Aspies in the UK Police Force?

[Juliettaa]

Screw the Tories and their anti disabled stance

Another statement that's simply not true. The Tories or any other political party do not have an 'anti disabled stance'. That appears to be your 'go to' mindset to blame others for your employment status. Sometimes there doesn't need to be blame for anything; it's just the way it is.

There are countless people, me included, with multiple disabilities as defined under the Equalities Act who are employed.

Introspection would help you more than your blanket blaming statements as it's far more likely that your negative mindset is preventing you from gaining meaningful employment as I would hazard a guess that this is how you come across in person and anyone interviewing you would easily pick this up.

 

[pjcnet]

SYP kind of know me from when I volunteered for them in a different capacity a few years back.

Also, regarding the finances, yes I see that being on disability might be a barrier, but legally it shouldn't be, and the Police more than anybody are bound by anti discrimination law.

I was once told they were exempt from the equality laws but I asked on a Police forum I used to post on and they said that was wrong.

There are times where a disability makes a person unsuitable for a job even if there are anti-discrimination laws, for instance, a person in a wheelchair wouldn't be suitable working as a labourer on a building site and a vulnerable adult would not be suitable in the role of a police officer, even as a special constable because they still have the same warrant card and will be exposed to all sorts of criminals as part of their job. Many criminals will look for weakness, their nature is not to be fair, if there is any vulnerability many will purposely take advantage, this could be psychological or physically. An autistic person would not be suitable if they weren't observant, good at processing body language and a good diplomat, something that many autistic people would struggle with. You'd also need to be-able to write reports / statements and there is bound to be occasions where you'd have to give evidence in court. Even under cross examination in court a police officer would be expected to remain calm, talk clearly and objectively, they'd be for instance no room for meltdowns or any special treatment as a police officer in court. Also do you think that violent criminals on the street would back off if you had a meltdown and couldn't handle it? It's not an easy job and I can understand why they have to be so strict in most cases.

Some of the strict checks are a bit harsh in my opinion however, for instance if a person has ever had debt issues and got a CCJ or made an IVA they're automatically disqualified no matter what during the vetting process. If someone was for instance 18 years old and got into debt, it could have been through no fault of their own when they were made redundant, then even 20 years later they'd still be punished and prejudiced again for it. Even if it was someone's fault they got into debt, there shouldn't be a life sentence of discrimination, someone could be amazing at money management and still made mistakes many years ago. This part of the vetting process is in my opinion unfair and should be looked at on an individual basis. I can understand them refusing someone if they're not currently able to look after their finances properly, but it's totally wrong to punish people for something from a long time ago that may not even be their fault if they're able to look after their finances now. If someone is made redundant it could be because the company has gone into liquidation, then how are they supposed to pay their immediate bills? How unfair to directly hold this against someone even 20 years later, preventing them from getting certain jobs?

It would not be for a full time PC, it would only be part time (minimum 4 hours a week).

I could quite easily manage to work about 2 shifts a week 4 hours without much juggling, that's 32 hours a month.

But I do see the point, I'm on benefits through no fault of my own, am disabled and am an Aspie.

WHY can't I get a job? ANY job?! Am I totally unemployable?! Have I wasted the last 20 odd years of my life in voluntary work?!

Screw the Tories and their anti disabled stance.

Well as I've said on another thread I believe that some employers are prejudiced against people with autism and disabilities, it's easy for them to find another reason for not employing you that doesn't make it look like they've breached anti-discrimination laws. That said I do believe you will find a job eventually and as I've said many times I have a lot of respect for you for trying so hard, many people in similar situations just give up, in fact many people who aren't even disabled will just sit on benefits and do the barest minimum they can get away with to keep their benefits. Remember you worked voluntarily for years and this surely must mean something, I would definitely put this on any applications even if you're concerned about a reference because it's a big thing, it shows you're not lazy and are willing to work even for no pay. Don't give up, your time will come, perhaps look for help in filling out applications better and/or interview techniques. When you get a job we will have to have an online celebration of some sort.

Regarding the last part, well as a UK citizen I tend to agree, but this could be debated properly with a separate thread in the Politics and Religion section.

 

[Starfire]

It would not be for a full time PC, it would only be part time (minimum 4 hours a week).

I could quite easily manage to work about 2 shifts a week 4 hours without much juggling, that's 32 hours a month.

But I do see the point, I'm on benefits through no fault of my own, am disabled and am an Aspie.

WHY can't I get a job? ANY job?! Am I totally unemployable?! Have I wasted the last 20 odd years of my life in voluntary work?!

