Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.