Sikh coppers request bulletproof turbans Sikh police officers are asking for "special bulletproof turbans" which would allow them to serve in firearms units, the Guardian reports. There are around 2,000 Sikhs in the police force, but they're unable to pack a piece since existing safety helmets don't fit over their traditional headgear. Accordingly, the recently- …
Does anyone know the compatability between the Sikh religion and shooting criminals? I mean, the last thing we need is, "Sorry Guv, I couldn't shoot the criminal; it's against my religion; I'd be saying Hail Mary's for a six month."
I'm all for religious freedom, but when we start mixing it with the secular organisations that are at the heart of the country ... that seems like madness to me.
Some of our already highly trained firearms officers already suffer significant trauma after killing someone ... what would happen to the mental health of a peron who would carry the extra moral weight of a religion on top of that?
75 % of what's under a turban is hair/air. Anyone thinking of taking a headshot is unwise, I reckon Sikhs will be safe.
How on earth is a material that needs to be flexible enough to be wrapped around hair going to have the necessary qualities to stop a bullet ? From what I understand, the armed police who shot and killed the unfortunate Brazillian electrician were wearing baseball caps...
This post has been deleted by its author
What a load of steaming bollocks. Religion, regardless of your particular choice of fairy story, is no excuse for special treatment. I am sick and tired of different brands of voodoo claiming that they are harshly treated because they choose some whacko lifestyle choice over the others. If you want to be an armed response copper that much then you will wear the frikkin helmet and if you aren't prepared to shave your beard off then you can't be a fireman.
We shouldn't be pandering to religion.
When I was in India earlier in the year, I saw Sikh soldiers manning armed sentry points at the Airports. They werre wearing turbans and not helmets. Why can they not do the same over here? Or how about wearing a top knot under their helmets cos surely those pointy hats the cops wear have enough space under them??
I used to see a guy by me riding around on a motorbike not wearing a crash helmet but a turban.
I used to think "So you put your faith in God before faith in a safety helmet".
Well you have to say this biker guy was dedicated to his religion! But possibly if he comes off that bike hes going to meet his God sooner than later.
Anyhow I'm looking forward to seeing what a bulletproof turban looks like.
Does anyone know the compatability between the Sikh religion and shooting criminals? I mean, the last thing we need is, "Sorry Guv, I couldn't shoot the criminal; it's against my religion; I'd be saying Hail Mary's for a six month."
After you are a baptised sikh you carry a knife with you. To defend yourself.
Also they train in using bladed weapons as part of religion
i cant believe they would spend a dime on this kind of research - if these guys want to become armed officers then stop pissing around, get a haircut and get on with the job. what is it with british society that means everyone has to bend over backwards for poxy religion. its gets right on my tits, as you can probably tell!
One of the things kept underneath the turban is a small symbolic sword, denoting the warrior traditions of Sikhism, so I don't think that being a firearms officer would contradict the main tenets of the religion at all.
Is there a Sikh among the Reg readership who could enlighten us on this one?
@Headshot, I would think it's for those situations where armed response units are waiting outside places where there are known to be gunmen and everyone gets as padded up as possible. The blokes on the Tube weren't wearing body armour either, since it wasn't your average firearms officer job, more of an SO19 thing.
..screw the hokey fairy taies and accept that certain situations require changes. If you want to be a firearms officer, then you need to wear the gear. no one is forcing you to become a copper ffs.
besides, isnt hiring people based on their religions/race etc to avoid breeching equal rights, inherintly unfair to the other candidates? People should be hired on their ability to do the job, not what religion they are.
non issue imo.
Jews can't be bacon-sarnie tasters, and I'm sure they accept that. Why can't sikh's accept this? How many of them are honestly so desperate to become ballistics officers that this is a genuine concern? If they ever produced these I bet maybe 1-2 officers would switch, and that would be it... it's not making a point it's just wasting taxpayers money...
>Anyone thinking of taking a headshot is unwise
Absolutely true, if you've had any firearms training, you'll know perfectly well that you should always aim for the centre of the chest (assuming the target is not obscured).