**** the Tories and their anti disabled stance.

Rich, were you in paid employment between 1997 and 2010?

No one has suggested that you are on benefits through any fault of your own, however by accepting and receiving the benefits that you do, you have been deemed unemployable.

The reason why you can’t find any job is briefly firstly your attitude, secondly your inability to work more than a very limited amount of hours per week, and thirdly you keep applying for jobs which you are unsuited for, unqualified for, or unable to do realistically. When you are turned down you cry victim to government policies, regardless of who is in power.

 

[Starfire]

There are times where a disability makes a person unsuitable for a job even if there are anti-discrimination laws, for instance, a person in a wheelchair wouldn't be suitable working as a labourer on a building site and a vulnerable adult would not be suitable in the role of a police officer, even as a special constable because they still have the same warrant card and will be exposed to all sorts of criminals as part of their job. Many criminals will look for weakness, their nature is not to be fair, if there is any vulnerability many will purposely take advantage, this could be psychological or physically. An autistic person would not be suitable if they weren't observant, good at processing body language and a good diplomat, something that many autistic people would struggle with. You'd also need to be-able to write reports / statements and there is bound to be occasions where you'd have to give evidence in court. Do you think that violent criminals will back off if you had a meltdown and couldn't handle it? It's not an easy job and I can understand why they have to be so strict in most cases.

Some of the strict checks are a bit harsh in my opinion however, for instance if a person has ever had debt issues and got a CCJ or made an IVA they're automatically disqualified no matter what during the vetting process. If someone was for instance 18 years old and got into debt, it could have been through no fault of their own when they were made redundant, then even 20 years later they'd still be punished and prejudiced again for it. Even if it was someone's fault they got into debt, there shouldn't be a life sentence of discrimination, someone could be amazing at money management and still made mistakes many years ago. This part of the vetting process is in my opinion unfair and should be looked at on an individual basis. I can understand them refusing someone if they're not currently able to look after their finances properly, but it's totally wrong to punish people for something from a long time ago that may not even be their fault if they're able to look after their finances now. If someone is made redundant it could be because the company has gone into liquidation, then how are they supposed to pay their immediate bills? How unfair to directly hold this against someone even 20 years later, preventing them from getting certain jobs?

I don’t believe what you wrote about past debt issues is correct, have a look at this under the financial position section.

Eligibility and Vetting

 

[WildCat]

There's fitness and psychological assessments, neither of which (honestly) you're probably not going to pass based on your patterns of behavior here and...well, do you get any meaningful exercise? With employers taking advantage of the information age and all the revealing information people share on the internet, it's not a far shot to say any potential employer will do research on you and form a conclusion based on what you've shared so far. Seeing as you use your full name, that makes that task all the easier for them.

Rich, you keep on posting and posting about your struggles and hardships and just about everyone here - in spite of your overall attitude and your refusal to actually listen and take in what other people are telling you - has had nothing short of a saint's patience with you. You're not the only one here (or anywhere else for that matter) going through this, and you're not the center of the universe. Enough is enough: if you want a shot at any kind of employment, start with your attitude, start listening to people with experience and start learning to think for yourself every now and then.

Do you really want to be helpless when your parents eventually pass away and you've no system in place to sustain yourself? Go ahead and call me whatever you like and get it out, go ahead and put me in a box with the rest of the Americans that you supposedly have disdain for, but guess what? I have to deal with this thing called "life" as much as you do and as much as the next person (and the next person, and so forth...). You and I both have to face reality sooner or later, you and I both have to find solutions to our problems and to move forward without the training wheels attached. You and I both succumb to negativity, thinking there's no way out...and all the while, the key is so close yet out of reach. Should I go on? Stop being afraid to be human, which is what you are. Not a statistic, someone with a disability, a label or any other nonsense. A human. Make mistakes, learn from them, learn from others, try a different approach, keep your head up...if you've got the intelligence to realize you have a problem (and you do, whether or not you know it), you've got the intelligence to do something about it. So do it.

 

[Mr Allen]

Another statement that's simply not true. The Tories or any other political party do not have an 'anti disabled stance'. That appears to be your 'go to' mindset to blame others for your employment status. Sometimes there doesn't need to be blame for anything; it's just the way it is.

There are countless people, me included, with multiple disabilities as defined under the Equalities Act who are employed.

Introspection would help you more than your blanket blaming statements as it's far more likely that your negative mindset is preventing you from gaining meaningful employment as I would hazard a guess that this is how you come across in person and anyone interviewing you would easily pick this up.

