Yes won comfortably, yet the most-respected No cases were arguably the more worked-out ones, and several Yes voters conceded half of them.
The top Yes case was blunt common sense about jobs: “if I didn't meet the requirements for my job, I would be dismissed”, with a firefighter who can't climb a ladder as the clincher. Others were shorter and punchier: “Crime fighters not fat fighters.” One wrote that officers must be able to “run away from rioters for your own safety”, and another was tired of YouTube clips of five officers failing to take down one offender.
The most-respected No cases shared a single move: don't sack, redeploy. Voters pointed to administrative, investigative and cyber roles, and one said “There are plenty of useful office based jobs they can do.” Another noted that the army trains its people in army time and the police don't, so fitness would mean employing trainers and building in hours. A further No voter stressed that physical fitness is “only one aspect of capability”.
The sides were closer than the margin suggests. Many Yes voters carved out desk-based staff, and one grew impatient with No voters for fixating on them, saying the rule could simply apply to front-line officers. Where they truly parted was on whether failure after support should end a career or end a posting.
No voters raised retention, arguing that automatic dismissal would worsen thin staffing. No Yes voter's reply on that point topped the ratings, so the argument for keeping experience went largely unrebutted even as the vote went the other way.
50 Opinions
Believe it or not, if I didn't meet the requirements for my job, I would be dismissed... Police officers should be the same, if their specific role requires patrol, facing the public etc, then a fitness to conduct the duty is not something that should be viewed as harsh. If a fireman couldn't climb a ladder, there's no place for them as a firefighter is there?!
Officers incapable of doing the job should certainly be removed, subject to appropriate capability procedures. But physical fitness is only one aspect of capability so a more holistic approach is needed.
Depends on their duties. Are they patrol officers walking a beat? Then yes. Are they a detective who goes to a crime scene and not chasing a random criminal? Then no.
Standards of police have dropped dramatically in the last few years. Let’s go back to police being of a stature and their allegiance to the country first.
No , there are many back office roles that dont require fitness plus the army provide physical training in army time , the police doesnt , you would have to employ PTs and factor in training time
I think there should be a fitness test for entry, but if a very experienced officer fails then I don’t think they should be dismissed. There are plenty of useful office based jobs they can do. We shouldn’t waste the experience.
No, I'm against this. Retention is already critically low due to heavy workloads, brutal shift patterns, and constant bureaucracy-not to mention the daily mental toll. When you can earn more driving a train without the same hostility, automatic dismissals will only worsen staffing. Instead of punishing officers, forces should integrate fitness training into the working day. Policing is exceptionally hard—we shouldn't be making it harder.
While frontline duties require physical fitness, automatic dismissal is an overly punitive approach that ignores better alternatives. Rather than instantly firing officers who fail tests, they should receive targeted health support or be reassigned to essential administrative, investigative, or cyber roles. This retains valuable policing experience while treating public sector workers with fundamental fairness.
You need to be able to run away from rioters for your own safety.
Im not sure why so many people are saying no just because of certain jobs officers have which dont require physical fitness. The simple answer is just make this rule for the front line officers who do have to catch and chase perpetrators every single day.