Recommended Posts

Firstly, please stop reading the Daily Heil - they hate coppers and deserve no more attention than a piece of tissue that is discarded after blowing one's nose during a particularly heavy cold.

 

Secondly, a minimum standard would seem to be reasonably sensible.........you know, along with a minimum height and weight - otherwise one might find oneself blown away in a stiff breeze........and it stands to reason that should your contact lenses/glasses fail (for whatever reason) then a certain standard of vision would be required to protect yourself and/or your colleagues or the public........whether the current minimum standard was too high is another matter I guess.

 

Let's put it this way, if my mate loses his glasses and his standard of vision is such that he can only discern rough shapes and figures at 50 metres, and I happen to be one of those shapes that's getting a kicking from the other one of those shapes, then I'd be a bit miffed if he turned up late for the party and said something like "I couldn't see what you were dealing with".

 

At some point, things start to become a risk, and I'm already put at enough risk day-to-day due to staff shortages/budget cuts, without allowing somebody to Braille their way to my assistance.

 

The minimum standard (unaided) was 6/18 for AFOs, but that stopped being an issue a few years ago, and only aided vision was important.  I guess, if it's not an issue for an AFO, then it's not an issue for anybody else.  Of course, the people making the decisions aren't the ones who are going to be affected............

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, please stop reading the Daily Heil - they hate coppers and deserve no more attention than a piece of tissue that is discarded after blowing one's nose during a particularly heavy cold.

 

Secondly, a minimum standard would seem to be reasonably sensible.........you know, along with a minimum height and weight - otherwise one might find oneself blown away in a stiff breeze........and it stands to reason that should your contact lenses/glasses fail (for whatever reason) then a certain standard of vision would be required to protect yourself and/or your colleagues or the public........whether the current minimum standard was too high is another matter I guess.

 

Let's put it this way, if my mate loses his glasses and his standard of vision is such that he can only discern rough shapes and figures at 50 metres, and I happen to be one of those shapes that's getting a kicking from the other one of those shapes, then I'd be a bit miffed if he turned up late for the party and said something like "I couldn't see what you were dealing with".

 

At some point, things start to become a risk, and I'm already put at enough risk day-to-day due to staff shortages/budget cuts, without allowing somebody to Braille their way to my assistance.

 

The minimum standard (unaided) was 6/18 for AFOs, but that stopped being an issue a few years ago, and only aided vision was important.  I guess, if it's not an issue for an AFO, then it's not an issue for anybody else.  Of course, the people making the decisions aren't the ones who are going to be affected............

I do understand where you're coming from with regards to the glasses, however, I can assure you that this after a more than a substantial amount of time of wearing contact lenses that they do not 'fail' for any reason.

Maybe looking at what the CNC do (unaided vision standards don't apply for contact lenses wearers only) would be a better option if this is what everyone seems to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand where you're coming from with regards to the glasses, however, I can assure you that this after a more than a substantial amount of time of wearing contact lenses that they do not 'fail' for any reason.

 

 

Erm.  I've had one pop out when I've rubbed it, granted only once, but it has happened, and I've managed to get one stuck further round my eye than it should have been.............and I've had a few times when my eyes have just felt really gritty, to the point when I've had to resort to glasses.........

 

I agree, that once in you can practically forget them but, like all things, they can misbehave with the vagries of the human body.

 

Still, I prefer them to the risk of having my eyes lasered.......<shudders>

 

 

When I'm done with this job, then I'll happily go weeks, and hopefully the rest of my life, not having to wear them.........but I digress......

 

 

I'm going to guess that a few surveys have been done and found that lenses are pretty much 'safe' (in terms of 'failing' through dislodgement, wear, etc.) and so once they're in, the wearer is at no more risk of not being able to see than anybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of people - estimated at between 15 and 20% of the population who need aids to see clearly who cannot wear contact lenses. I am one of those. 

 

Apart from anything else, there are recorded cases of people who wore contacts and following a fall (A fall can equal a punch?) the contacts moved around the eye itself and needed surgery to retrieve them.  On another point, CNC don't have the regular contact with drunks, bent on doing as much damage to an officer, when compared to an officer working on the public streets.

 

For me anyway it is another lowering of standards, like many other things connected with the Office of Constable brought about by the cost cutting and some may think, needless changes 'all' in the name of 'progress'.

 

I have just seen the previous post which was uploaded when I was typing this one, the 1st 3 lines bears out what I have been saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm.  I've had one pop out when I've rubbed it, granted only once, but it has happened, and I've managed to get one stuck further round my eye than it should have been.............and I've had a few times when my eyes have just felt really gritty, to the point when I've had to resort to glasses.........

 

I agree, that once in you can practically forget them but, like all things, they can misbehave with the vagries of the human body.

 

Still, I prefer them to the risk of having my eyes lasered.......<shudders>

 

 

When I'm done with this job, then I'll happily go weeks, and hopefully the rest of my life, not having to wear them.........but I digress......

 

 

I'm going to guess that a few surveys have been done and found that lenses are pretty much 'safe' (in terms of 'failing' through dislodgement, wear, etc.) and so once they're in, the wearer is at no more risk of not being able to see than anybody else.

What's the risk with having eyes lasered? I'd jump at the opportunity to have it done. With all the new advancements there's an EXTREMELY low risk of anything going wrong? But I know what you mean with the contacts, you would be well and truly screwed if both dislodged and went all gritty. However, I've got these extended wear contacts which you can even sleep in which almost eliminate this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off-topic, but there are known risks associated with having your eyes lasered - infection is just one of them.  I know that they've got better in recent years, but as with any surgery, there are risks.  And it's your eyes - it's not like you can get grow a new pair, or get them replaced.........so, better safe than sorry with lenses, IMHO. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are allowed to join the force with crappy eyes say aged 21, what state are they going to be in when he/she is aged 60 or so and not far off retirement.......or ........will he/she have been compelled to take medical retirement due to failing eyesight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is reported that the suggestion comes from the College of Policing, so why should we be surprised, Whether you like it or not certain physical and medical requirements are an absolute necessity.

Spectacles or contact lenses can be highly dangerous under some circumstances. Think of a building site and health and safety which requires safety clothing to be worn. Now put that into the arguement over Police and Policing duties, and it is a no brained. If you have joined and then have an eye sight problem requiring glasses then that is a different problem. I had to wear glasses with around 25 years in. My problem became worse with cateract. I underwent surgery which resulted in perfect eye sight with no need for glasses, and no it did not hurt at all even though I was quietly capping myself.

Ther are certain requirements which are a must, for joiners, and eye sight is one of them

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can envisage the day when you just won't need qualifications of any sort to enter the Police Service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except to have education to the level of PHD or a professorship and still be unsuitable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except to have education to the level of PHD or a professorship and still be unsuitable.

Yes PHD, and not a scrap of common sense or practical ability. Sounds like a Chief Constable material.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.