I’ve no idea how many women firearms officers we have in our 
police force at the moment. Very few, it may seem, because “macho” endurance tests prevent them from promotion into specialist units.
Cambs Chief Constable Julie Spence is president of the British Association for Women in Policing and has called for a change in “outdated” assessments of upper-body strength and the introduction of a fresh job-related selection process which checks a range of skills including mental and tactical ability.
Currently, the key test to get into most specialist teams is an endurance “bleep test”. That involves running between two points against the clock and a push-pull arm strength test. She said:
“If you want a firearms officer, can they shoot straight, are they tactically aware, will the community be put in danger with this individual?
“Do they have the right mental mindset to actually be using a gun? So if you answer all that, you then look at fitness as a developmental tool.”
How can we stamp out sexism from the police force? It is a subject close to the heart of Julie Spence. I’m sure it is only a matter of time before these outdated “macho” tests are replaced with more appropriate assessments. Let’s hope our first female Home Secretary Jacqui Smith offers her full support.
In a police force which does NOT carry guns, physical fitness and strength is clearly very important _ and the reduction in standards of height/ strength/ fitness in the UK police forces in recent years has surely been a triumph of political correctness? But I had no idea women had to go thru these strength tests simply in order to carry a gun in the police. It seems absurd, completely counter-intuitive and is obviously sexist! Surely, it is the carrying of guns by the police which should allow them not restrict their recruitment to tall, burly males but to welcome women and shorter men too _ anyone with the right attitude. Cops who carry guns do NOT need to be big and strong: I remember seeing a tiny female police officer in New York subdue and handcuff a very bulky man over 7 feet tall (the contrast in physique was comical) _ how? Because she had a gun pointed at him!
But the women in these firearms units would only be able to work 2.5-3 weeks a month anyway. The other week/week and a half they would be deemed too emotionaly unstable to be carrying a gun.
Sim-O, I hope some policewomen find this post and respond to your sexist comment.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of criminals are women. Do you think it is appropriate that unarmed policewomen should tackle violent male criminals? Or do you think that all policewomen on the beat should carry guns?
I blogged this only last week… I’m not sure that Mrs Spence was either right or professional in the things she said…. and she also contadicted herself at the end… More press release than heartfelt forward vision methinks!
There are many women in the job suitable for firearms, and just as many men unsuitable…
The female officers I work with are first class, as are the men. they don’t expect any “special” treatment. why should they?
I see what you mean now!
Well I would expect all firearms officers to be able to exert themselves by having to run and still be able to shoot a weapon accurately.
To be fair I know a lot of female colleagues who can run faster and further than me, so they should be able to pass the level required. As I can.
WW, Women police offers would be trained to deal with violent male criminals and I certainly don’t want all our officers to carry guns, regardless of their sex.
Firstly …
Happy New Year !
Secondly …
I think that all British cops should be armed routinely with tazers – both men AND women.
The Tactical Firearms Groups are a different thing altogether though. They are involved in SAS style building and vehicle entries. Speed and impact are crucial and as an ex cop I’ve been up close at one of these deployments – they are very fast and blistering “shock and awe” is how I would describe it. you really need the very best you can get in this situation and if most women can’t reach the current assesment standards then I’m sorry, they are not ‘the best’ – period.
I think that the women who have already reached the current standards (which I would have failed incidentally) and who have been succesfully operating on these squads for years would agree with me totally.
I dont agree. Having witnessed, first hand, the special forces unit in action against BIG & DANGEROUS criminals in a special tactics operation against organsied crime, I can assure you it is no place for anyone who does not have the upper body stength, and that applies to quite a few men as well.
Waving a gun about does not mean you do not need strength.
Our police are armed and I have frinds who are police men.
They often tell me that they cannot rely on their partners in a “situation” because they have to take their weakness into account ( eg in a brawl situation).
AnyHoo!!!
HAPPY NEW YEAR ELLEE!!! :o)
Love our trip to England!
PS:- I DO agree with electro-kevin (just in case my previous comment was mis-understood)! Sorry mate,I should have read yours before posting mine!
I guess its like putting a woman into the english rugby forward pack… Its nice for equality until she gets injured
The police are going to come up against the same dangers, be they men or women.
I would like to know how many female police officers APPLY to firearms, and how many fail because they can’t pass the fitness test. As a female officer myself, I am completely against positive discrimination to help us “poor weak defenceless” women get into a department. The test for firearms is not especially high on the scale of fitness – any healthy, able person of any gender should be able to pass it with a little bit of training.
It is good to consider whether the push-pull test is relevant – the problem with it is that it takes no account of the applicant’s own weight. A light-framed woman/man doesn’t NEED to be as strong as a giant one.
That said, standards shouldn’t be lowered because people think women can’t get fit or strong – who is really the sexist then? The standard should be where it needs to be to do the job – if it ISN’T, then there’s a problem which does need addressing.
Personally I think part of what CC Spence said is right – that fitness is not the most important thing. From my experience of firearms in the police, the armed officers do no more running than unarmed ones – in fact less. They should be trained in the fitness they require for the job when on their training course, and if they can’t show competence at the end of it they should be failed.
On another note, Ellee I never did stop blogging!
Standards should not be lowered just because women are under-represented in armed response units. It’s a ridculous suggestion.
Women are under-represented in every premiership football team. Are you hoping that the Sports Minister will address this blatant sexism!?!
I say keep things as they are..and I am in total agreement with Electro-Kevin and Simon.
I don’t think it is Sexism at all…I mean would they change it for “smaller or Weaker men” even if they could fire straight and had the mental mindset.
I’m only being flippant and, apparently, not very funny.
So, how many women do apply for firearms duty? If there is a lower percentage than male, why is this?
What is the failure rate of female applicants?
You cannot just apply a ‘ooh, need more women, so the selection process needs changing’ with out taking into account other factors.
Jobs in firearms don’t attract female applicants the way jobs in domestic violence don’t attract male ones. I don’t know why this is the case, but I suspect it has a lot to do with parents pressing army toys and transformers into their sons’ hands and dollies into their daughters’.
If we’re talking about sexism in the police, talk about the way pregnant women are treated. The quickest way to put your career on hold for 2-3 years is to have a baby. Few forces allow pregnant women to do any kind of meaningful work and once she comes back to work, she is given whatever hours she wants and encouraged to stay away from response work or anything too taxing for her pretty little head.
I have plenty of examples of real sexism in the police that could get me into trouble… but I don’t think firearms recruitment is one of them. I could be wrong – it’s been known.
Well, I agree with your first commenter and the police officers or former officers who have commented here know what they are talking about on this one!
I don’t understand. Why do we need firearms officers in the police, I mean it doesn’t gain more “detections” does it!
Great topic Ellee and interesting debate too. Our cops over here are armed, women and men, and we have both sexes on the beat and at every level in the Force.
A hot issue I see. As Miss Smack said, it works just fine in North America. You may all be interested to know that the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian police force, is a woman. Bev Busson and no one is respected more.
Interesting that the commissioner of the Mounties is a woman. Yay! We could take a leaf out of their book….
JMB and Flowerpot, well Julie Spence is a chief constable, which is high ranking.
Ellee, I think we even have a female Commissioner here. Not in MY state, but in one of our states, there is a female Commissioner.
I’m more concerned that police officers can retire after just thirty years and that more and more constabularies now have more retired officers than serving ones!
Chief Constable Spence isn’t saying the standard should be lowered for femail officers she is saying that the testing should be job related – as an armed officer you have to be fit mentally and physically however how does pushing and pulling help you shoot a target?