A universal rule for police and military fitness produced an overwhelming Yes, but the room’s most coherent case quietly narrowed “universal” into something more practical: standards should follow the work. The vote was less a demand for one national hurdle than a rejection of physical unfitness in roles where people may have to pursue, restrain, carry or protect.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case reached back to service tradition: “We always used to in the forces in the old days”, before making the broader point that an unfit force risks being “buggered if some toe rag got onto his toes”. Another Yes voice put it more formally: “An unfit military and police force is unfit to serve by definition.” The argument was readiness, not aesthetics: fitness as part of being able to do the job and protect colleagues.
The lone No contribution was also the debate’s essential qualification: “No because the question is too broad.” It argued that someone in intelligence, radar analysis or desk work should not face the same test as a frontline officer, and several Yes voters effectively agreed, calling for fitness to be “role-specific” or accepting that “some officers are interview and investigational personnel”.
That convergence was sharper than the headline. Voters backed regular checks, but repeatedly allowed for age, injury, redeployment and the difference between operational and laboratory work; one Yes argument said there was “more to police and defence forces than running around”. The chamber’s position was therefore conditional rather than punitive: maintain a meaningful standard, adjust it to the role, and do not discard experience simply because one test no longer fits.
The room was emphatic about competence, but more careful about enforcement than the score alone suggests. Its verdict was not “one test for everyone”; it was fitness as a condition of service, sensibly matched to the service.
9 Opinions
No because the question is too broad. Not every police or military role requires the same level of physical fitness - someone analysing radar, intelligence or doing desk work doesn't need the same fitness standard as frontline personnel. Fitness requirements should be role-specific, not universal
For their own health as well as duties required they should have regular appropriate checks. However it has to be linked to the job they do. I don't need to sprint 100m in the DNA lab. Age adjusted, injury adjusted or we will be losing experience & ability. There is more to police and defence forces than running around. Like a lot of things, a few edge cases make headlines provoking a blanket reaction.
We always used to in the forces in the old days (who remembers the BFT &CFT). I don't see why things should change today. I'd also suggest things like the police service need basic levels of fitness. I often look at today's coppers & think you'd be buggered if some toe rag got onto his toes & you tried to chase him?
Wouldn't hurt majority of people to do some physical exercises. ! I think it's Japan that do 30 min exercise before work??
Physical competence is intrinsic to roles in which personnel may be required to pursue, restrain, carry or protect others under considerable stress. A meaningful, role-appropriate fitness standard should therefore be a condition of service, tested regularly. Where someone can no longer meet the standard, that should normally mean redeployment to a suitable role rather than simply lowering the requirement for the role itself.
Yes they should be fit enough to do the job but also those jobs that have no requirement to be fit (desk bound) should still be encouraged to keep as fit as possible to their circmstances
Policing should be split into 2. Community and opperational. Community can have women and men under 5' 10'. Police should be intimidating boehmoths. Its a hark back but noone wants a wee lassie with a chip on their shoulder telling you what to do. Fitness is a must after these physical attributes. A donut eating cop is catching noone.
Yes if they are active field officers, some officers are interview and investigational personnel and fitness would not effect their role
An unfit military and police force is unfit to serve by definition. Both need to be well honed and properly equipped for their tasks. It is absolutely right that they should have high requirements to entry when you consider the inherent risks to them and their colleagues.