Sikh police want bulletproof turbans to be developed so they can serve as firearms officers and deal with public order, a newly-formed body says.

The British Sikh Police Association says Sikh officers cannot currently do such jobs, as their religion prohibits removing turbans to wear helmets.

But the organisation's chairman says he now intends to push for more research on suitable ballistic turban material.

The Home Office said each force needed to ensure religions were accommodated.

The British Sikh Police Association, set up last month to give Sikh officers across the UK an "officially recognised voice", said it wanted its members to play a full role in the police.

Sgt Kashmira Singh Mann, chairman of the association, told the BBC News website bulletproof turbans would allow such officers to abide by religious traditions as well as participate in all areas of the police service.

"We are looking at the issue because it stops Sikh officers serving in all roles," said the Thames Valley Police officer who is based in Slough, Berkshire.

"It is a frustration for them - we see our colleagues putting their lives on the line and we want to serve alongside them."

He said research had already begun to find a ballistic material for turbans, but that it would need to be passed by the Home Office before it could be used.

"We have put some feelers out and talks are on the agenda," he added.

The new association aims to support Sikh members of the service - said to number some 2,000 - and help forces to develop strategies to recruit, retain and progress Sikh officers and staff.

The Metropolitan Police Service and West Midlands Police have the largest number of Sikh staff.

West Midlands Police last year denied spending £100,000 on trying to adapt safety helmets to fit over turbans.

However, it said it had been working to solve the headgear issue, which it described as "problematic".

On the issue of bulletproof turbans, a Home Office spokeswoman said the government wanted a police service that "reflected the diverse communities it served".

"The more closely the police service reflects the people it serves, the more effectively it can protect and support that community," she said.

"It is down to individual forces to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the religion of individual officers," she added.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am a tolerant person. But this just beyond comprehension. I respect your religion just fine, but it is not up to the Police force to accommodate your religious choice when designing equipment, it is their job to design equipment that will work in 99% of cases. What next? Kevlar Kippah? Stab Proof Mormon Underwear?

Well i respect their devotion to their religion ( even though its weird for westerner's point of view i guess ) so i support it.

Can't they just, like, glue the turban on top of the helmet?

So it's like a turban-helmet? Or something?

That's what I'd do.

The problem is, they cannot fit the helmets designed for 99% of the Police force because of a Religious Choice. I'm all for letting people believe in whatever imaginary friends they want, but to ask (and knowing the way things work in the UK, it will soon be "Forced, with several people being Sacked") for them to spend a huge amount of money to accommodate you is beyond reasonable.

If I were to say I am a Jedi (a legal "Religion" in the UK now) and that according to my religion I must have Pink Flowers on all my protective bodygear and if you don't I will sue you, how can I be considered reasonable?

Gwar, I know, for a fact, that you already have pink flowers on your protective bodygear.

They could just not wear helmets.

Get a really big, thick turban and that'll protect you! Make it from strips of Kevlar.

Sounds like the British police force isn't thinking outside of the box on this one.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Gwar, I know, for a fact, that you already have pink flowers on your protective bodygear.

This may be true, But I don't get the Government (and by Extention, the Public's Tax Money) to pay for it do i?

Gwar! wrote:
If I were to say I am a Jedi (a legal "Religion" in the UK now)

It's not. It was put on the census after all the fuss and as they twigged it would help attract more people to actually fill in the poxy things in the first place, but the figures were folded into the atheist numbers in the final count.

linky

It would be fine if the Sikh organisation was paying. But instead the taxpayer is. Yes plenty of Sikh's are paying tax - but tax already has a lot better things to do. (And a lot of worse things that we shouldn't be doing but that is a different argument).

Maybe it has to due with some historical understanding: the Great Rebellion
If you want a population, you need to accommodate their needs, especially if they are already accommodating yours.

What's wrong with bullet proof turbans? Religion is big to lots of peoples. These people are citizens and not only pay taxes but want to serve. Besides bullet proof turbans sound cool!

"I'm all for letting people believe in whatever imaginary friends they want."

No need to be Insulting, I wouldn't call you an emty-souled godless heathen.

I find it interesting you fear beaing forced to do something,while at the same time wanted to force somebody else to conform to your standards. They shouldn't have to conform, Power to the people, V for Vendetta!

I don't see what the Grot Rebellion has to do with anything. As far as I know, that didn't last very long. It was also my understanding that cross necklaces were the religious items of preference when it came to blocking bullets (or that one last bullet, typically).

I don't see what the big deal is GWAR. The technology exists to make bullet proof headgear out of kevlar/composite materials. If it's possible to accomodate the Sikhs that is reasonable and isn't too burdonsome on the police force, I'm in favor of it.

GG

sexiest_hero wrote:No need to be Insulting, I wouldn't call you an emty-souled godless heathen.

You just did

And I have as much right to say my opinion as they do to practice their religion. I am not inciting hatred or any of that nonsense, and I apply it to whatever religion you want to be (Christian, Jew, Muslim etc), but to force a Secular Police force to unreasonably meet the demands of a tiny amount of Officers is, well, Unreasonable.

generalgrog wrote:I don't see what the big deal is GWAR. The technology exists to make bullet proof headgear out of kevlar/composite materials. If it's possible to accomodate the Sikhs that is reasonable and isn't too burdonsome on the police force, I'm in favor of it.

GG

That's not the point. I don't mind it. What I am saying is that I feel that it just starts them down an even more slippery slope than they are already on. If Sikhs get special headgear, why cant my Stab Proof Vest me made out of Kosher Materials?

to: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
I was pointing it out in reference to the problems that arise with ignoring the religious beliefs of people that serve in the military or police.
The Enfield cartridges in particular.
I thought it relevant as some cultural background, and why making accommodations for varied religious belief might be accepted.

Gwar!: why cant my Stab Proof Vest me made out of Kosher Materials

Are synthetics not Kosher?

Belphegor wrote:

Gwar!: why cant my Stab Proof Vest me made out of Kosher Materials

Are synthetics not Kosher?

Dude, you have NO idea how complex the rules are for Kosher Items. You do know they have a company in Israel that makes Kosher Telephones for the Orthodox Community?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I don't see what the Grot Rebellion has to do with anything.

The just cause of The Revolution has to do with everything, ork sympathiser!

I definately need a kevlar kippah.

sA

Gwar!: Dude, you have NO idea how complex the rules are for Kosher Items. You do know they have a company in Israel that makes Kosher Telephones for the Orthodox Community?

I don't know the complex rules for Kosher items.
What makes a Telephone Kosher?
Do you have a link?

Gwar! wrote:The problem is, they cannot fit the helmets designed for 99% of the Police force because of a Religious Choice. I'm all for letting people believe in whatever imaginary friends they want, but to ask (and knowing the way things work in the UK, it will soon be "Forced, with several people being Sacked") for them to spend a huge amount of money to accommodate you is beyond reasonable.

If I were to say I am a Jedi (a legal "Religion" in the UK now) and that according to my religion I must have Pink Flowers on all my protective bodygear and if you don't I will sue you, how can I be considered reasonable?

