Britain's biggest police force now demands that anyone wanting to join as a beat bobby has to be bilingual in one of 14 languages

Scotland Yard has come under fire today after placing an advert demanding that anyone wanting to join as a police officer be able to speak a second language.

The Metropolitan Police wants to bolster the number of officers able to speak and understand 14 languages which are widely used across London.

But the move has sparked criticism from a former officer and members of the public on Twitter.

Retired Met Police officer Chris Hobbs wrote: 'I've kept reading and re-reading it. Can't believe it. What about potential BME (black and minority ethnic) recruits who only speak English.'

He added: 'Won't this also adversely affect the recruitment of guys and girls from the black community whom we would like 2 [sic] see more of?'

After Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe set an ambitious target of having 40 per cent of all officers from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds, only 18 per cent met that criteria when the latest intake passed out in March.

According to a report published by the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee in December 2014, before the most recent recruitment campaign, only 11 per cent of officers serving in the Met were from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic background, compared with approximately 40 per cent of the population of London. The current BME figure in the Met is now 12 per cent.

Members of the public also appeared less than enthusiastic about the new initiative.

Simon Holdaway tweeted: 'The Met's lack of understanding of the problems it faces is stunning', while another user wrote: 'the lunatics have finally overtaken the asylum.'

Meanwhile, Carole Hawkins tweeted: 'For £19,000 a year, this country is now getting really stupid.' 

As part of a month-long trial which started today, new recruits must speak English and one of Yoruba (Nigeria), Hebrew, Arabic, Hindi, Punjabi, Italian, German, Turkish, Greek, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese, Sinhala (Sri Lanka) or Bengali to join as Met Police officers.

Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: 'We know that almost 300 languages are spoken in the capital. We need to recruit and deploy officers with second languages in areas where those languages are spoken.

'I believe it will help boost confidence, help to solve crime more effectively and support victims and witnesses.'

A Met Police spokesman said: 'It's a pilot scheme for four weeks. We will review it after four weeks and see what the take-up is and how successful it has been in terms of the number of people expressing an interest.

'With so many languages spoken in London we recognise that some of our victims, witnesses and others who come into contact with the police may not be fluent in English.

'This is about strengthening our capability to match the needs of some Londoners. We know there is a demonstrable link between the skills and capabilities of our workforce and public confidence in London's police.

'The language requirement is the latest in a number of initiatives the MPS has introduced in a bid to make the MPS more reflective of London's communities.'

Chairman of the Metropolitan Black Police Association, Janet Hills, said: 'This is about the cultural competency of officers within the organisation and those they are looking to recruit.

'The MetBPA are broadly supportive of the intention but recognise that more needs to be done to effectively utilise the existing skills of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic officers by consciously placing them into communities where they will have the greatest impact.

'Language is just one of the competencies that the MPS can utilise but unless officers with the right skills are placed in the right locations these attributes will be wasted.'

SOURCE






Why Are ‘Customers’ So Angry About This New Book on Marriage and Religious Freedom?

Is the debate about marriage over after the Supreme Court’s June decision to redefine marriage in all fifty states? That’s what some Amazon.com reviewers are insisting after a new book was released last week.

The book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” is a roadmap from Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, on how the conservative movement can move forward in promoting marriage and protecting religious freedom after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“I wrote this book for all Americans. For those who disagree with me, to at least understand the viewpoint of roughly half the nation,” Anderson told The Daily Signal. “For those who agree, to better understand the nature of the debate and the reasons supporting the truth. For those undecided, to get one thoughtful take on what the future should hold.”

As of Saturday, Anderson’s book has received over 120 reviews. It average rank is 3.4 of 5 stars with 40 percent of reviewers leaving a 1 star rating.

How’d this come about? Opponents worked social media outlets to orchestrate a campaign of negative reviews of Anderson’s book, often attacking the author personally.

As of Sunday, only one of the 49 one-star reviews was a “verified purchase” reviews, which gives potential customers authenticity that the reviewer has purchased the material. By contrast, 35 of the 76 5-star reviews are from verified purchasers. Several of the 1-star reviews insist the “debate is over” and that Anderson’s claims are “a deadly defense of dying worldview.”

Anderson was surprised Amazon approved the reviews too. But he said these activists on the Left aren’t representative: “The one-star reviewers do not represent ordinary liberals,” Anderson said. “Ordinary Americans on the left are honorable and open-minded,” he noted. Consider “San Francisco Amazon Fangirl.” That reviewer gave the book five stars even though “I totally disagree with Ryan Anderson on this crucial issue of individual rights and equality.”

Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, also believes same-sex marriage is a constitutional right but found issue with the reviews for Anderson’s book. “I disagree with Ryan’s perspective—and have publicly debated him several times—but he’s always thoughtful and courteous, unlike most of those who agree with me on same-sex marriage who have decided to ‘review’ Ryan’s book here,” Shapiro wrote last week.