Headshots are only useful at point blank range when you have reasonable cause to suspect that your target is an innocent brazilian ^H^H^H^H, sorry, I mean you have reasonable cause to suspect that your target is a human bomb and is about to hit the trigger (and you know it's not a dead-mans trigger)
I'm sure someone will post my main thought - don't turbans cover hair? Which is already dead, has no nerves and is more likely to be parted by a bullet than cause massive trauma to the humans system? With my haircut (or rather, complete lack of it), a bullet proof turban would be a waste of time. Even in the 70s when I made bigfoot look a bit bald, I could have just brushed over any bullet holes in my locks.
Sikhs have always been have always been well regarded as warriors (the militarism of the sikhs originated in their opposing the muslims in India so should serve them well when required to shoot terrorists/ Brazilians) and as already mentioned all sikhs are obliged to carry a small sword.
Sikhs have a very proud history of service in the army and also refused to wear helmets in the world wars in which "83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded"
To a Sikh i think the wearing of the turban is much more than a religious thing, it's a symbol of their identity.
send them all back i say
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the sikh requirement is to *not cut their hair*, not *wear a turban* per se. They could wear their hair down, plait it and tuck it under their body armour, then wear a normal bullet proof helmet on their head, without violating the religious laws.
I believe there is a steel comb they are also required to wear (the knife traditionally went on the belt, not in the hair), but again, I don't think there is any reason why they couldn't tuck it into a plait.
*I think*. As I say, any sikh reader please correct me!
"After you are a baptised sikh you carry a knife with you. To defend yourself.
Also they train in using bladed weapons as part of religion"
Well, those Sikh coppers will have to arrest themselves for carrying a bladed article in public.
The more I read about various religions, the more I want religion to have nothing to do, whatsoever, with our state.
AFAIK , the Sikhs had to fight for their lives and religion from almost the beginning. They're historically warriors. Traditional ceremonies involving huge guys waving massive scimitars, etc.
I would assume that the "problem" is that regulations require firearms officers to wear armoured headgear whilst on duty, and there being no leeway for those who do not want to (in case it messes up their hair, or whatever). I say let 'em go hatless, and put full responsibility for that decision on the officer in question.
But of course, the nanny state wouldn't want to be seen letting informed people take calculated risks. The Daily Mail would be up in arms!
One would think that in a secular organization such as the police, that religious symbols of any kind, be they crosses, crescents, turbans, etc would be prohibited.
But apparently in Britain, to quote George Orwell in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
so what about those sikhs that do have helmets when in military units in islamic countries?
... or are they "not really sikhs"... anyway tolerance of religion does not equal to having religious beliefs changing regulations. As these people can become police officers - they do not HAVE TO. No discrimination there. If you want to have a driving licence you have to pass the tests. If you do not want to pass the test because of your religious beliefs then sorry you do not get a driving licence. People should stop confusing the two things "being discriminated against" and "discriminating against". In this case people are not being discriminated because of their religion. On the contrary, people are discriminating because of their religion! They are allowed to do that, a sikh is allowed not to become an officer with a firearm! This is perfectly acceptable to me. Just as Jews are allowed not to eat pork etc.
Ok as several posters have already pointed out, the turban largely covers hair, and anyone going for a head shot is either a) monumentally dumb or b) a damn fine shot.
Either way, bullet proof bonce top not much use.
If however, it's to spare glancing blows then fine. Just one problem. The structure of any bullet proof items combines two basic things. A flexible component and a rigid one. Ok, they can be combined into one (Kevlar woven into things for instance), but still, every bulletproof object I've worn, seen, drooled over (sad I know) etc has been neither terribly light nor remotely "flexible enough to wind round the head". To get something decently bulletproof that will slow the round, distrubute the force, deflect the round AND look like a turban is going to have to be cast. So sort of like a helmet for instance.
Puzzled of non Daily Fail world
PS KEVLAR ISN'T F**KING BULLETPROOF!!! It's just really, really strong along it's length (sucks on lateral strength iirc).
