank of Detective Inspector.
👮 Three white police officers have won a discrimination case after an employment judge ruled that they were passed over for promotion because of their race.
— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) August 12, 2024
The three officers, who had all been working for the force for between 19-26 years were actively blocked from applying for the position.
The vacancy was never advertised and no competitive employment process was initiated, it was revealed at the tribunal.
A month after the position became available, a Sergeant Sidhu (forename withheld) was appointed.
This person held a lower rank and wasn’t even an inspector or detective inspector, unlike the three white officers.
ER: Useful commentary!
‘We have a police force that’s turned down well qualified white candidates – just because they’re white – so Sergeant Sidhu can have a go!’@PatrickChristys says ‘we’re prioritising diversity over public safety’ suggesting there’s ‘institutional racism against white people’. pic.twitter.com/tCyXWuItNO
— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 13, 2024
The Tribunal noted that the Superintendent (Emma Baillie) had been ordered to “make it happen” by the Deputy Chief Constable and “took the decision without thinking it through.”
It was also revealed that Baillie later tried to “retrospectively justify” the decision, claiming the appointment was made under a “BAME Progression Program which clearly did not exist at the time”.
“Superintendent Baillie and no doubt the deputy chief constable had been warned of the risk of operating such a policy,” the tribunal said.
Employment Judge Robin Postle concluded “The Superintendent made a decision to move Police Sergeant Sidhu into the detective inspector role without any competitive assessment process taking place.“
Postle added, “It went beyond mere encouragement, disadvantaging those officers who did not share Sergeant Sidhu’s protected characteristic of race and who were denied the opportunity to apply for the role.”
“It was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Clearly, Superintendent Baillie was only focused on ‘making it work’ rather than carrying out a balancing exercise,” the judge further noted, adding that the decision “clearly constituted positive discrimination.”
White privilege, right?
* * *
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
Source
Featured image source: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24513722.3-white-thames-valley-officers-win-race-discrimination-claim/
************
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply