Colour blind claim is pie in the sky

The following letter was "Comment of the day" in the Evening Times "Your View" on Saturday August 30 2008:-

Your story (August 27) about graduate Robin Dixon whose application to join the police was rejected because he was colour blind, said he had lost a disability discrimination claim against Strathclyde Police.

And yet he has now won the right to claim sex discrimination on the grounds that colour-blindness affects more men than women.

Who is this man going to claim against? Surely not his parents for passing on a hereditary gene? No, he's going to sue the police, saying it's their fault.

What is the world coming to when claims like this are even given the time of day.

Some jobs, including the police, have stringent medical conditions applied to them because of the work involved.

Find something else to do with your time and our money, Mr Dixon. Police have more important matters to deal with.

Robert Borthwick

Arden

The following response has been submitted by AbsolutelyPC to "Your View" for their consideration.

Dear Sir,

Robert Borthwick raises important points in your "Comment of the Day" letter of 30th August.

He is quite correct in emphasising that, for police recruitment, stringent conditions apply to issues such as medical fitness and eyesight standards. So important are these issues that they are part of Police Regulations laid down by the Scottish Government - and these Regulations state that Mr Dixon and Mr McCullie are both fit to perform the work of an operational police constable.

It must be a matter of great concern to the public served by Strathclyde Police that this force, which exists to uphold the law, is willing, so blatantly and deliberately, to flaunt their own Regulations.

Mr Borthwick also, quite appropriately, raises the question of the use of "our" money. It must be reasonable to ask why Strathclyde Police are so readily willing to use and to risk public money, in efforts designed to block the reasonable course of Justice and Human Rights, when all they needed to do was follow their own Regulations.

The risk to the public purse is not limited to Mr Dixon and Mr McCullie. There are at least 14 others who could be entitled to bring similar actions, some of whom may now be serving police officers with other forces, and every future rejection for the same reasons could result in a future risk to the public purse.

It is a pity that Mr Dixon was never afforded the opportunity to have his claim of Disability heard, since there is an ongoing need to clarify the status of colour vision as a disability. This is especially so when, as in this case, employers place unjustifiable obstacles in a persons way to employment.

What is absolutely clear is that there continues to exist within Strathclyde Police, ignorance and outdated attitudes towards certain issues, which brings into question their claims to be an employer of equal opportunity.

In understanding the issue of colour vision, it is important to understand that neither Mr Dixon nor Mr McCullie are blind. Neither are they unable to see and identify colours. They may,indeed, be able to see some colour that other cannot see. They may also be able to see colour in some situations where "normal" vision is limited.

In most situations colour vision "abnormality" makes no difference to a persons life or capability. In some situations it can be an asset.

While their colour perception may be slightly different from the majority, it is similar to a significant minority of the population. Just because they are different is no reason for anyone to discriminate against them - that is the simple issue in the cases these two men have taken to Tribunal.

yours

AbsolutelyPC

http://politically-correct.blogspot.com/

Editors Note
Mr Dixon's claim of Disability Discrimination was never heard at an Employment Tribunal due to the employment of legal technicalities by Strathclyde Police which resulted in a determination that the claim had been submitted a few days late.