I'm not a citizen of the UK, but I don't see the problem. And I'm hardly a champion of equality and political correctness. How expensive would it really be to accommodate these requests? Even given expense, is it unreasonable, from a practical standpoint, to provide this so that you'll have more motivated and less resentful civil servants? Speaking of Kosher, would you be against providing Kosher or Halal meals to soldiers or policemen, even though it is surely more expensive to do so? I also don't think this is an endorsement of religion by a secular body...I think it is removing religious barriers to participate in said secular body.

Most importantly, am I the only person who thinks a bulletproof turban would be cool as hell?

Grignard wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The problem is, they cannot fit the helmets designed for 99% of the Police force because of a Religious Choice. I'm all for letting people believe in whatever imaginary friends they want, but to ask (and knowing the way things work in the UK, it will soon be "Forced, with several people being Sacked") for them to spend a huge amount of money to accommodate you is beyond reasonable.

If I were to say I am a Jedi (a legal "Religion" in the UK now) and that according to my religion I must have Pink Flowers on all my protective bodygear and if you don't I will sue you, how can I be considered reasonable?

I'm not a citizen of the UK, but I don't see the problem. And I'm hardly a champion of equality and political correctness. How expensive would it really be to accommodate these requests? Even given expense, is it unreasonable, from a practical standpoint, to provide this so that you'll have more motivated and less resentful civil servants? Speaking of Kosher, would you be against providing Kosher or Halal meals to soldiers or policemen, even though it is surely more expensive to do so? I also don't think this is an endorsement of religion by a secular body...I think it is removing religious barriers to participate in said secular body.

Most importantly, am I the only person who thinks a bulletproof turban would be cool as hell?

Well if you start doing that, what is to stop Devout Christians forcing the Police force not to serve Meat on Fridays and then suing them for Offence if they allow anyone else to eat it? A Secular Force should be that, Secular. It doesn't support 1 Religion over another. This IS a clear example of doing just that.

As for the rules for Kosher, this site gives a very brief overview of what the rules (for food anyway) are, and here is a news story about Kosher telephones.

Oh come on now, next thing you know we might be seeing more Gurkha bobbies.

BrookM wrote:Oh come on now, next thing you know we might be seeing more Gurkha bobbies.

Errr, Letting people who fought and died (OK not the people who actually died but you know what I mean) for the Crown to live in the country they so valiantly served and spending taxpayers money because a tiny amount of bobbies want their religion treated better than everyone else's are hardly comparable.

You really sound like the kind of guy who reads the Sun and takes it serious.

BrookM wrote:You really sound like the kind of guy who reads the Sun and takes it serious.

Now I take that as a Serious Insult and I want an apology. I'm fething serious. I would rather cut off my testicles with a spoon than read that racist gak. As I said before, I am not some BNP skinhead. I am actually very liberal and not even "fully" English (I've Russian and Italian Blood in me so I do) but I still feel that this is just another example of the failure of "Multiculturalism". If you want to live in England, you abide by English laws and practices. if that means you are one of the 0.0001% of people who cannot wear a protective helmet because of a choice you make, then that is your problem, not the taxpayers. yes I know it is your "religion" that you cannot take it off, but that doesn;t mean we have to bend over backwards for you.

Go to London and make a case of it? You seem very passionate about it.

BrookM wrote:Go to London and make a case of it? You seem very passionate about it.

I cant. I so much as think it is wrong I'll be arrested for "inciting hatred" and kept locked up for 43 days without charge.

So what does this Ballistic Turban do? Raise your Ballistic Skill by 2? How many points does it cost? My Big Mek could sure use one...

Gwar! wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The problem is, they cannot fit the helmets designed for 99% of the Police force because of a Religious Choice. I'm all for letting people believe in whatever imaginary friends they want, but to ask (and knowing the way things work in the UK, it will soon be "Forced, with several people being Sacked") for them to spend a huge amount of money to accommodate you is beyond reasonable.

If I were to say I am a Jedi (a legal "Religion" in the UK now) and that according to my religion I must have Pink Flowers on all my protective bodygear and if you don't I will sue you, how can I be considered reasonable?

I'm not a citizen of the UK, but I don't see the problem. And I'm hardly a champion of equality and political correctness. How expensive would it really be to accommodate these requests? Even given expense, is it unreasonable, from a practical standpoint, to provide this so that you'll have more motivated and less resentful civil servants? Speaking of Kosher, would you be against providing Kosher or Halal meals to soldiers or policemen, even though it is surely more expensive to do so? I also don't think this is an endorsement of religion by a secular body...I think it is removing religious barriers to participate in said secular body.

Most importantly, am I the only person who thinks a bulletproof turban would be cool as hell?

Well if you start doing that, what is to stop Devout Christians forcing the Police force not to serve Meat on Fridays and then suing them for Offence if they allow anyone else to eat it? A Secular Force should be that, Secular. It doesn't support 1 Religion over another. This IS a clear example of doing just that.

As for the rules for Kosher, this site gives a very brief overview of what the rules (for food anyway) are, and here is a news story about Kosher telephones.

That is a bad analogy and a slippery slope. It doesn't sound like they are forcing anyone to do anything. They aren't making everyone else wear turbans. In fact, in the strictest sense, they're not even asking for special equipment, just a different variation of standard kit. There is even a precedent for this....did the British empire not equip local forces fighting for them with a mix of "modern" equipment and their traditional garb way back in the 19th century? I know Americans on both sides in the civil war sometimes adopted "foreign" uniform styles for romantic effect, at least until the war got serious and stopped being a game.

Gwar! wrote:

BrookM wrote:Go to London and make a case of it? You seem very passionate about it.

I cant. I so much as think it is wrong I'll be arrested for "inciting hatred" and kept locked up for 43 days without charge.

I agree that our friends in the UK have gone overboard as far as putting people's sensitivities above freedom of speech, but do you really think you'd be arrested for voicing your opinion that it is a waste of money?

Give them the damn turbans. Who cares. If they are unable to serve because of a religious reason so simple as headgear just develop the damn headgear and get another wave of cops on the street.

Boo hoo gwar, your tax money may possibly at some point be maybe spent on the police forces equipment maybe. Given the ludicrous amount of graft in the UK political system and the laughably needless expenditure in other areas I don't see why you picket this so bad.

I cant. I so much as think it is wrong I'll be arrested for "inciting hatred" and kept locked up for 43 days without charge.

Yeah, you're not important enough for that.

If you want to live in England, you abide by English laws and practices.

Yeah, I'm sorry but english laws and practices have nothing to do with headgear. You're just drawing a ridiculous line in the sand when what you should be doing is championing the inclusion of mixed ethno/religious units in your police force. Are you pissed off that schools have to serve vegetarian meals too? A governments job is to accommodate the needs of its populace, not follow your "british way".

I want a ballistic yarmulke.

Will it be a turban with a chinstrap?

Sorry, I really cant see the issue here.

Lets not forget that many Sikhs fought and died to protect the commonwealth and the turban formed a part of their uniform. If its good enough for them to wear on our behalf in battle then there no reason to disallow them to wear one whilst policing us.

Its nothing to do with pandering to minorities. It's a simple gesture of respect to a group of people doing a very dangerous job which benefits all of society.