Negative reviews morphed from disagreeing with Anderson’s stance to likening him to a Gestapo. Calling the book “fascism 101,” one reviewer posted a photo of likely concentration camp prisoners during World War II. Several people reported this post and the picture, but five days later, Amazon has still not removed it.

Others attacked Anderson personally. “Ryan is a sad and bitter loser, who can’t seem to grasp that, he makes no laws,” reviewer Terence Jennings wrote, titling the review “Unmarried virgin.” “He grants no rights or benefits and that his drivel is rehashed talking points that don’t really matter. So, waste your money if you will. The joke will be on you.” Amazon did remove this review.

While officials from Amazon did not return requests for comment, the e-retailer giant states in its review policies that reviews with obscene or distasteful content as well as profanity or spiteful remarks are not allowed and could be removed.

While it’s not the first time Anderson has released a book on marriage—he co-wrote “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” in 2012 with Sherif Girgis and Robert George—Anderson said there was not a “well-organized attack” at its launch, primarily because he wasn’t as well known a figure.

But after doing many debates and media interviews, and with a  profile of him appearing on the front page of The Washington Post, Anderson believes the LGBT activists are intentionally targeting him.

“The 1 star reviews came from activists and ideologues,” said Anderson. “It’s a shame they’re so out of touch and unwilling to even consider opposing viewpoints. They do their cause damage.”

SOURCE






Angry mother says McDonald's is discriminating against her Asperger's son with a job ad that says 'eye contact a must'

Must not ask for normality

An angry mother claims McDonald's is discriminating against her Asperger's son with a job advert that describes eye contact as a 'must'. Fiona Wallace, 52, said her son Robert would have been perfect for the customer service role but was dissuaded from applying when he saw that applicants must have the specific attribute.

The 21-year-old has Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism, which can make eye contact difficult during stressful situations such as a job interview.

A McDonald's spokesman said that, although communication is a key part of the role, 'eye contact' was only included in the advert for illustrative purposes.

But Ms Wallace, from Fife, said the advert was 'terribly discriminatory'. 'Both Robert and I believe that with the right training he could do the job competently - he is very polite and a hard worker,' she said.

'However because he suffers from Asperger's he can sometimes struggle with eye contact. In a stressful scenario like a job interview, eye contact could become difficult. The job advert clearly states that this is an issue as it lists eye contact as a must.'

She added: 'By doing this, it wipes out anyone on the autistic spectrum, no matter how their condition affects them and without meeting any of these people it tells them they need not apply.'

The job advert, which is listed on the McDonald's website, describes how candidates must have 'effective communication skills' before adding: 'Attentive listening, face-to-face verbal communication and eye contact are a must.'

Mr Wallace said the wording indicated that the job was not for someone in his situation.

'The wording is very specific they have blatantly said that this job isn't for me - anyone in my situation doesn't have the attributes listed as a must,' he said.

'That wording singles people out. I think they should review their hiring policy and the wording of their adverts. Disabled people are at a disadvantage anyway so I think they should take a good hard look at the wording and what it says to people in my situation.'

He added: 'I would have liked to apply for a job there as it would be good to earn my own money and to meet new friends, but I wouldn't apply now. It has definitely put me off.'

Carol Povey, the director of the National Autistic Society's Centre for Autism, claimed that autistic adults often take things literally and would only apply for a job if they feel they meet all the specifications for the role.

She said: 'Autistic adults often take things literally so it's also important that the language and wording of the job advert is clear.

'By taking into account the different needs of autistic jobseekers at every stage of the recruitment process, employers can unlock a wealth of talent.'

She added: 'Making eye contact can be difficult - even painful - for some people on the spectrum, particularly if they're feeling anxious as many do in interview situations. But it should never be a barrier to employment.

'We appreciate that there are some jobs that need an element of eye contact, but would not recommend that employers include this as essential criteria in the job advert.

'Doing so would unfairly write off a significant number of potential employees by disregarding the simple adjustments employers can make and the strategies autistic adults can use to get around this issue.'

A McDonald's spokesman said it was an 'inclusive employer' and that it was a shame Mr Wallace had decided not to pursue the application.

They added: 'We welcome people from all backgrounds and recruit on qualities not qualifications we want people who demonstrate the enthusiasm and passion for the brand we see in so many of our 100,000 employees every day.

'As with most employers we don't expect our new recruits to be the finished article which is why we invest over 50m a year in the training and development of our people.

'Serving over 3.5m customers every day means that our employees are expected to have excellent soft skills such as communication, teamwork and time- and self-management but we pride ourselves on the opportunities we give every employee to grow and develop these skills whilst they are with us.

'Our recruitment process includes a work trial session in which prospective employees can assess whether or not the job is right for them. as well as giving our restaurant managers can assess a person's suitability for the role. We work closely with organisations including Mencap and Remploy to ensure our recruitment process is adaptable and inclusive for all.'

