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

[DerekFaker]

I shouldn't laugh really. But I did.

Victoria Police officers have searched the force’s Frankston station and interviewed several officers accused of claiming to be non-binary to fraudulently claim more money for civilian clothing allowances.

Chief Commissioner Shane Patton announced a probe into the issue in July, after reports that some male officers had been rorting a discrepancy in the force’s clothing allowance by identifying as non-binary.

Under the scheme, female officers are entitled to claim about $1300 more than male colleagues.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/seven-police-interviewed-station-raided-over-false-non-binary-claims-20230815-p5dwso.html

That’s hilarious.

And how on earth are they going to prove whether these officers are non binary or not???

But that would never happen. Nobody would go to all that trouble just to claim a bit of extra money.

Thanks for the update Derek. I remember reading about this when they first announced the probe. It would be indeed hilarious, except that Victoria is one of the states that also has some very problematic law changes including the hate laws and 'conversion' therapy laws.

I mean, of course, people will take advantage of this. Why wouldn't they? Considering it is very inexpensive to declare yourself either the opposite sex or NB and change your documentation as many times as you wish there, why would people not do it?

Surely the real question is "why do women get more clothing allowance than men ?"
if it was the other way round there would be an outrage

Perhaps the clothing allowance is more because items that are required that are specifically designed for women are more expensive than those for men? I doubt it's because the police force just felt like giving women $1300 more than men to be sexist.

I can't see how they can possibly make this stick. Unless there is a clause in the clothing allowance that to claim the enhanced rate you must purchase and indeed wear women's clothing to work, surely the whole tenet of NB and self ID is you can present as a man at all times but still say you are a woman. So how can thr force investigate these officers while at the same time upholding this charade ?

Clothing allowance will be for plain clothed staff that do not wear uniform to work. So the same as everyone else.
Any police-specific clothing such as stab/ballistics vests or PPE would be issued by the force so officers would not be having to purchase these.

Acceptance without exception, isn't it? By questioning these officers identity they're definitely not being affirming. Might that put them at risk of falling foul of the Conversion Therapy laws? I'm shook 😳

@DaphneDeloresMoreheadRidesOn is all uniform provided for uniformed staff? Or do staff have to purchase some of it themselves? Not the stab vest type stuff, but uniform trousers/shirts/jackets/shoes/hats/coats etc?

It won't be uniform. It will be for staff/officers in plain clothes roles.
DH got clothing allowance when he worked in CID. This is because officers are supplying their own clothes compared to uniform roles. Specialist equipment was supplied by thr force (standard issue utility belt, stab vest etc)

They are who they say they are, so who are Victoria Police to question the officers at Frankston? Self Id is just that, it cannot be doubted especially as no-one would like about it.

That's funny. How can anyone prove someone is non-binary or not?

You can't say they have to wear skirts or lippy because not every woman does.

Make stupid laws and then expect them not to be exploited.

Sorry, just read the article more carefully. It does say for civilian clothing. So I guess that whatever their dress code is for women results in higher expenses, hence the higher allowance.

I would bet on the outcome of this investigation being that the additional $1300 is removed from women, in order to prevent the "non-binary" loophole from being exploited.

How can anyone prove someone is non-binary or not?

That's easy. Hair colour.

What on earth did they hope to find in their search?!

Taking it down a legal route to find proof of something whose accepted 'factual' basis is wholly predicated on personal feelings and/or what people claim is madness.

Think how much money the world could save if we can move on from court rooms, judges, juries and burdens of proof:

"Did you commit this crime?"
"No, I didn't - not guilty."
"Fab, that's that established then; sorry for your inconvenience."

Unless the officers have stupidly put their intention to fiddle the system in writing them I fail see see how the fuck they are going to prove anything.

Presumably if you are gender fluid you may need more clothing...
System of self ID for effectively a cash bonus means this is wide open to taking the mick.

I'm with @RoseslnTheHospital :

I would bet on the outcome of this investigation being that the additional $1300 is removed from women, in order to prevent the "non-binary" loophole from being exploited.

Are there any Australian posters who could put $1300 in context? How much clothing does that actually buy there?

as long as what they bought was rainbow dungarees they’ll be fine

This is an update from the insta account that initially highlighted the issue.

I could do with a bit less public expression from genderists, really

I Googled the reason for the higher female civilian clothing allowance, but couldn't find anything exactly on that topic. There was a mention that tights used to be a separate allowance for female police officers when they were required to wear skirts as they would have been an extra expense men didn't have.

The only other comment I saw (by just someone commenting) was that a particular civilian outfit (say trousers and a jacket) would cost more when it was for women than for men, because of the average price and quality differences between male and female clothing, and that if women were expected to wear makeup (why?), then their expenses would be higher for that reason, too.

So yes, it would be good to know the thinking behind the different compensations.

I'm giggling at the actively express their non-conforming gender identity

What does that mean? Does wear the occasional pink t-shirt count as female 🤔