Annnnnd this is one of the many overly PC reasons why so many real problems never get fixed. This is just crazy. For such a small % of the force...and they want a bullet proof headress made just for them. How about we fix some of the problems in the world that are actually important before waisting money on this...maybe some universal health care or something? All these little pointless things governments waist money on adds up over the years.

And dont tell me the force is going to come up with all this money themselves...of course they will get government help coming up with all this cash to waist on something so silly. Even if force did have to pay for all of this....then how about putting this bullet proof headress money to good use....and hiring some people that dont have crazy demands. Using this money to hire more cops...would be money much better spent......

keep waisting money on stupid things...and the real problems never get fixed.

Yeah, or maybe we could spend the money on more police officers. :rolleyes:

brad3104 wrote:Annnnnd this is one of the many overly PC reasons why so many real problems never get fixed. This is just crazy. For such a small % of the force...and they want a bullet proof headress made just for them. How about we fix some of the problems in the world that are actually important before waisting money on this...maybe some universal health care or something? All these little pointless things governments waist money on adds up over the years.

And dont tell me the force is going to come up with all this money themselves...of course they will get government help coming up with all this cash to waist on something so silly. Even if force did have to pay for all of this....then how about putting this bullet proof headress money to good use....and hiring some people that dont have crazy demands. Using this money to hire more cops...would be money much better spent......

keep waisting money on stupid things...and the real problems never get fixed.

No...its not important to *you*, for them, it may be very important. Do you really think that doing this or not would make a difference in something like healthcare? They're going to have to pay for helmets anyhow, what is the big deal with having a different style of helmet for these men? I don't even see this as a PC issue, as nothing is really being forced on anyone here.

There is a lot of hubub here. If I were a cop I'd opt for the bullet proof turban. Those things are stylish and very cool.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Boo hoo gwar, your tax money may possibly at some point be maybe spent on the police forces equipment maybe. Given the ludicrous amount of graft in the UK political system and the laughably needless expenditure in other areas I don't see why you picket this so bad.

You are right! What`s a few million extra pounds for the police when British MPs are claiming 95 million in personal expenses like porn movies, horse manure, plants, one bathtub and the cleaning bill for a persian rug.

M.

No...its not important to *you*, for them, it may be very important.

Then they should pay for it, if the force already supplies an item that is suitable for the job but unsuitable for your fashion tastes you should be fiscally responsible for finding a suitable replacement.

Grignard wrote:

brad3104 wrote:Annnnnd this is one of the many overly PC reasons why so many real problems never get fixed. This is just crazy. For such a small % of the force...and they want a bullet proof headress made just for them. How about we fix some of the problems in the world that are actually important before waisting money on this...maybe some universal health care or something? All these little pointless things governments waist money on adds up over the years.

And dont tell me the force is going to come up with all this money themselves...of course they will get government help coming up with all this cash to waist on something so silly. Even if force did have to pay for all of this....then how about putting this bullet proof headress money to good use....and hiring some people that dont have crazy demands. Using this money to hire more cops...would be money much better spent......

keep waisting money on stupid things...and the real problems never get fixed.

No...its not important to *you*, for them, it may be very important. Do you really think that doing this or not would make a difference in something like healthcare? They're going to have to pay for helmets anyhow, what is the big deal with having a different style of helmet for these men? I don't even see this as a PC issue, as nothing is really being forced on anyone here.

Like i said. This special helmet isnt free. Its going to cost money to devolp and produce all becuase a certain group of people cant remove a headdress for the part of the work day that requires a regular helmet. Tell me this isnt at least a little crazy with a straight face. It would be one thing if this group of people were paying for at least part of this. But nope the police or government will end up picking up the entire tab so they can meet every groups silly demands.

Yes of course new technologies cost money to develop but that doesn’t mean its not worth doing. Besides don't you think that the material and technology required to make such an item will have countless other applications as well? Any cost will easily be recouped.

Its not fair to call this a silly demand, it’s a perfectly reasonable request and pointless rants about 'efl n saftey' or 'PC gorrnn maad' are not only inaccurate but could mean loosing many good potential officers in our firearms units. Or are you seriously suggesting that because they have a different religion they don't deserve the same level of protection as the rest of the force?

Are you seriously suggesting that a certain group of people should be able to have every demmand and want met? no matter how small or silly. There are already helmets that are perfectly fine....every single other police officer seems to be able put one on. Why should this group of people get something special at someone elses expense? If they want special helmets cuz they follow a certain god...it shold come out of their pockets....

I dont like wearing certain pieces of my uniform at work...and i sure would like a different type of uniform. Am i going to get some special treatment? nope. Why should this group of people? And a bullet proof turban seems like a pretty silly reauest to me.

Basically you either want to integrate different cultural groups into your national identity, or you want to exclude and marginalise minority groups.

If you want integration then all reasonable steps should be taken to accommodate minorities. For example, Quakers and other conscientious objectors were allowed to serve in the armed forces in non-combatant positions such as medical services.

A bullet-proof turban sounds perfectly practical and could become a major export item to the Indian police and army, thus easily solving any cost problem.

A nation should never be turning away people who want to serve.

I know the us army is completely open to everybody, Even if you cant fire a gun you can serve as an Chaplin or medical troop. consiter this a smal downpayment for years of additional personnel.

Bullet proof turbans-0.1 of budget.

Inclusion-Priceless

brad3104 wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that a certain group of people should be able to have every demmand and want met? no matter how small or silly. There are already helmets that are perfectly fine....every single other police officer seems to be able put one on. Why should this group of people get something special at someone elses expense? If they want special helmets cuz they follow a certain god...it shold come out of their pockets....

I dont like wearing certain pieces of my uniform at work...and i sure would like a different type of uniform. Am i going to get some special treatment? nope. Why should this group of people? And a bullet proof turban seems like a pretty silly reauest to me.

You can't equate not simply liking somthing to a religious requirement. Doing so makes you sound like a petulant child.

Its not like the officers are asking for a fundemental aspect of the job to be changed for them or to perform any less duties or exposed be exposed to any less danger than non Sikh colleagues. These officers want to serve the country, they want to protect us. I don't see hows its productive or sensible to deny a little flexibily if the end result is a dedicated police officer.

Like it or not integration actually does actually cut both ways. By showing a little give and take you end up with minorities integrating far more sucessfully than by stamping your feet and scream 'Its PC gorn mad' if you see somone with a slightly different hat. Segregation and resentment don't help anyone. Though it does give Daily Mail readers a sense of smug satisfaction.

LuciusAR wrote:

brad3104 wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that a certain group of people should be able to have every demmand and want met? no matter how small or silly. There are already helmets that are perfectly fine....every single other police officer seems to be able put one on. Why should this group of people get something special at someone elses expense? If they want special helmets cuz they follow a certain god...it shold come out of their pockets....

I dont like wearing certain pieces of my uniform at work...and i sure would like a different type of uniform. Am i going to get some special treatment? nope. Why should this group of people? And a bullet proof turban seems like a pretty silly reauest to me.

You can't equate not simply liking somthing to a religious requirement. Doing so makes you sound like a petulant child.

