» :-( RT @plutoniumpage: @pickledpolitics He's too evil to die until he's about 99 or so. Evil people always live forever 5 hrs ago

» And waterboards people who don't laugh at his jokes. RT @Disraelismears: @pickledpolitics I'd be wary. He shoots his FRIENDS in the face. 5 hrs ago

» (who's going to bite...? come on...) 5 hrs ago

» Dick Cheney has chest pains? Is Easter going to come early?? :) 5 hrs ago

» Good call RT @LDNCalling: I was bullied when I worked at Charter 88 ..No helpline to call back then, so I started drinking instead 6 hrs ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • Highlighting HBV
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Sikh police officers with bullet proof turbans?


    by Sunny on 8th May, 2009 at 10:12 PM    

    This is such a bizarre story.

    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.

    I mean, really?

    Related: Anton Vowl tried to add a positive comment on the Daily Mail story, via BristleKRS.


         
            Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Organisations, Sikh






    23 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. holster Blog » Blog Archive » LAPD Officers to be Paid for Dressing Time

      [...] Pickled Politics » Sikh police officers with bullet proof turbans? [...]



    1. BristleKRS — on 8th May, 2009 at 10:24 PM  

      Check out Anton Vowl’s take on this, complete with Auto-Quote Generator-style (only genuine) comments from the Mail’s readers…

    2. Clairwil — on 8th May, 2009 at 10:41 PM  

      I don’t blame them. I want a bulletproof turban! It’d be a style sensation.

    3. blah — on 8th May, 2009 at 10:44 PM  

      Bristle KRS
      “Check out Anton Vowl’s take on this, complete with Auto-Quote Generator-style (only genuine) comments from the Mail’s readers”

      This is standard practice on right wing rags-numerous types I have posted responses to anti-Muslim stories which were never posted , while near genocidal posts have been.

      Yet these people and their apologists complain about censorship by the left wing or the Guardians CIF -which actually only moderates comments retroactively and allows numerous comments criticising it and its writers in th strongest terms (try criticising the Telegraph or Mail and getting published)

      Clearly no dissent must be allowed to foil their agenda of hate

    4. blah — on 8th May, 2009 at 10:50 PM  

      Clair Allen from Spain (no doubt an immigrant who wont integrate) comments attacking Muslims are both comical and scary. Seems we get blamed even for things other religions do (we had Martin on here trying to blame the Holocaust on us). I recall similiar posts when the Behtzi saga was in full flow and the BBC’s Have Your Say when Keith Vaz suggesting curbing alcohol consumption let through at least 4 comments about “Muslim Keith Vaz imposing his religion on us”

    5. douglas clark — on 8th May, 2009 at 11:25 PM  

      I have heard it said, here probably, that lots of Sikhs got their brains blown out, simply because they thought a piece of cloth would defend them when it clearly didn’t. And I will not be impressed with a single case to the contrary.

      So, what’s the issue? If Sikhs can accept a new material that works? I’d have thought more alive Sikhs was probably a good idea.

      Can I have a full body set?

    6. qidniz — on 9th May, 2009 at 12:35 AM  

      I mean, really?

      I agree. Something seems to have been lost in the telling. For instance, “their religion prohibits removing turbans to wear helmets” is patently absurd. More likely, the regulation Kevlar helmets will not fit over a topknot (or something like that); if so, then the real issue may have to do with the helmet necessarily having to be a close or tight fit (otherwise surely a sufficiently roomy helmet is the answer!).

      There was a recent thread on Sikhs in the Army, with similar issues. Any updates?

    7. Roger — on 9th May, 2009 at 1:23 AM  

      How many police officers have been saved from death or serious injury by the presumably specially designed helmets worn by firearms officers? Not many, I’d think. If sikhs are willing to accept the possible increase in risk caused by joining such groups and wearing turbans instead why shouldn’t they?
      Incidentally, is the insistence that sikhs must not cut their hair or wear turbans at all times- depending on which version you hear- so strong that it overrides other considerations as this report suggests?