Perhaps the same kevlar material can be used for making Kilts so that us Scots can wear our traditional costume on duty - don't really want to get shot in the dangly bits, do you :O
I do think religions and traditions need to learn to bend to be compatible with our progressive modern society - where there is a clear requirement (such as safety equipment) either you choose our modern developments, or you choose to live with your traditions. The important point is, YOU have a CHOICE.
Paris - there must be a joke here somewhere about Paris and helmets.
Why are people chiming up with "How can they be religious and carry a gun" as religion and killing are mutually exclusive? If history is anything to go by it tells us that religion makes it EASIER to kill people (crusades, inquisitions, honour killings, 'terrorism', etc).
"Forgiveness" makes it all possible.
You do remember correctly re Kevlar being strong along its length. This strength causes it to act as a decelerator when a projectile slams into it by deflecting the momentum of the proj. lengthwise.
But that alone isn't enough.
A single length of Kevlar would be next to useless as the proj. would just tend to travel around the fibre in a glancing blow. The bullet stopping effect is caused by having lots of fibers bundled together. However the force of the proj. is simply transfered to the fibers which in a turban type configuration could result in a bit of a head removal situation. Hence the need for some sort of rigid(ish) base material to transfer the force around the old brain container. A configuration commonly found in err... combat helmets.
That said the bravery of Sikhs who regularly go into battle, to this very day, with no effective headgear leaves me in awe. The army's concession to Sikhs has been to provide turbans made from cammo material. Result all round, the army keep the pc brigade off their backs and Sikhs getting to blow the living crap out of the foe of the day.
As a turban wearing Sikh.......
Can't speak as a member of the police or services I'm just a keyboard warrior ...
I believe rules and regs state that you have to have the correct protective measures. As has been stated earlier lots of Sikhs are happy to take the risk and let God look after them (as they are want to do on motor cycles in the Uk and in the armed forces for other countries) Sikhs have a martial history and have served in her majesty's forces whilst wearing turbans in several campaigns without whinging and moaning about it.
The sensible course of action would be to let them take the risk - they know what a bullet is capable of doing and it is there choice to forego protection. The nanny state would not be happy with that however, and therefore puts up barriers.
Equally those Sikh's unwilling to go into that job without protection should not expect special treatment.
Rather than explain the why's and wherefore's of Turban wearing I'l just link : http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Turban
You don't see the Israeli defence force kitted out with kevlar yarmulkes, do you? They wear helmets because helmets are effective. For similar reasons construction workers in Delhi wear hard hats, not heavily starched turbans. If a job requires a certain type of protective clothing, wear that clothing or don't do the job.
Other unlikely combinations: nudist arc-welders, eskimo sauna attendants, etc
after reading this page i am really feeling disgust and hatred towards most of the prev posters. The vast majority of you should be thinking emigrating to the deep south of the u.s. as your bigotry and small mindedness would be right at home with those inbred, fascist, right wing, fundamental christians.
the sikh religion is one of the most beautiful in the world, and is full of teachings of tollerance and understanding of others and also the responsibility of the individual to live right. One of my favorite aspects of sikhism is that there is no clergy as we would reconise, again its the individual that chooses to live right or not, and most sikh have a heavy tolerance of other religions as they belive that any path towards holyness is the right path.
As to your so called conflict of interest between religous beliefs and serving with the police, i cant see any as all sikhs will strive to adheer to the princples of "Sant-Sapai" (translated as saint soldier); to practise their belief always (rather than on just a particular day or time ie: just Sunday or Friday); to maintain and protect the cosmic balance in the world; to guard against tyranny, discrimination, evil and injustice, wouldnt it be nice if more coppers on the beat conducted themselvs with these princaples in mind??
we all have a personal identy, and if that identity dosent infringe on others you have the undying right to express it. this matter isnt about sikhs insisting that they should have special considerations made for them, but health and safety regulations preventing them from expressing their deeply held sense of identity while trying to serve their communities, and to protect you and me, after all in the military sikhs already activly serve without protective helmets, and have been doing so, protecting our country and the ex empire for hundreds of years.
