No. That is not it by any means. They're initiating a yearly wellness test, and cops that come up short three times in succession could have their pay brought down.
The issue here is that the press in the UK (and the US) imagine that being labeled "overweight" or "large" is the very same thing as being physically unfit. The connection between "being flabby" and "overweight and lazy or weak" is so set in their brains that they are utilizing the two ideas conversely as a part of a pay and position priority.
The underlying driver: Reuter's mistakenly titled article, Obese UK cops face pay cuts. Reuter's is one of the world's greatest news administrations, and numerous daily papers duplicate their articles with no further research, if not word-for-word. In the event that you stumble across this story now, a percentage of the features are more accurate. In any case, when this story initially turned up on my newsfeed yesterday, the features were reliably as numbskull as the ones above. This is presumably on the grounds that the prior articles were all the more intensely dependant on Reuters.
In light of these features, it appears that most individuals from the press don't comprehend what "overweight" and "stout" mean. "Overweight" is characterized as a BMI somewhere around 25 and 30 and "large" is characterized as a BMI more than 30. A 5'- 8" tall individual who weighs 165 (11 stone) is overweight. A 5'- 8" tall individual who weighs 200 pounds (14 stone) is corpulent.
There are a lot of individuals who fall into those classifications who are extremely fit and capable of as running quickly over long distances. Also, learn to expect the unexpected. Individuals whose BMIs fall into the "ordinary" level and particularly the "underweight" territory can be extremely unfit. In this way, this isn't about being overweight or fat by any stretch of the imagination. It will (apparently) hit unfit, slender cops generally as hard as unfit, fat officers.
Presently, I don't have the foggiest idea about the points of interest of this wellness test. I trust that it takes more than simply running to prove fit enough, since let's be realistic. Heavier individuals do have a tendency to be more grounded while lighter individuals have a tendency to be quicker, and both of those qualities can be helpful to a cop. Fight and flight, isn't that so?
I likewise trust that they're taking age, experience, and the sort of work these officers do into thought. Some more established officers might be less physically fit yet have better judgment; better mental and enthusiastic wellness for the occupation. A few officers might have old wounds that breaking point their execution on the wellness test, or they might have a physical handicap. They might be working in the office area instead of strolling a beat. Officers should be fit for their specific part.
All the more significantly, being an impeccable physical example doesn't compensate for being a good for having poor judgement. Being underweight, languid at work, being a domineering jerk, being a supremacist, or any of the other major defects that have infrequently been seen in officers of the law. Truth be told, if the thought is to transform the British Police Services into an Order of Modern Supermen* then maybe these issues ought to be considerably higher need than physical wellness?
Having a consistent wellness test for cops is not an insane thought, insofar as it's utilized fittingly and with sound judgment.
Be that as it may, for Christsakes, The classifications "overweight" and "corpulent" depend on weight/tallness proportions, not level of wellness.