    8. qidniz — on 9th May, 2009 at 1:33 AM  

      If sikhs are willing to accept the possible increase in risk caused by joining such groups and wearing turbans instead why shouldn’t they?

      Because that would be suboptimal use of resources (by public authorities). Increased risk means, over the long haul, more casualties than otherwise. This is bad policy.

    9. Roger — on 9th May, 2009 at 2:18 AM  

      “Because that would be suboptimal use of resources (by public authorities). Increased risk means, over the long haul, more casualties than otherwise. This is bad policy.”
      Not necessarily. Re-introducing and enforcing the Red Flag Act would undoubtedly greatly reduce the deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicles. However, other factors are thought more important.
      Even if it is possible to design bulletproof turbans or helmets that would fit sikhs’ topknots in them there is still the question of how much hypothetical harm it would prevent at what cost and whether the money could be better spent. Are other firearms officers required to wear their helmets in all circumstances and disciplined if they do not? If not then there’s no reason why sikhs shouldn’t be allowed to join such squads if they accept the risks involved. As such helmets have been being used for some time it should be possible to make an informed assessment of the risks involved in not wearing them.

    10. dave bones — on 9th May, 2009 at 6:21 AM  

      Yeah! This is great! Maybe with a gun mounted on top of the turban so they can run and fire at the same time. They must have already done this in one of those Bombay films no?

    11. qidniz — on 9th May, 2009 at 7:45 AM  

      Not necessarily. Re-introducing and enforcing the Red Flag Act would undoubtedly greatly reduce the deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicles.

      3 drivers per vehicle and no faster than 4 mph? I assume this “example” was a joke (sadly, lost on me), as it is immaterial to the point.

      Since the increased risk can be obviated or eliminated by replacing the Sikh with someone who can wear the helmet, the suboptimality should have been obvious. That’s all.

      Are other firearms officers required to wear their helmets in all circumstances and disciplined if they do not?

      Apparently so — helmets are part of the kit — but I don’t know what they do about infractions.

      If not then there’s no reason why sikhs shouldn’t be allowed to join such squads if they accept the risks involved

      Once again, the willingness on the part of the Sikh volunteers is irrelevant. The issue is the best use of the available manpower.

      In an earlier thread, essentially the same issue came up in the context of the Army: some Sikhs were in a branch of the service where at some point they were required to shave in order to fit into chemical warfare kits. Again the Sikhs being willing to be at greater risk was not the issue: it was that Armies prefer — and need and are better off with — their soldiers alive than dead. It doesn’t get any starker than that.

    12. Shatterface — on 9th May, 2009 at 12:44 PM  

      I think the Amish should not be barred from police firearms teams simply because of their pacifism and refusal to adopt modern technology.

      More seriously, if Sikhs want magic turbans that deflect bullets, good luck to them but they should take out their own insurance. Same goes for any officer who does not want to wear a helmet because they are going out tonight and don’t want to mess up their perm: Martin Shaw never wore a helmet in The Professionals and Starsky didn’t have one either.

    13. Jai — on 9th May, 2009 at 2:08 PM  

      Even if it is possible to design bulletproof turbans or helmets that would fit sikhs’ topknots in them

      I mentioned this a while back in the “Sikhs/army” thread, but to re-iterate, specially-designed helmets (instead of cloth turbans) along these lines were known to be worn on the battlefield by Sikh soldiers in the subcontinent along with the rest of their armour during the post-Mughal Empire period before the British annexed Sikh-ruled territories (after the two Anglo-Sikh Wars). Antique examples of these helmets still exist.

      So this proposal is a perfectly viable solution, and there is a clear precedent for it.

    14. Amrit — on 9th May, 2009 at 2:19 PM  

      LMAO @ dave bones.

      That would be HENCH. As my brother might say.