So to most of you above, and you all know who im talking about, why dont you all do the world a favour and fuck off and die, your holding the human race back and until we can wipe your bigotry off the face of the planet we will be forever be stuck in the shite that we all face every day. like my dear grandmother used to say "if you have nothing constructive to say, JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP, pass the biscuits and get a job"
I'm sort of getting the feeling that maybe "the people" are not quite as keen on our cultural soup as the politicians would like to think. [or make us believe] Could it be perhaps that we are fundamentally or at least historically a society based on the Christian religion and that the majority, [well I'm sort of guessing it's still a majority for the moment] of residents would like to see it stay that way .. ?
I heard a chap say recently;
"I don't care where you come from or what colour your skin is, or even what religious denomination you choose, if you want to be British with all that entails - I'm happy to have you living next door. If on the other hand you want to change our society to suit yourself, say changing the rules to allow for the burning of dead bodies in a field .. I'd be just as happy if you decided to do it somewhere else (!)"
And I don't think he's alone.
Would be nice if the majority had a voice for a change ...
Could everyone banging on about tax payers money please remember that all our turban wearing friends (750,000 odd) pay taxes too? If it helps pretend that your tax money goes towards keeping them out in the first place, and theirs go towards bulletproof turbans.
Sounds like a few coppers can't fit the regulation helmets on and want the job anyway. I say let them not wear helmets if they feel that strongly about it, it's their head on the line not ours! So long as they sign legal waivers that say they can't sue if they have any head related injuries whilst on the job of course.
Anyway, I'd have thought you'd prefer to have more gun toting police so you could get them to shoot non ID carrying, DNA databased underage crims that are dropping litter in your street and shouting loudly after 9pm. Nothing to fear nothing to hide!!
as a Sikh, and from a family of baptised Sikhs, I'd just like to let everyone know something...
The turban is not religious, it's cultural. When the muslims controlled India an emperor declared that only kings could wear turbans in war (the turban we see now is a scaled down version - imagine trying to cut through 9 inches of cloth with a blow from a sword - it's pretty hard). The Guru said as all God's men were equal they were all kings, so everyone should wear a turban, not just Sikhs, everyone. It was a declaration of socailiam, not religon.
In the british army, when at war, Sikhs wear their hair in a ponytail so they can wear their helmet, why can't the police do the same thing?
Perhaps the people who claim that they should be allowed the job without the standard issue protective equipment in place are forgetting one thing - If said member of the Armed Plod Squad is the difference between catastrophe and safety, an additional risk of them being capped in the bonce is an additional risk to anyone depending on said plod's existence to protect them. Thus you have to standardise kit to standardise the risk not just to the plodinator in question, but to the Public they're working for.
I know Sikhs who Ride massive sports Motorcycles with Cloth Turbans. Look at any building Site in the West Bromwich area, you will find Sikhs wearing cloth Turbans. Watch Indian TV you will see Police and Soldiers dodging bullets wearing basic cloth Turbans....Perhaps these guys believe in God a little bit more than our PC Cops...
I am a radical athiest personally (hence the AC), but I do have to say that the Sikhs are one of the few religious groups that actually give me some pause to reflect on positively. OK, they are still silly for believing in someting that requires "faith" and has no proof, but at least they are rather admirable culturally - their views on tolerance and inclusiveness are rather advanced for a religion. Too bad some of their other practices leave a bad caste in the mouth, er, taste in the mouth. No, I was right the first time...
See, one alternative is to let them wear bulletproof turbans, the Jewish cops wear Kevlar yarmulkes, and the Christians wear Crusader-style knights helmets, and the Islamic cops wear bullet-proof kevlar beards....or they can put their hair up in a helmet, in a plait or out.
Hmmm, that's a tough one, ain't it?
They could just design and wear a smaller damn turban that fits under a slightly larger helmet.
That said, if their religion requires them to wear a turban, let their religion (and their lavishly funded temples) pay for the research and development. In other words, in my books it's up to the religion to come up with ways to meet specific requirements, not up to the taxpayer to fund someones adherence to a set of arbitrary fantasy rules.