This just sounds like a typical case of ignorant american. It is a rampent problem... way more prevelent in the south but systemic to some degree or another. Curing said problem seems impossible at the moment but might right itself someday.

reds8n wrote:

It's not. It was put on the census after all the fuss and as they twigged it would help attract more people to actually fill in the poxy things in the first place, but the figures were folded into the atheist numbers in the final count.

linky

Jedi was never printed on the census, alot of people just wrote it in on the 'other:please specify' box.

Kilkrazy wrote:

A nation should never be turning away people who want to serve.

Damn right, if we have British Sikhs wanting to serve and protect this nation and LAY THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE, then which part of getting them protective headgear that accommodates their religious views is so difficult to grasp. If the matter was pork on the menu at the canteen for a Jewish police man, it wouldn't be an issue, and that has feth all to do with keeping the officer alive.

"In the last two world wars 83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded. They all died or were wounded for the freedom of Britain and the world, and during shell fire, with no other protection but the turban, the symbol of their faith."
General Sir Frank Messervy

If we have the ability to create a helmet that will keep a Sikh officer alive whilst they defend the rights and uphold the laws of our nation, I am Fully behind this. Frankly if your not, take their place at the front line. This country Is wasting money left right and centre on all manner of stupid and pointless things, this is not one of them.

Gwar, stay the feth away from the Daily Mail.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

A nation should never be turning away people who want to serve.

Damn right, if we have British Sikhs wanting to serve and protect this nation and LAY THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE, then which part of getting them protective headgear that accommodates their religious views is so difficult to grasp. If the matter was pork on the menu at the canteen for a Jewish police man, it wouldn't be an issue, and that has feth all to do with keeping the officer alive.

"In the last two world wars 83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded. They all died or were wounded for the freedom of Britain and the world, and during shell fire, with no other protection but the turban, the symbol of their faith."
General Sir Frank Messervy

If we have the ability to create a helmet that will keep a Sikh officer alive whilst they defend the rights and uphold the laws of our nation, I am Fully behind this. Frankly if your not, take their place at the front line. This country Is wasting money left right and centre on all manner of stupid and pointless things, this is not one of them.

Gwar, stay the feth away from the Daily Mail.

Well said sir.

I dont know how many Sikh police officers there are in the UK. But, this request still seems crazy no matter what...and im glad to see there are some that agree. The reason for wanting a special helmet is personal. The personal reason is ones religion. Why should this group of people be allowed something special, especially at someone elses expense. Well because its religion of course. And the government has to be all PC. You guys have fun talking about this lol. Too many PC religious people in here.

Greebynog wrote:Yeah, or maybe we could spend the money on more police officers. :rolleyes:

Well Said Sir

Gwar! wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Yeah, or maybe we could spend the money on more police officers. :rolleyes:

Well Said Sir

Yup

brad3104 wrote:I dont know how many Sikh police officers there are in the UK. But, this request still seems crazy no matter what...and im glad to see there are some that agree. The reason for wanting a special helmet is personal. The personal reason is ones religion. Why should this group of people be allowed something special, especially at someone elses expense. Well because its religion of course. And the government has to be all PC. You guys have fun talking about this lol. Too many PC religious people in here.

The reason why a particular religious group should be allowed a special helmet is because we want to include all religions in our armed and police forces, as within other aspects of civil society.

If we don't, then we send a clear signal to all non-white, non-Christian citizens that they are second-class and aren't wanted. A sensible nation accepts talent and dedication from people based on their values and behaviour in support of our society, not the colour of their skin or what kind of hat they wear.

Mod:

I got an alert on this thread regarding personal attacks, so I will remind users to confine their statements to the argument and not other individuals.

Rule no.1 etc.

Thank you.

Kilkrazy wrote:

brad3104 wrote:I dont know how many Sikh police officers there are in the UK. But, this request still seems crazy no matter what...and im glad to see there are some that agree. The reason for wanting a special helmet is personal. The personal reason is ones religion. Why should this group of people be allowed something special, especially at someone elses expense. Well because its religion of course. And the government has to be all PC. You guys have fun talking about this lol. Too many PC religious people in here.

The reason why a particular religious group should be allowed a special helmet is because we want to include all religions in our armed and police forces, as within other aspects of civil society.

If we don't, then we send a clear signal to all non-white, non-Christian citizens that they are second-class and aren't wanted. A sensible nation accepts talent and dedication from people based on their values and behaviour in support of our society, not the colour of their skin or what kind of hat they wear.

I disagree. By Pandering to every unreasonable request, the message is that "If you are non-white, non-Christian or Foreign we will treat you better than the other 90% of the country."

The sad part is that is already true in the UK.

No-one's saying unreasonable requests are going to be pandered to.

You assume the request for a ballistic turban is unreasonable, then condemn it.

It's perfectly reasonable for a Sikh to request bulletproof headgear, and if it can be provided for reasonable cost, it should be.

Nearly all English law depends on the concept of reasonable.

Kilkrazy wrote:

If we don't, then we send a clear signal to all non-white, non-Christian citizens that they are second-class and aren't wanted. A sensible nation accepts talent and dedication from people based on their values and behaviour in support of our society, not the colour of their skin or what kind of hat they wear.

Sounds similar to the US army kicking out Arabic translators at a time when we needed them the most on "don't ask don't tell" violations. Highly specialized persons, but well, we can't have them in the army because they might have said they like taking it in the pooper. You know... if they can get the job done, then they should be able to stick it or be stuck wherever they want in their off time.

Kilkrazy wrote:Nearly all English law depends on the concept of reasonable.

That's correct, but how is it reasonable to ask, nay, demand, that the taxpayer foot the bill to develop headgear just because you choose to follow XYZ religion. No matter how you look at it, that is Pandering, plain and simple.

I'm usually against this sort of thing (women that dress up as ninjas and the like) but I have a soft spot for Sikh turbans so I think the taxpayer should fund this.

+1 for bulletproof turbans.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Nearly all English law depends on the concept of reasonable.

That's correct, but how is it reasonable to ask, nay, demand, that the taxpayer foot the bill to develop headgear just because you choose to follow XYZ religion. No matter how you look at it, that is Pandering, plain and simple.

It's perfectly reasonable. Suppose you were a Christian policeman in a Sikh nation and wanted to not wear the regulation ballistic turban because it was a religious symbol you did not adhere to. Or a Jew in a nation whose police for some reason are not allowed to wear headgear.

Also, people don't just choose to follow a particular religion. Most people are brought up in a particular religion, it is an important part of their cultural and personal identity, and they do not abandon or change it on a whim.

If the headgear is extraordinarily expensive, it may be unreasonable to develop it for operational use, however that does not affect the basic principle that it should be considered. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, a good quality ballistic turban would probably sell huge numbers to other turban wearing countries and the project would end up making a profit.

If the said bullet proof turban was sufficiently insulated, would they protect against attacks from 'heat seekhing missiles'?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Nearly all English law depends on the concept of reasonable.

That's correct, but how is it reasonable to ask, nay, demand, that the taxpayer foot the bill to develop headgear just because you choose to follow XYZ religion. No matter how you look at it, that is Pandering, plain and simple.

It's perfectly reasonable. Suppose you were a Christian policeman in a Sikh nation and wanted to not wear the regulation ballistic turban because it was a religious symbol you did not adhere to. Or a Jew in a nation whose police for some reason are not allowed to wear headgear.

