Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Daily Mail
February 19, 2014
Two ‘petite’ firearms officers are set to receive a pay-out of £70,000 after winning a sex discrimination case over the size of their big guns.
Victoria Wheatley and Rachael Giles said their weapons were too big for their small hands and as a result they could not reach the trigger, a tribunal has heard.
The two women struggled with the grip of the pistols they were using – a Glock 17 – and they also claimed their heads and legs were too small for their protective gear.
The case, held at the Central London Employment Tribunal last week, found the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) guilty of discrimination against both officers in the provision of suitable firearms and safety equipment.
It is understood the officers are set to receive £35,000 each after winning the case against the force – but there is expected to be an appeal.
The decision comes after a number of extraordinary cases where police forces across the country have had to pay out thousands in compensation to officers due to injuries at work – including £8,000 to a policeman bitten by fleas.
The two officers were based at different stations in the north west, with Miss Wheatley part of the armed unit which protects the Sellafield atomic complex in Cumbria and Miss Giles based at Chapelcross, near Annan.
Both females, who were described as being ‘petite in stature’ and with ‘small hands’, asked on several occasions for a smaller and suitable grip on the weapon when they could not reach the trigger, but this did not happen, the tribunal heard.
They also said their trainers failed to adjust their pistols while carrying out a test shoot.
They both complained separately about their problems, after it is understood they did not receive as high a test marks as their male colleagues which put them at a disadvantage.
Their solicitor, Binder Bansel, of Pattinson & Brewer, said that every officer joining at the rank of constable or sergeant is required to train to recognised standards as an authorised firearms officer and maintain the standard.
A cycle of annual training shoots tests their ability which they must undertake as part of their job.
Mr Bansel said: ‘Continued failure at these shoot days results in an unsatisfactory assessment, which could lead to the officer being dismissed.’ Miss Wheatley, 39, and Miss Giles, 32, also said there were other problems during the tests, including protection equipment which did not fit.
They argued the helmets and kneepads were too large for their legs and heads which hindered their performance.
They also argued they were too short for a wooden barricade, which was used as a resting place for the firearm.
