Seven police interviewed, station raided over ‘false’ non-binary claims

submitted by jet199 from (theage.com.au)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wylanderuk 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I am thinking maybe its plain clothes officers that get the clothing allowance as for why it exists in the first place as for it being higher for them than males? Woke shithole...

[–]IMissPorn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I guess, there's probably some truth to the idea that women's clothing can be more expensive, but it seems like a weird system. Assuming the purpose is for undercover cops as you guess, you'd think they could keep a little better track, at least have them itemize what it's for (like "Drug dealer outfit - $70), not just give them a flat amount every month.

[–]wylanderuk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah I am pulling my opinion from it being plainclothes is because they say its "majority of a CIU (crime investigation unit)" so not necessarily undercover, but not uniformed officers.

[–]IMissPorn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ah, hmm. So maybe it's more like "The uniformed police get their clothing provided, shouldn't why get something too?" if so, then yeah, I have to agree with your assessment that there's no good reason for women to get more money.

[–]wylanderuk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I was thinking "they have uniforms why a clothing allowance?" till I got to the bit I quoted in the article.