Also, people don't just choose to follow a particular religion. Most people are brought up in a particular religion, it is an important part of their cultural and personal identity, and they do not abandon or change it on a whim.

If the headgear is extraordinarily expensive, it may be unreasonable to develop it for operational use, however that does not affect the basic principle that it should be considered. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, a good quality ballistic turban would probably sell huge numbers to other turban wearing countries and the project would end up making a profit.

I think Kilkrazy brings up a good point. I think many of you, even non religious types, would feel a lot different if you were the one serving as a religious minority putting your ass on the line for the nation. Also, not choosing your religion is a very interesting point. I think it is no coincidence that atheism is traditionaly associated with people who are anti authoritarian or strongly individualistic. I don't know much about this culture but I imagine that religion and other aspects of culture become strongly ingrained in them from infancy. At risk of veering off topic, this is why I've come to believe that sexual orientation is not something that is "chosen" later in life ( Oh, it probably *can* be done, but it probably isn't the norm). I'm not saying its necessarily biological in nature, but I think if it isn't it gets imprinted at a early age. Back to the point of religion, I've never been a strong believer, but I sometimes get a little uncomfortable with things that I feel are sacrilegious, and I wasn't even raised with religion, but was merely associated with it.

A good example of this was I knew a guy who had a roomate in college that was Muslim. It wasn't hard to accomodate his thing at parties or whatever, you just got a pizza that was half pork products half not. Interestingly, he would not eat the pieces that were adjacent to the pork, just to be sure. This wasn't the kind of guy who was constantly praying or complaining about the evils of society, he'd even make religious jokes all the time. However, as college kids tend to be idiots sometimes, his classmates decided to do a very mean trick. They told him that something he ate once was pork. Apparently all the color just drained from his face, and he became quite literaly physically ill. Like vomiting physically ill. He had to go do whatever they do whenever they consume a forbidden food. They felt really bad about it afterwards.


Back to the topic at hand, I think a lot of you are using an argument that, oddly enough, I hear most frequently from atheists and fundamentalists. Basically the claim is that if we do this, we'll have to accommodate every single request. Like if I say I have to have a bulletproof pink tutu, you have to accommodate that because I say that is my religion. This is not the case. This is not a couple people creating a religious belief just to be different. This is a case of an established ( probably with tax exempt churches, if it works that way in the UK, it does in the US) religion with a very long history. I also don't think this is an unreasonable request. They're not trying to force this down anyone's throat, and I think it is not unreasonable from a financial standpoint. Equiping a few thousand men like this is hardly going to bring the nation to a halt.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly reasonable. Suppose you were a Christian policeman in a Sikh nation and wanted to not wear the regulation ballistic turban because it was a religious symbol you did not adhere to. Or a Jew in a nation whose police for some reason are not allowed to wear headgear.

Well there is a huge discrepancy there, because you are comparing a religious police force in a de facto religious Country to a secular one in a de facto secular country (even if the UK is de jure CoE.

Kilkrazy wrote:Also, people don't just choose to follow a particular religion. Most people are brought up in a particular religion, it is an important part of their cultural and personal identity, and they do not abandon or change it on a whim.

And therein lies the problem of ALL religion. People are brainwashed from birth to believe whatever their parents believe.

Kilkrazy wrote:If the headgear is extraordinarily expensive, it may be unreasonable to develop it for operational use, however that does not affect the basic principle that it should be considered. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, a good quality ballistic turban would probably sell huge numbers to other turban wearing countries and the project would end up making a profit.

I can Guarantee you that if this were a Christian Sect asking for something, the government would not risk spending a penny, lest the "extremists" make a fuss.

Also, are you actually suggesting that no other country in the world has developed a "bulletproof Turban" already? I'm sure they have, so why cannot the UK government buy them from them?

Grignard wrote:Equiping a few thousand men like this is hardly going to bring the nation to a halt.

Until everyone and their dog starts doing it. it IS a slippery slope, and it will just get worse and worse, given the history of such things in the UK.

Kilkrazy wrote:Basically you either want to integrate different cultural groups into your national identity, or you want to exclude and marginalise minority groups.

If you want integration then all reasonable steps should be taken to accommodate minorities. For example, Quakers and other conscientious objectors were allowed to serve in the armed forces in non-combatant positions such as medical services.

A bullet-proof turban sounds perfectly practical and could become a major export item to the Indian police and army, thus easily solving any cost problem.

A nation should never be turning away people who want to serve.

Perfectly said.

And thats why you are a mod

"And therein lies the problem of ALL religion. People are brainwashed from birth to believe whatever their parents believe."

What about converts. Do you have any Idea how religion works?

You think Christans get the short end of the stick. Lets see them try to change God to Shiva or RA in National prayer day and see how that turns out.

Killkrazy wrote:Also, people don't just choose to follow a particular religion. Most people are brought up in a particular religion, it is an important part of their cultural and personal identity, and they do not abandon or change it on a whim.

Uh, I CHOSE to become Christian. I *did* just choose to follow a particular religion.

Gwar! wrote:I can Guarantee you that if this were a Christian Sect asking for something, the government would not risk spending a penny, lest the "extremists" make a fuss.

Given that there are no compulsory items of clothing for Christians to wear you have nothing to base this statment on other than idle speculation.

That all police officers have the maxium amount of protection from harm goes far beyond a being a mere reasonable request. It's downright essential and money should be no object.

In the past Sikh battalions went to war for us wearing turbans, meaning they where less well protected than the average tommy in his steel helmet. I think the least we can do is even up the balance in the 21st century!

I have no idea whether anyone else has developed a bulletproof turban. I checked the Indian Army website, which wasn't working, and I did a bit of Googling and Wiki-ing, with no results.

If another country has already developed one, what is the objection to buying them for our cops?

If we are the first, then if we develop a good one, we can sell it to other countries.

It appears to me that GWAR's problem has more to do with the fact that the request is related to a religuious issue than anything else. That's the most telling thing to me about his gripe.

GG

LuciusAR wrote:That all police officers have the maxium amount of protection from harm goes far beyond a being a mere reasonable request. It's downright essential and money should be no object.

Money's always an object.

Otherwise they would all have Power Armor, that costs $1,000,000 each.

I'm all for it. If this could save a man's life if he was shot it is worth every penny, you can't put a price on a human life. And if it gets more sikh's to join our police force all the better.

Sikh warriors wore helmets during their days of empire, what changed?

So, the tax i pay should either go towars improving the NHS, or helping to make a fething turban?

sorry, but im against this, if this one goes through then every religion will require special gear to do any jobs.
in the long run tax payers lose out.
its job description, if you cannot or will not follow it for any reason then its time to find a new job.



also, im not sure if anyone can dig out the article, but in kent there was a group of builders, turbans have over ruled health and safetly and can be worn instead of hard hats.
one of them ended up catching a brick to the face, and wanted to sue the building company for it since his turban didnt protect him.
it was his choice to wear it instead of the required hard hat.
he was pretty much told to either follow health and safety, or fins a new job.

Zip Napalm wrote:Sikh warriors wore helmets during their days of empire, what changed?