    15. Rumbold — on 9th May, 2009 at 2:21 PM  

      Can’t see the problem with this myself. Other police officers aren’t going to care.

    16. Roger — on 9th May, 2009 at 7:48 PM  

      “Not necessarily. Re-introducing and enforcing the Red Flag Act would undoubtedly greatly reduce the deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicles.

      3 drivers per vehicle and no faster than 4 mph? I assume this “example” was a joke (sadly, lost on me), as it is immaterial to the point.”
      You didn’t notice the part that made it material and to the point: Other factors are thought more important.

      We still don’t know how much the risk is reduced- if it is reduced at all- by firearms police officers wearing helmets. There’s also the question of whether the risk to the public is increased if they feel less vulnerable because they are wearing helmets and whetehr firearms officers are less able to use their weapons effectively because they are wearing helmets.

      “specially-designed helmets…were … worn on the battlefield by Sikh soldiers Antique examples of these helmets still exist.”
      However, the differences in the design- and effectiveness- of helmets two hundred or so years ago and helmets now are so great as to be irrelevant.

    17. Jai — on 10th May, 2009 at 11:53 AM  

      However, the differences in the design- and effectiveness- of helmets two hundred or so years ago and helmets now are so great as to be irrelevant.

      My previous comment was in relation to Sikhs wearing Kevlar-reinforced turbans or helmets. It was not a suggestion that they should wear helmets identical in design and composition to those worn on the battlefield by their predecessors 150-200 years ago.

    18. aybee — on 10th May, 2009 at 6:18 PM  

      If the cap doesn’t fit then you can’t wear it…

      Interestingly enough the Punjab Regiment of the Indian Army has recently developed a funky bullet-proof patka-style helmet made of “a ballistic strip manufactured from a high-density, die-pressed phantom steel and kevlar.”
      You can see a photograph here..

      http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ErI9tOTG0PwJ:www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D4072628+sikh+army+helmet&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    19. platinum786 — on 11th May, 2009 at 8:07 AM  

      The technology does exist to make this possible.

      Has anyone read about the “designer” kevlar suits available nowadays. They’ve been offered to the worlds VVIP’s.

    20. lee — on 14th May, 2009 at 10:28 PM  

      im sure somethink like this is overdue

    21. Jil Rolon — on 6th June, 2009 at 9:26 AM  

      BULLET PROOF TURBANS are superior to helmets because, army only wears helmets sometimes, but a Turban can be worn all the time.

      THE USA MILITARY should force all USA soldiers to wear Bullet proof TURBANS as Turbans are climate controlled naturally, while helmets are hot to wear.

      Plus a Sikh Turban would protect the ears and temple, while a helmet would allow a bullet to hit the ears as has happened in Iraq war, many USA soldiers have died as a result.

      So SIKH BULLET PROOF TURBANS are best for all Police and Soldiers. Helmets look stupid, but Turbans look stylish and are comfortable and aerodynamic.

      It would be easiest to creat if the Turbans are ready made, no need to wrap. Then the cloth can be like a Kevlar vest, but also have a topknot molded helmet like solid shield layer. This way no bruising occurs.

    22. Jil Rolon — on 6th June, 2009 at 9:29 AM  

      BULLET PROOF TURBANS are superior to helmets because, army only wears helmets sometimes, but a Turban can be worn all the time.

      THE USA MILITARY should force all USA soldiers to wear Bullet proof TURBANS as Turbans are climate controlled naturally, while helmets are hot to wear.

      Plus a Sikh Turban would protect the ears and temple, while a helmet would allow a bullet to hit the ears as has happened in Iraq war, many USA soldiers have died as a result.

      So SIKH BULLET PROOF TURBANS are best for all Police and Soldiers. Helmets look stupid, but Turbans look stylish and are comfortable and aerodynamic.

      It would be easiest to create if the Turbans are ready made, no need to wrap. Then the cloth can be like a Kevlar vest, but also have a topknot molded helmet like solid shield layer. This way no bruising occurs.



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.