Have you not heard of the countless suicides when people are declared fit for work and their benefits are stopped? The government/DWP has blood on their hands IMO.

 

[Juliettaa]

Have you not heard of the countless suicides when people are declared fit for work and their benefits are stopped? The government/DWP has blood on their hands IMO.

What's that got to do with your initial posts? An 'add on' to suit your political argument perhaps?

Interesting that you've quoted my post and ignored all other posts.

As stated before, some introspection may help you move forward from your lack of employment and negative mindset.

 

[Starfire]

Have you not heard of the countless suicides when people are declared fit for work and their benefits are stopped? The government/DWP has blood on their hands IMO.

The fact that you have not been declared fit for work, speaks volumes.

 

[pjcnet]

I don’t believe what you wrote about past debt issues is correct, have a look at this under the financial position section.

Eligibility and Vetting

I wouldn't be so sure:

• Applicants who have existing County Court Judgments (CCJs) or who have been registered bankrupt and their bankruptcy debts have not been discharged will not be considered.

• Where financial checks reveal that applicants have defaulted credit accounts, it is our policy not to proceed with the application until the defaults have been satisfied.

It doesn't mention a time frame on any of this, it does states, "Applicants who have discharged CCJs may be considered.", but it doesn't say they will be either and that's normally after 6 years unless it's paid in full. The police are likely to be-able to see both CCJs and defaults on your record even after 6 years and it's bound to go against you in my opinion, especially if it was never paid in full whether it was your fault or not.

How could you be expected to for instance pay your mortgage and credit card bills after you're made redundant, the current weekly pay in the UK for people on JSA (Jobseekers Allowance) is as follows:

Age - JSA weekly amount
Up to 24 - up to £57.90 (roughly $78.77)
25 or over - up to £73.10 (roughly $99.44)
Couples (both aged over 18) - up to £114.85 (roughly $156.24)

(£ to $ converted at the rate of £1 = $1.36 which it is at the time of writing.)

A mortgage payment alone can cost much more than this at an average of £780 per month in the UK, then with electric / gas, water, food, clothing, repairs and probably other bills there definitely wouldn't be anything left for any other debts, in fact it's almost impossible to live on JSA even without paying debts and NO, housing benefit doesn't pay mortgage interest to freeze it if you're made redundant, well not for at least 12 months anyway and even then they'd only pay up to a certain amount which means many people still have to sell their home, this is how so many people lose their homes and you can struggle to even get redundancy payment protection insurance with some jobs. Life is often really unfair, but then you're often punished even more in future for it when you're looked down upon by organisations like police recruitment.

 

[Starfire]

I wouldn't be so sure:

• Applicants who have existing County Court Judgments (CCJs) or who have been registered bankrupt and their bankruptcy debts have not been discharged will not be considered.

• Where financial checks reveal that applicants have defaulted credit accounts, it is our policy not to proceed with the application until the defaults have been satisfied.

It doesn't mention a time frame on any of this, it does states, "Applicants who have discharged CCJs may be considered.", but it doesn't say they will be either and that's normally after 6 years unless it's paid in full. The police are likely to be-able to see both CCJs and defaults on your record even after 6 years and it's bound to go against you in my opinion, especially if it was never paid in full whether it was your fault or not.

How could you be expected to for instance pay your mortgage and credit card bills after you're made redundant, the current weekly pay in the UK for people on JSA (Jobseekers Allowance) is as follows:

Age - JSA weekly amount
Up to 24 - up to £57.90 (roughly $78.77)
25 or over - up to £73.10 (roughly $99.44)
Couples (both aged over 18) - up to £114.85 (roughly $156.24)

(£ to $ converted at the rate of £1 = $1.36 which it is at the time of writing.)

A mortgage payment alone can cost much more than this, especially if you're single, then with electric, food and all the other bills there definitely wouldn't be anything left for any other debts.

It does mention a time frame-

• “Applicants who have discharged CCJs may be considered. Applicants who have been registered bankrupt and their bankruptcy debts have been discharged will only be considered after 3 years from the discharge of the debt.”

They are obviously very careful about hiring people with proven unstable financial situations due to this -

• “Police staff are in a privileged position with regard to access to information and could be considered potentially vulnerable to corruption. Applicants should not therefore be under pressure from un-discharged debts or liabilities and should be able to manage loans and debts sensibly.”

 

[Starfire]

Northumbria Police say at the top of the page “Check you meet our requirements before submitting an application” and go on to say -

“Most applicants have debts, such as mortgages, undischarged student or other loans, and credit/store card debts. Whilst this is generally accepted, applicants to the police service should not be under pressure from undischarged debts or liabilities and should be able to manage loans and debts sensibly. The emphasis is on sensible management of debt.