I did a bit of research on that. It seems that some Sikhs wore small turbans with a helmet on top. Perhaps this could be taken for the design of a modern Sikh ballistic helmet.

Just for the record, this seems borderline-isming to me.

I think the Brits will work it out, as they always do.

Gwar! wrote:Well there is a huge discrepancy there, because you are comparing a religious police force in a de facto religious Country to a secular one in a de facto secular country (even if the UK is de jure CoE.

AH! Treating nationalism as a faith, how utterly Maoist of you. Would you like a little red book?

Gwar! wrote:
And therein lies the problem of ALL religion. People are brainwashed from birth to believe whatever their parents believe.

Yes, they are. This, of course, includes you. Unless you grew up in a house that was defined by parental conflict it is highly unlikely that your ideas will be at all unique with respect to those of your parents. Sorry, people are imprinted. Welcome to the world of determinism, where ideas are not original unless you feel like buying into that particular delusion.

Gwar! wrote:
I can Guarantee you that if this were a Christian Sect asking for something, the government would not risk spending a penny, lest the "extremists" make a fuss.

Speculation.

Gwar! wrote:
Until everyone and their dog starts doing it. it IS a slippery slope, and it will just get worse and worse, given the history of such things in the UK.

It really isn't a slippery slope, because slippery slopes are pure fallacy. Especially in matters of finance.

Its also worth noting that headgear is of extreme significance to Muslims; comparable to the Catholic rosary.

I know!
our country is running out of money fast since it wastes it all on gak we dont need and giving it away.
we might aswell waste more on something we also dont need.

its simple, if something prevents you doing a job, dont do it.

Not liking to be shot prevents infantry from fighting.

Let's lose all our infantry.

Great idea.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well there is a huge discrepancy there, because you are comparing a religious police force in a de facto religious Country to a secular one in a de facto secular country (even if the UK is de jure CoE.

AH! Treating nationalism as a faith, how utterly Maoist of you. Would you like a little red book?

Yeah, let me just get my Copy of Mein Kamph to trade you!

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And therein lies the problem of ALL religion. People are brainwashed from birth to believe whatever their parents believe.

Yes, they are. This, of course, includes you. Unless you grew up in a house that was defined by parental conflict it is highly unlikely that your ideas will be at all unique with respect to those of your parents. Sorry, people are imprinted. Welcome to the world of determinism, where ideas are not original unless you feel like buying into that particular delusion.

Ok, you wanna try and challange my character instead of my argument, here is a little bit about me. I have lived in the UK almost all my life, bar the few years I have been in Ireland. On my Fathers bloodline I am Descended from Catholic Italians, Russian Cossack Jews on my Mothers. Both my Parents are relitvly religious. However, unlike most Parents, they decided NOT to brainwash me and let me make my own choice when I became an Adult, at which time I decided that Religion is all a Giant Crock of gak. So yeah, I am Athiest, but I respect peoples right to worship whatever Imaginary things they want, my Political Views are "Left" or "Socialist", and I feel that no religion should be allowed to claim special treatment.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Until everyone and their dog starts doing it. it IS a slippery slope, and it will just get worse and worse, given the history of such things in the UK.

It really isn't a slippery slope, because slippery slopes are pure fallacy. Especially in matters of finance.

Its also worth noting that headgear is of extreme significance to Muslims; comparable to the Catholic rosary.

Ok then, what about when People start asking to ignore Health And Safety Laws because they want to wear their rosary's in a Mill with lots of moving machinery where it can be caught? Oh wait, that HAS happened (Wearing Turbans instead of Hard Hats), and then they went and sued because they were not following H and S laws. Double Standards much?

JD21290 wrote:I know!
our country is running out of money fast since it wastes it all on gak we dont need and giving it away.
we might aswell waste more on something we also dont need.

its simple, if something prevents you doing a job, dont do it.

QFT

Kilkrazy wrote:Not liking to be shot prevents infantry from fighting.

Let's lose all our infantry.

Great idea.

No, this is wrong and you are deliberately leaving out the relevant bits. You should say "Not liking to be Shot because you want to make your religion more important than your job prevents them from fighting."

Not liking to be shot prevents infantry from fighting.

How about you actually read my posts next time eh?

i didnt say "if you dont like something then dont do it"
i said that if you CANT do something for a certain reason (religion in this case) then dont do it.

Gwar! wrote:Ok, you wanna try and challange my character instead of my argument,

I'm not challenging your character at all. I'm making a statement about the nature of people's beliefs in a fashion which is commensurate with my annoyance relative to your poor imitation of Dicky Dawkins' abysmally derivative argument against religion.

Gwar! wrote:
here is a little bit about me. I have lived in the UK almost all my life, bar the few years I have been in Ireland. On my Fathers bloodline I am Descended from Catholic Italians, Russian Cossack Jews on my Mothers.

Good for you. I don't care in the least.

Gwar! wrote:
Both my Parents are relitvly religious. However, unlike most Parents, they decided NOT to brainwash me and let me make my own choice when I became an Adult, at which time I decided that Religion is all a Giant Crock of gak.

Awesome. Most parents don't actually brainwash their kids by the way. Rather, the larger community simply removes easy access to alternative worldviews. Ever wonder why the vast majority of vehemently religious people live in small communities?

Either way, the people that really understand religion are more than well aware that its nonsense. Its meant to be nonsense. Its a pure invocation of human convention with respect to the world as a whole.

Gwar! wrote:
So yeah, I am Athiest, but I respect peoples right to worship whatever Imaginary things they want,

So, you're an Atheist who respects religion. Interesting. Seems to me like your parents had a significant affect on your outlook after all.

Gwar! wrote:
my Political Views are "Left" or "Socialist", and I feel that no religion should be allowed to claim special treatment.

Christians already get special treatment because, you know, England is a Christian nation. Sorry.

Gwar! wrote:
Ok then, what about when People start asking to ignore Health And Safety Laws because they want to wear their rosary's in a Mill with lots of moving machinery where it can be caught? Oh wait, that HAS happened (Wearing Turbans instead of Hard Hats), and then they went and sued because they were not following H and S laws. Double Standards much?

Too bad. Life is unfair. You think its easy to pick up, or drop, a faith? Convert to Islam! Gain access to the preferential treatment.

In any case, the matter you describe could easily be solved with a simple waiver.

JD21290 wrote:

Not liking to be shot prevents infantry from fighting.

How about you actually read my posts next time eh?

i didnt say "if you dont like something then dont do it"
i said that if you CANT do something for a certain reason (religion in this case) then dont do it.

The distinction between "can't" and "won't" is exceedingly situational. To the point where the state should make as many accommodations as possible in order to ensure openness to service.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
my Political Views are "Left" or "Socialist", and I feel that no religion should be allowed to claim special treatment.

Christians already get special treatment because, you know, England is a Christian nation. Sorry.

Spoken like a true arrogant American. You don't live in the UK, so you don't know. England is a de facto Christian Country, but it gets no special treatment at all. In fact, over the course of the Bush years, Christians in the US got far more special Treatment, even though you are a "Secular" country.

Well to be quite honest, you would only see something liek this happen in the UK. we are too soft on all this human rights milarchy,

dont get me wrong, im not suggesting i hate them or anything like that, i fully respect their views etc, but they must understandthat they cant demand things like a kevlar turban, just put a helmet on cover it wit ha turban ... problem solved.

