Black officer sues court for receiving a promotion; wins case.

punky · 10-01-2006, 04:34

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...%5E663,00.html

Quote:

A BLACK police bodyguard who protected the Duchess of Cornwall has won $70,000 compensation after suing Scotland Yard for "over-promoting" him because of political correctness.

...

His representatives argued he landed the prestigious job as Camilla's bodyguard only because he was black.

Well, well, well, it proves that positive racial discrimination does go on. Its not a fiction of Dail Mail readers' minds.

Paul · 10-01-2006, 06:26

I see, he made mistakes because he wasn't properly trained or supported and that was due to him being black and having been promoted?? Wonder if I could use that excuse at work too?

Chimaera · 10-01-2006, 06:43

Don't think it works that way if you are 'ginger' LOL

Damien · 10-01-2006, 08:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...%5E663,00.html

Well, well, well, it proves that positive racial discrimination does go on. Its not a fiction of Dail Mail readers' minds.

Again, A couple of cases here and there do not show that is a wide spread occurance.

SlackDad · 10-01-2006, 08:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...%5E663,00.html

Well, well, well, it proves that positive racial discrimination does go on. Its not a fiction of Dail Mail readers' minds.

It appears that he was put into a position for reasons other than his skills and abilities, namely the colour of his skin.
This is not positive discrimination but tokenism. Good luck to him for highlighting this.

BBKing · 10-01-2006, 09:18

Quote:

as a result of being over-promoted and not receiving proper training and support

Quote:

DAILY MAIL

Important omissions highlighted. To complete his post punky might have pointed out:
1) The story is from an Australian Murdoch-owned conservative tabloid (taken from the Mail) and thus open to loads of bias. It's about as reliable as a report in the Sun.
2) The case wasn't just about being 'over-promoted because of his skin', but because he didn't receive training which led to him being unable to do his job, which led to him losing it.
3) If that lack of training was because of his skin then it's good old fashioned racial discrimination, but we'll never know because it's not going to tribunal.

Anyway, it's high time we stopped using second-hand reports from right-wing tabloids printed in right-wing tabloids on the other side of the world - here's a selection of alternatives:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...&id=2069722005
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html

Note the lack of reference to 'over-promotion', which only appears in the Mail and subsequent articles based on it. Why would 'police sources' only speak to the Mail about this, and not even the Telegraph? The copper in question even appears on a Nazi website (he was allegedly beaten up by anti-Nazis, but the source is far from credible) and even they don't mention 'over-promotion' or 'political correctness'.

The original Mail story (which has all the hallmarks of being put out by the Met to discredit a black policeman who dared stand up, as has happened frequently in the past) has appeared in right-wing blogs and sites in the US. Did punky get it from there or does he routinely trawl the websites of crappy tabloids from the other side of the world for stories about black people in the UK? I think we should be told.

So, all in all, not what it seems. But that's to be expected if you rely on biased second-hand single source information without caveats.

10-01-2006, 09:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

Well, well, well, it proves that positive racial discrimination does go on.

That's not really news.

But what is galling is that he has the audacity to use the race card to try and defend his own failings, and blame them on others. Ultimately, if he didn't think he was up to the job, he shouldn't have accepted the promotion. But he did accept it, and presumably he would have had training specific to his role in the Royal Protection Team. I can't imagine they pick a bobby of the street and simply hand him a gun and tell him to 'look after Charlie'.

I think there is only one reason this case had the outcome it did:

Quote:

Had Sgt Turner's case reached a tribunal, potentially embarrassing secrets about Charles and Camilla's lives may have been aired.

Are we allowed to use the term 'blackmail' these days?

---------- Post added at 09:26 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

So, all in all, not what it seems. But that's to be expected if you rely on biased second-hand single source information without caveats.

Indeed - I think he should have sued on the basis of sexual discrimination:

Quote:

The 46-year-old married officer had been a member of the prince's protection team for seven months until he switched to protecting Camilla Parker Bowles after the announcement that she was to marry the prince.

After four months in that role, he is said to have been replaced by a female inspector.

From The Telegraph.

Now I don't think it so odd that CPB should have been assigned a female protection officer, so his being replaced shouldn't be an issue.

Since the case was never heard, the full extent of the circumstances will never be known.

---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

It appears that he was put into a position for reasons other than his skills and abilities, namely the colour of his skin.

a.k.a. 'positive discrimination'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

This is not positive discrimination but tokenism. Good luck to him for highlighting this.

So it's positive discrimination unless the recipient is unhappy with the result, when it becomes tokenism?

The whole problem with PD is that it IS tokenism, since it is impossible to have PD without overlooking any lack of skill or ability!

SlackDad · 10-01-2006, 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

a.k.a. 'positive discrimination'.
So it's positive discrimination unless the recipient is unhappy with the result, when it becomes tokenism?

The whole problem with PD is that it IS tokenism, since it is impossible to have PD without overlooking any lack of skill or ability!

Positive discrimination will assist an under-represented group who have historically or culturally been disadvantaged. This should not mean, however, that a person from that group would lack any necessary skills and abilities to do the job. Hence, in this case tokenism.

10-01-2006, 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

This should not mean, however, that a person from that group would lack any necessary skills and abilities to do the job.

In this case, what are we talking about? His incompetence despite his training (for it is unthinkable he'd be in the Royal/Diplomatic protection team without it) or the inability of his superiors to gauge his incompetence in the time before his promotion?

Even in the normal business world, sometimes people who work hard, are enthusiastic and appear competent are given opportunities to stretch themselves in more challenging roles. They don't always rise to the challenge. Who's to blame then? The individual for not trying hard enough? Or the individual for not knowing their limits? Or their employer for giving them the chance?

In this case, the race issue has completely overshadowed the matter, and I am not convinced that race is the (whole) issue.

Orior · 10-01-2006, 16:30

He should sue the Court Service for winning his case.

It is obviously positive racial discrimination.

Chrysalis · 10-01-2006, 17:52

I think there is no such thing as a unbiased news mediam, bbc is far from it before anyone suggests likewise. I think the fact they settled out of court suggests he may have had a case although it is far from conclusive that he was fast tracked up the ladder just because he was black.

punky · 10-01-2006, 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

<snip>

Soo... With all that you posted, you failed to even address issue of him being over promoted (hint: tribunals about people not given enough training aren't exactly worthy of headline news) preferring instead to launch into another tirade about the Daily Mail and the original poster.

Yep. That's about business as usual coming from you isn't it?

Oh, and those reports you linked to where pre-tribunal hearing, which is really helpful when you are trying to report on the trial. About as helpful as football commentators commentating half way before the match. And i'll also note those reports both cite his race as the reason for the tribunal, not the lack of training.

**Stuart C** · 10-01-2006, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...%5E663,00.html

Well, well, well, it proves that positive racial discrimination does go on. Its not a fiction of Dail Mail readers' minds.

Again, A couple of cases here and there do not show that is a wide spread occurance.

I don't know how wide spread it is (I suspect no one has an accurate figure), but punky was making the point it goes on. He did not mention widespread positive discrimination.

I agree with punky it goes on, I have actually seen it happening. One of my friends, while perfectly capable of doing his previous job, wasn't offered his job until the agency mentioned that he was technically disabled. This was a programming job at the head office of a certain national building society. It has also happened where I work.

Nugget · 13-01-2006, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera

Don't think it works that way if you are 'ginger' LOL

That's a very good point - I, for one, can't believe that anywhere would still employ me, but I've got away with it again