Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops N E W L O N D O N

[VCheng]

Well in such a case it is not about precision or interpretation its more about upholding the law be it weird or plain stupid...

Whats the IQ cut off point to be a judge? You know so you dont ask questions regarding stupid laws and uphold them with closed eyes?

You are confusing laws with policies, perhaps intentionally. The claimant alleged discrimination, but failed to prove it. End of case.

 

[Dubious]

You are confusing laws with policies, perhaps intentionally. The claimant alleged discrimination, but failed to prove it. End of case.

I am not using the case...Like I said earlier American suing habits are a joke...

I am looking at the way the law was upheld even when it made no sense and MAYBE wrong:

because it matters not whether the city’s decision was correct so long as it was rational.

 

[VCheng]

I am not using the case...Like I said earlier American suing habits are a joke...

I am looking at the way the law was upheld even when it made no sense and MAYBE wrong:

The case was not about judging whether the city's stance was right or wrong. The case was about whether any discrimination occurred against the claimant. There was none.

 

[Dubious]

The case was not about judging whether the city's stance was right or wrong. The case was about whether any discrimination occurred against the claimant. There was none.

I already agreed with that...Maybe you missed that ...

My point was regarding HOW the case was judged not WHAT it was judging....

I am not bothered about the discrimination but the law itself....

keeping low intelligent people to guard security of the people...

Isnt the security of the people important enough to put in people who need to make quick decisions? Meaning intelligent people? Who probably also could add 2 and 2 and know trouble from hints thrown left and right rather than people to whom you need to spell it all out?

In layman's term it says we justify the hiring of dumb people to protect you people even if it may be wrong it is rational? The government does not find it wrong to have dumb people in charge of the security of the people? bravo!
The green part is based on assumptions that because you are clever instead of relying you may make better choices ...they lean towards you may get bored?
Now I know why you have a negative and cynical approach...Just look at crap the law makers make you swallow WHOLE without chewing!

I just saw how screwed the system is!

Like I said just coz the department + judge thinks the decision is "rational" and constitution ...even if it may be wrong it was upheld!

I think the law should be flexible enough to see its own stupid notions!

As long as its in the law lets clear up room for the next case....forget how wrong it sounds....

Yea I think the word needing to be used is POLICY rather than law! Sorry my bad on that one!