My great grandma said it, and now i know why ... "Come the revolution"

So Grots may get their way after all

but back to a more serious note, If they allow this that means religious groups all over britain will start to dmeand for littel thiungs like this to be changed, and if they dont get it they will sue probablly ... that is a bit harsh i know but its what i see will happen.

Gwar! wrote:Spoken like a true arrogant American. You don't live in the UK, so you don't know. England is a de facto Christian Country, but it gets no special treatment at all. In fact, over the course of the Bush years, Christians in the US got far more special Treatment, even though you are a "Secular" country.

Christians in the US don't actually have any special legal standing. Much as they have no special legal standing in the UK. You're making a ridiculous argument which entirely ignores the institutional force of Christian custom when viewed by an outsider who evolved in an entirely different tradition. Everything you do in your daily life, from eating to putting on clothes, is symbolic of Christendom because you live in Christendom.

Also, it seems you don't know what secular means. Allow me to enlighten you. Secular derives from the Latin 'saecularis' which means 'of the present world'. In the modern context this generally taken to mean 'without religion', but that isn't at all what the word actually means. Rather, the specific meaning of the term is 'worldly or temporal'. It is pragmatism bent against faith. The kind of thing which entails recognition of various religions; including those which hold a large degree of conventional influence. Like Christianity in England.

Wolf wrote:but back to a more serious note, If they allow this that means religious groups all over britain will start to dmeand for littel thiungs like this to be changed, and if they dont get it they will sue probablly ... that is a bit harsh i know but its what i see will happen.

I know right? It's actually gotten to the point where Police cannot arrest suspects anymore because they are black/arab/whatever and if they so much as sneeze out of place it results in being sacked, a loss of pension and most likely a criminal prosecution.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Spoken like a true arrogant American. You don't live in the UK, so you don't know. England is a de facto Christian Country, but it gets no special treatment at all. In fact, over the course of the Bush years, Christians in the US got far more special Treatment, even though you are a "Secular" country.

Christians in the US don't actually have any special legal standing. Much as they have no special legal standing in the UK. You're making a ridiculous argument which entirely ignores the institutional force of Christian custom when viewed by an outsider who evolved in an entirely different tradition. Everything you do in your daily life, from eating to putting on clothes, is symbolic of Christendom because you live in Christendom.

Also, it seems you don't know what secular means. Allow me to enlighten you. Secular derives from the Latin 'saecularis' which means 'of the present world'. In the modern context this generally taken to mean 'without religion', but that isn't at all what the word actually means. Rather, the specific meaning of the term is 'worldly or temporal'. It is pragmatism bent against faith. The kind of thing which entails recognition of various religions; including those which hold a large degree of conventional influence. Like Christianity in England.

So... Because I live in "Christendom" I should go and laud it over everything else? Also, your argument over the meaning of the word "secular" just proves how narrowminded you are.

This is getting ridiculous.

BrookM wrote:This is getting ridiculous.

QFT

Anybody know if Sikhs cut their hair when they are in the military or police?

Sikhs are not allowed to cut their hair, they must "keep the hair uncut" as it is part of the 5 K's (ie five symbols).

What people seem to be forgetting, here, is that making Sikhs into Firearms Squad officers is poor strategy -- it's like giving your Killa Kans Big Shootas and your Deff Dread Rokkits.

Sikhs have ALWAYS been Close Combat specialists. Their religion obliges them to carry a sword at all times for self-defence:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Kirpan

"When all other methods fail, it is proper to hold the sword in hand."

The sword -- not the gun!

So, form a special Sikh Sword Squad. Give it an attached chaplain and standard-bearer, and you're away -- no sane criminal is going to want to mess with that.

If they do need a ranged weapon occasionally, then chakrams can be worn on the wrist, carried on the belt, and even worn on the turban (there's a lovely old Sikh turban in the Royal Armouries with about 6 different chakrams and throwing knives worn on it).

As much as that Idea would be win and cake, I bet the Knives would breach the Draconian Health and Safety Laws the UK has :(

Lord Bingo wrote:Sikhs are not allowed to cut their hair, they must "keep the hair uncut" as it is part of the 5 K's (ie five symbols).

That, I knew. Do they make exceptions for police and military work? I thought the turban was to keep the hair from getting in the way.

I know, it's daft, innit -- it's perfectly fine to shoot people in the head when necessary, but shivving up criminals is somehow regarded as dangerous and uncivilised.

Wow !!! he looks totally ninja ! i think we just need sikh police men if they look like that, we wouldnt have a riot in centuries !

It's actually gotten to the point where Police cannot arrest suspects anymore because they are black/arab/whatever and if they so much as sneeze out of place it results in being sacked, a loss of pension and most likely a criminal prosecution.

I can disagree with you GWAR, and still respect your view but this is over the line. We all know that those minorities get arrested all the time. And the cops get sacked because 90% of the time they get arrested for something bogus or get beaten half to death. Weither your under the wrong end of the L.A.P.D's night sticks, or rotting away in an U.S prison ship without being charged for anything. You don't want the "special treatment".

Um...

I think you live in different countries.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Um...

I think you live in different countries.

What he said.

You see while used to belong to , sadly It doesn't any more :(

-Plays worlds saddest song on the worlds smallest Violin for the death of the British Empire-

Honestly, if they can actually manage to make a bulletproof turban, would it not be an incredible advance in armor technology? Seriously though, I've never believed that separation of church and state means that a state cannot do things for religious members. Establishing a single religion as the state religion and persecuting or disadvantaging the others, surely is illegal.* But if a religious group asks for help and are recieving state help, without restricting that help from other religions, than a state religion has not been established. If they want to serve, and it requires an expenditure of tax dollars, let them officially make their case to the public( who are essentially paying for it, and the services these individuals would provide with their super-turbans), and make it a votable issue. Keep the public involved. If yes, great, if not, then they will just have to keep making their case and hope to sway people.

Edit: To clarify, conversely a religion shall not be given power of governance over citizens. The state shall not BE or ACT as a religion, and a religion may not BE or ACT as a governing body.

Railguns wrote: Establishing a single religion as the state religion and persecuting or disadvantaging the others, surely is illegal.

You are a bit late to the party. The UK has been a De Jure Religious State since the time of Henry VIII when he split from the Catholic Church and formed the Church of England, with the Monarch as the Head of the Church.

De facto anyone trying to enforce this is locked up under hate crime laws (and quite rightly imo).

I'm quite aware of Anglicanism, good sir. I'm making the (hopefully reasonable) assumption that the UK is operating under most of the same democratic principles that the larger developed countries claim to espouse these days, and framing my opinion under that assumption. Take what you will.

Gwar! wrote:So... Because I live in "Christendom" I should go and laud it over everything else? Also, your argument over the meaning of the word "secular" just proves how narrowminded you are.

Yes. That's right, I'm narrow minded because I choose to actually pay attention to what words mean. Sorry, language is useful because definitions are established objectively. Failure to abide by them is either intentional dishonesty, stupidity, or artistry. The latter has its uses, but not in this context.

