Last updated on September 21st, 2023 at 04:54 pm
Reading Time: 2 minutesI saw a Tweet from Policy Exchange yesterday. To say that it irked me somewhat is putting it mildly.
https://twitter.com/Policy_Exchange/status/840932683790323712
So, Police Constables and Sergeants are in the bottom 10 diverse occupations with a diversity rating of 0.11 (later).
I asked them what the diversity rating was for Inspectors and above;
@Policy_Exchange What is the figure for Police Inspectors and above then?
— Alan Wright (@Alanw47) March 12, 2017
They replied;
@Alanw47 we excluded any occupation with less than 50 observations in the data so probably sample size too small for us to cover here
— Policy Exchange (@Policy_Exchange) March 12, 2017
I couldn’t resist helping them out;
.@Policy_Exchange I might be able to help you out there pic.twitter.com/2YcdnRtWnk
— Alan Wright (@Alanw47) March 12, 2017
At this point Ian Wiggett asked them a very good question;
@Alanw47@Policy_Exchange so how do we get from 6.4% to 0.11? What does the 0.11 refer to?
— Ian Wiggett (@Wiggett_IE) March 12, 2017
Their reply was superb;
@Wiggett_IE @Alanw47 see the methodology at the end of the report: https://t.co/pFvewUSigY
— Policy Exchange (@Policy_Exchange) March 12, 2017
So I looked at the quoted report, and believe you me, I didn’t get beyond “Index of Pluralism“. WTF is one of those? So I decided to make it easier for Policy Exchange to understand, good old fashioned percentages, including those too small to be measured;
So, really the problem, if one exists, is with Chief Officers, and not with the lower or middle ranks at all.
Oh, and incidentally, politicians and Think Tank staff don’t seem to figure anywhere in the 200+ occupations listed in the report.
Are Police Constables and Sergeants a concern? No more so in my view than any other rank, and far less than Chief Officers. Maybe Policy Exchange should start at the top instead of engaging in even more Frontline Kicking, so favoured by our illustrious government.