"Freedom of religion" comes in here that the standard shouldn't say "metal helmet", it must state something like "head covering that will stop an Xmm bullet from Y metres". If the religion can come up with an appropriate head covering, then let them wear it. But don't use taxpayer money to do the research for them.
@masterpikey
You have cleanly demonstrated the problem; people seem unable to hold a frank and unemotional discussion when it comes the religious rights.
Perhaps we in the UK should take a leaf from Turkish secularism - a large, faithful Muslim society that STRICTLY separates religion from work/politics/public services.
I'm British, non-Christian (married to a Turkish Muslim), and I'm happy (and more than welcome) people to express their beliefs in any way they like - in their personal space and time. But when this starts to encroach on politics or public services, paid for from my taxes or otherwise, as a non-religious person this makes me very uncomfortable.
"Seems to me that the people involved are just saying "if we have to wear a helmet/bulletproof thing, can you help us make a turban into one" "
Quite so.
The article linked to by Harps is quite interesting in its own way - what's to stop the Sikh firearms officers wearing a patka or similar? (best example of a high-profile patka wearer I can think of is Monty Panesar, although I don't recall having seen him wearing other headgear during a match)
Really, this stinks of nanny-stateism - if the officer is good enough to do the job *and* is aware of the risks involved, turbanned or not, then he should be allowed to do it. Race/creed/religion/whatever shouldn't be a factor.
Sadly, it is.
It's your head the bullet is going be heading towards. You want a helmet - fine. You want bullet proof kevlar - fine.
I think the issue with kevlar is that whilst the turban might be completely undamaged, the undamaged kevlar fabric would have been propelled quite a way into your squishy inner-head.
Bullet proof 'stuff' doesn't magically make the energy of a projectile vanish - it merely tries to distribute the force over a greater area to make it 'less-fatal'
Sooo a bullet-proof turban would have to be something that distributes the force of the bullet over your entire head... oh that sounds pretty much like a helmet.
Maybe a mega-helmet designed to fit over a turban - I personally would welcome the arrival of super-deformed-style police on the streets :)
1. Been a Police Firearms officer for 15 years and very rarely, if ever, wear a helmet operationally; but then I don't always wear body armour either - you learn to cut your cloth accordingly.
2. Have worked with 2 Sikh firearms colleagues and their hair was shorter than mine ..... but then, like me, they were both atheists - I believe they regarded being Sikhs more as a cultural thing; or so they said.
3. Pound to a pinch of salt this story originated in the MET .... they'll never pass up an oportunity to be militant irrespective of any other consideraion - its a MET thing (yawn).
4. In my personal experience the vast majority of those who profess deeply held religious convictions invariably end up demonstrating various forms of blinkered cultural hypocrasy - but I'm an atheist so my views don't count for that much; I have, after all, been tainted by Satan .... or so a born again colleague told me last year!
I don't think there's any essential requirement to wear a turban all time in Sikh religion. The basic requirement is to have unshorn hair. Sikh cricketers like Navjot Sidhu, Harbhajan Singh, Monty Panesar etc. have all worn helmets without the need to cut their hair. I think this is more a case of misunderstanding than anything else. The simple solution is, wear a turban while on normal duty, remove the turban and wear a helmet whenever required. There you have it...
It would be a "turban-like headpiece" -- a real turban is made from a folded strip of cloth, something that's not going to work if its made from Kevlar (and I doubt that the result would be bulletproof). I suppose you could also stick a turban to the outside of a standard ballistic helmet but the result would resemble a Christmas cracker hat... it would look really silly.
I'm afraid the Sikhs are going to have to make some choices here. After all, they don't have to be firearms officers, its a choice (just like they don't have to do traffic duty on a motorcycle). The turban's only there to manage your hair after all -- its the hair that's important, not the headdress.
like a lot of young Sikhs are doing, Hot, uncomfortable , bloody time wasted tying them on.
These coppers will be young , so I don't really think that most of them give a toss.
Of course the "establishment" are hollering about it.
But times change , even Sikhs will be moving into the 21first century.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