Also, you have plainly chosen to misinterpret my point. To acknowledge that you have a Christian heritage is not to 'laud it over everyone else'. Not even close. Rather, it is to accept that your customs have religious symbolism for many people even if you don't believe that to be the case.

Or are you seriously suggesting that because they have a different religion they don't deserve the same level of protection as the rest of the force?

No sir, the deserve the exact same level of protection, heres a helmet. Use it if you want to.

The reason why a particular religious group should be allowed a special helmet is because we want to include all religions in our armed and police forces, as within other aspects of civil society.

By all means have a ballistic Turban. Just don't expect us to pay for it. Any gear that is used after the general issue gear is provided must come out of your own pocket. We gave you a perfectly fine helmet, if you want a different one buy a different one. This is all we have and all we are willing to pay for as it does the job perfectly.

Given that there are no compulsory items of clothing for Christians to wear you have nothing to base this statment on other than idle speculation.

There are many Christian sects that have clothing restrictions. The mennonites near my house arn't allowed to wear bright colours in public.

Anybody know if Sikhs cut their hair when they are in the military or police?

Currently? They have to conform to military regulations. (though I think they get around this by using the bun like females do) though there have been ideas put forward to change this/create a sikh battalion that allows them to use a turban instead of a helmet.

@ that person who commented that Sihks have been fighting for us without helmets for quite a few decades already. Our own regiments didn't use helmets either, and Scottish regiments even went into WW 1 in kilts. Though they no longer do so as far as I know.

@ the person said that there are special consecessions made for people who don't agree with fighting to be in the armed forces, and stated the Quakers in the Medical Corps as an example. The sihks are already not required to be on the gunline if they do not want to put on a helmet so that they can do so with the same level of safety as any other policeman. That is a religous exemption already.

Ratbarf: By all means have a ballistic Turban. Just don't expect us to pay for it. Any gear that is used after the general issue gear is provided must come out of your own pocket. We gave you a perfectly fine helmet, if you want a different one buy a different one. This is all we have and all we are willing to pay for as it does the job perfectly.

Heh, out of curiousity is all police gear unisex in the UK?
How long has it been since women could serve in the UK police?

What do you mean? Girls can get their hair in helmets just fine. Also I beleive there is a limit to the length of hair that is allowed on a female serving? (At least there is here in Canada.)

Belphegor wrote:

Ratbarf: By all means have a ballistic Turban. Just don't expect us to pay for it. Any gear that is used after the general issue gear is provided must come out of your own pocket. We gave you a perfectly fine helmet, if you want a different one buy a different one. This is all we have and all we are willing to pay for as it does the job perfectly.

Heh, out of curiousity is all police gear unisex in the UK?
How long has it been since women could serve in the UK police?

Yes (At least the armour is, regular uniforms I assume come in Male Breast and Female Breast Sizes) and Probably longer than in the US.

The Met police (the police that cover all but one tiny area of London) first had women Police in 1914/1915:
Margaret Damer Dawson, an anti-white slavery campaigner, and Nina Boyle, a militant suffragette journalist founded the Women Police Service in 1914.

Grantham was the first provincial force to ask the WPS to supply them with occasional policewomen, recognising them as particularly useful for dealing with women and juveniles. In 1915, Grantham swore in Mrs Edith Smith, making her the first proper policewoman in Britain with full powers of arrest.

http://www.met.police.uk/history/women_police.htm

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but there seems to be a problem in the logic of not able to remove their turban. What good is it to give them a ballistic one if they can't take off the one they are wearing? Or is it that I'm just an idiot and missing something.

Oh and ballistic equipment costs a lot to make and distribute around, which is one of the reasons a lot of newer designs haven't been adopted by the US Military and local police forces, they don't have the money for it, and if they do they get told no by Congress. Much like when they say they want a new Rifle and new handgun because the current ones aren't up to the job.

I would guess they can take it off when they're alone in their house.

Just like you can't walk around without any pants on, but you can take them off when you change, etc.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Just like you can't walk around without any pants on, but you can take them off when you change, etc.

If only I could go to work with out pants on... It would be so much more comfortable. For me at least

brad3104 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Yeah, or maybe we could spend the money on more police officers. :rolleyes:

Well Said Sir

Yup

I'm not agreeing with you guys. My point was that the tiny amount of money required to fund the turban project would plae into insignificance compared to training new police officers to the standards of these Sikhs. So, spend more money on more police to replace perfectly good ones, or spend a little to use the ones we've got. No brainer.

Greebynog wrote:
I'm not agreeing with you guys. My point was that the tiny amount of money required to fund the turban project would plae into insignificance compared to training new police officers to the standards of these Sikhs. So, spend more money on more police to replace perfectly good ones, or spend a little to use the ones we've got. No brainer.

Well seeing as Kevlar can cost anywhere from 50 cents to a dollar and up, it wouldn't be that cheap to make the test versions of the turban let alone the standard production variant, plus the amount of layers required to make the turban actually able to help stop a bullet from killing the wearer would be quite a lot as well, then you also have to take into account replacing damaged or lost turbans. This would neither be cost effective or practical.

sexiest_hero wrote:
I can disagree with you GWAR, and still respect your view but this is over the line. We all know that those minorities get arrested all the time in America. And the cops get sacked because 90% of the time they get arrested for something bogus or get beaten half to death in America. Weither your under the wrong end of the L.A.P.D's night sticks, or rotting away in an U.S prison ship without being charged for anything. You don't want the "special treatment".

Fixed.

I am agreeing with GWAR. They have helmets. If they don't want to wear them, that's their choice.

The thing is also, they will ned to develope a brand spanking new material, because the things they have at the moment are fairly heavy. It will have to be just about the same strength protection etc, because if it was better, everyone else would be at more risk, so whoever bought them would have to resupply EVERYONE with the new sort of body armour, which would turn a little concession for a minority group into a new hat for everyone.

Also, looking at turbans on google images, most of them cover the ears completely. Making them out of a very dense material would comprimise safety through not being able to hear anything.

Religion is something that should have NO INFLUENCE on politics, laws or any government. It is something that should be kept for homes or the institution that religion owns.

That's right In America, I hope the uk can avoid our pitfalls. Being reseptive to a people's needs, is a big step to avoiding a people who hate,fear, and are under repesented in the police force.

sexiest_hero wrote:That's right In America, I hope the uk can avoid our pitfalls. Being reseptive to a people's needs, is a big step to avoiding a people who hate,fear, and are under repesented in the police force.

Again, more proof that you people have no clue about the UK. People already hate (as evidenced by the rapid growth of the BNP, mainly because of the government pandering to minorities) and they are under represented in the police force, because nobody (White or otherwise) wants to join the police forces any more, because of the Criminals who can get guns at the drop of a hat, but if a Police officer so much as draws his baton he risks being sacked and losing his pension, and if the suspect is a different race, it is all but guaranteed. I know I make it sound like it is hyperbole but I assure you it is not.

Sounds just like hyperbole to me.

Can you honestly come up with even one actual incident where an officer has lost his job because he drew his batton (and for no other reason)?

Bear in mind that a minority was exetuted by 7 point blank range gun shots 4 years ago now and not a single charge was brought.

I am locking the thread to save further pointless argument.