If you have a discharged County Court Judgement you may be considered. However we will not accept you if you have an existing County Court Judgement outstanding against you.

If you have been registered as bankrupt and your bankruptcy debts have been discharged, you will be considered after three years from discharge of the debt. However, we will not accept you if you have been registered bankrupt and your bankruptcy debts have not been discharged.”

 

[Mr Allen]

I have never and it's highly unlikely I will ever, have CCJs.

I've also never been in debt, well I have sometimes owed me Dad a couple of quid, but that doesn't count.

 

[Judge]

I have never and it's highly unlikely I will ever, have CCJs.

I've also never been in debt, well I have sometimes owed me Dad a couple of quid, but that doesn't count.

There's a basic tenet of financial underwriting you probably haven't considered in this instance.

Having bad credit is better than having no credit at all.

Even bad credit can be gauged and assessed in terms of rehabilitation relative to interest rates. Though in terms of personal fidelity it reflects poorly on people in general for any number of reasons whether one considers this fair or not. It's just a very standardized yet imperfect practice in the private sector, let alone public sector vetting processes involving national security concerns.

Having no viable credit history leaves those assessing you with nothing to work with. A critical "roadblock" for those involved in a vetting process to determine fidelity and national security considerations. Where the subject of their investigation involves a middle-aged man with no history of a paying job or viable credit history whose finances are in the control of their parents. When you need to ascertain that you pay all your bills in your own name with your own resources. And even then, that doesn't trump not having a credit history.

Do you see where this leads to relative to those who must assess you in terms of fidelity? In matters of national security they don't take leaps of faith. They don't guess or assume. They function only in terms of hard evidence based on their own protocols.

 

[Mr Allen]

So, in the intervening years, have those physical
disabilities improved? If not, the likelihood of
passing the physical has not changed.

Well I have lost weight since then.

I still can't do push ups or sit ups though

 

[Mr Allen]

The fact that you have not been declared fit for work, speaks volumes.

Exactly, and in some ways, IMO what the Daily Fail has been saying about me is correct, if I can and have done all the voluntary work I've done over the last 20 odd years, in theory I should be able to do some kind of paid work.

However, I refuse on principle to be plonked into some government sponsored 2 quid a day disabled specific non job to "massage the unemployment figures", I'm better than that.

 

[Juliettaa]

However, I refuse on principle to be plonked into some government sponsored 2 quid a day disabled specific non job to "massage the unemployment figures", I'm better than that.

I would like to see you provide some links to the £2 per day non jobs.

 

[Starfire]

I would like to see you provide some links to the £2 per day non jobs.

Rich is well aware that £2 per day jobs don’t exist yet he continues this line. This nonsense was put to bed some time ago in this thread -

Would you take an Aspie specific job, even if it was for rubbish money because you were on benefits?

 

[Juliettaa]

Rich is well aware that £2 per day jobs don’t exist yet he continues this line. This nonsense was put to bed some time ago in this thread -

Would you take an Aspie specific job, even if it was for rubbish money because you were on benefits?

No surprise there



Rich, you really seem to have a complete block with reflecting on how you come across. Your 'political' arguments hold no weight whatsoever and your questions about jobs are unrealistic in terms of your expectations and your capabilities.

You may think you're worth far more than what's available on the job market, but prospective employers cannot see your worth otherwise you'd have been snapped up 100 times over.

A healthy dose of realism around your opinion of yourself and your capabilities would serve you well. There's nothing wrong with starting a job on the bottom rung of the ladder and working your way up; but for you, only the chief executive position is good enough. Failing that, you spout on about the government screwing people over as it suits your argument.

But I guess you don't want to hear that as you've repeatedly ignored the posts on here and selectively picked out what you wanted to quote.

 

[Judge]

Have I wasted the last 20 odd years of my life in voluntary work?

Wasted? No, I don't think so. However there's probably something you should be aware of at this point. That there's a bias in the job market on the part of some, but not all prospective employers:

Those who insist there's no incentive to demonstrate or expect optimal performance without paid wages. That in essence there's no expectation of a concerted effort when it comes to volunteer work in general.

A school of thought you may encounter anywhere along the spectrum of employers and occupations. One that has a certain degree of logic, and not necessarily tied to any political ideology.

 

[Mr Allen]

I would like to see you provide some links to the £2 per day non jobs.

Remploy for one.