SOURCE






Consultant who was planning his retirement after unblemished 40-year medical career is struck off for slapping abusive A&E patient

A leading doctor who was planning his retirement after an unblemished 40-year career in medicine has been struck off in disgrace after he slapped a patient who had become abusive in a hospital A&E department.

Consultant Dominic McCreadie, 64, used his right hand to hit the 66-year old in the face after he lost his temper when the pensioner began struggling violently and swearing at him while receiving treatment.

The unnamed patient, who had been flailing his arms around whilst being given an injection was said to have 'calmed down' after being slapped.

But McCreadie was reported by a junior colleague who witnessed the incident and described the medic's actions as 'inappropriate.'

He was subsequently quizzed by police under caution and during an interview with officers he admitted: 'I accept that I was frustrated and exasperated by this patient.'

At a fitness to practise hearing of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, McCreadie, formerly of Glasgow, now of Warwick, agreed to 'voluntary erasure' from the General Medical Council register after being found guilty of misconduct.

Panel chairman Dr Linda Buchanan said: 'Dr McCreadie was faced with a difficult patient and this was a one-off single incident in a long career with no previous complaints or concerns.

'However, striking a patient at any time and in any circumstances is a breach of the fundamental tenant of the profession to make the care of one's patient one's first concern.

'Dr McCreadie's striking of the patient was a single aberration in an otherwise long and unblemished career and there is nothing before the Panel to suggest that the patient suffered any actual injury.'

The alleged slap occurred in October 2012, after the patient who was suffering from 'acute confusion' was admitted to the Accident and Emergency department at New Cross Hospital in Wolverhampton, West Midlands, during the evening shift.

The OAP was initially seen by a nurse and trainee medic Dr Aliakbhar Mohamedbhai in a cubicle but senior colleague Dr McCreadie - who had announced the previous year his intentions to retire - was asked to intervene when attempts to give the patient an injection failed due to him being 'physically resistant'.

Chris Hamlet, on behalf of the General Medical Council, told the Medical Practitioners Tribanal Service in Manchester: 'Dr McCreadie slapped the patient across the face while assessing and managing an acutely confused patient who had become verbally abusive and was resisting attempts to examine him.

'The patient had become verbally aggressive and physically resistant and Dr Mohamedbhai assisted in restraining the patient's left arm in order to gain access.

'Access was achieved and Dr McCreadie went on to conduct an examination of the patient but it appeared to provoke another outburst of offensive language and physical resistance.

'Dr McCreadie, in response to that, struck the patient across the face in a slapping motion. The GMC have commissioned an expert view on the matter which finds that the slap as alleged, if proved, would fall seriously below the standard of a consultant in emergency medicine.'

Dr Mohamedbhai, 29, who still works for the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust told the hearing: 'At my request, Dr McCreadie helped me with the patient.

'With his help I attempted to establish access and after two failed attempts he took the lead and attempted access. At that point the patient was being aggressive. Acting in his best interest, I had to restrain his left arm to get access.

'Dr McCreadie then decided to carry out a further and more thorough examination of the patient. This provoked more aggressive behaviour from the patient and the use of offensive language. As the consultant felt this was inappropriate he landed his right arm on the patient's left cheek in an attempt to calm him down.

'The patient was using very offensive language and was shouting and I think Dr McCreadie looked angry. He looked in the eyes of the patient who became more aggressive. Dr McCreadie used his right hand to slap the patient's left cheek.'

When asked whether the patient was behaving in 'a difficult fashion?' Dr Mohamedbhai replied: 'Yes he was. He was flailing his arms and using offensive language. He was shouting and swearing. The nurse was trying to take some observations and that had become difficult as well because he was flailing his arms more aggressively.'

'I remember the nurse with me in the cubicle and she asked me whether what had happened was appropriate and the only comment I made was 'not in my opinion'. It was after Dr McCreadie had left. I did witness a slap.'

He said the patient had 'calmed down significantly and immediately' after Dr McCreadie slapped him. Dr Mohamedbhai reported his colleague to the NHS trust and an investigation began.

Dr McCreadie, who graduated at the University of Glasgow in 1975 denied slapping the patient - instead insisting that he held the man's mouth shut in a form of restraint to 'keep him quiet'.

In a statement he said: 'During the process of restraint and trying to hold his arm still, I attempted to stop his shouting (to avoid frightening and upsetting the other patients) by closing his mouth with my hand under his chin.

'I am informed that this has been interpreted as slapping the patient. Whilst understanding how it might look I certainly did not slap the patient but did try to restrain him and stop his shouting.

'It is clear that he became very agitated, uncooperative and very noisy, and in the circumstances I would therefore have restrained him at that point, by quickly, using my right hand to close his mouth and hold his head still in order to quieten him to allay upset to nearby patients and their relatives and to allow me to complete my neurological examination.

'This was done by cupping my right thumb and palm under his chin with my fingers up his left cheek. I accept I was frustrated and exasperated.'

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************