Zulu 22

Is this a Joke - Diversity?

Recommended Posts

Are West Midlands being serious or just trying to bring themselves derision. Perhaps they are just taking positive discrimination to the furthest extremes of stupidity.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3781350/Police-force-planning-let-Muslim-officers-wear-BURKAS-attract-ethnic-female-minority-officers-boost-diversity.html

 

I now the article is from the Daily Mail but it contains quotes from some Councillors who actually support it. Is the world going mad, or, is it just West Mids who are trying to take Diversity to the next ridiculous level.

Edited by Zulu 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone suggest the Chief Constable is dealt with under S136? Or is he playing a party game to see who can come up with the most crasley stupid suggestion I have heard in many a long while.

 

Imagine the problems if they get involved in a bit of a scrap!

 

Imagine the problems or possibilities of impersonation if you cannot see the faces!

 

Imagine the problems if they have to deal with a member of their own community where men think they cannot be dealt with by females! Imagine the problems if someone is stopped by one of them and he/she disputes the identity of the person although a WC is produced. Who is to know if the same person with the WC is actually the person under the covering?

 

Why oh why. The full covering is not required under the rulings of their religion, this is not diversity, it is a sap to a society and not one I readily recognise

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What picture would be shown on the warrant card? How about at Court where a Judge wants the officer to be visible to see the facial reactions to giving evidence or in cross examination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair it is not only reported in the Daily Mail, and yes many Muslim groups have condemned the idea as stupid. There will also be many Muslim groups who do not condemn it.

Edited by Zulu 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'uneducated press' strike again. I despair sometimes, I really do.

 

They are talking about 3 different items of clothing, and pretty much saying that they are all the same thing.

 

The Burka, which does not cover the face, though the Daily Fail and (to be fair) some West Midlands officers seem to be suggesting does. Though it would be completely impractical for operational police use. OK for police staff though I'd say.

 

The Hijab. Which is basically a head scarf. Which covers the head and neck but does not cover the face. Fine for police use (staff & officers) and several forces already allow them to be worn as part of the uniform.

 

And the Niqab, which does cover the face, leaving only a gap for the eyes. Which I would say would be completely impractical for police officers or staff.

 

 

Reading between the lines, as one often has to do where the Daily Fail is concerned. What the CC of West Midlands seems to be saying is that he would have no problem hiring staff (ie, Police Staff) that wear a Burka. Probably much like he'd have no issue with hiring staff that wear a turban or a Kippah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The West Mids Chief already has officers wearing the Hiqab.  He was speaking about allowing the Niqab to be worn. Among other Ann Widdicombe has said it should not be worn by front line staff but thought that it would be alright for backroom staff. Does that mean a further discrimination of female officers cossetted away in the safety of heated offices shovelling paper.  Those posts should only be for officers who have been injured on duty and are recovering.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to click on anything DM related..............every click justs helps them reinforce their position and, little by little, earns them money.  They hate coppers and spread their own version of events as they see fit.  I digress.

 

 

I've heard the story though, on Bullshire I think..............I actually thought it was a joke.

 

 

I do not see how covering your entire face (apart from the eyes) is going to make you as an effective communicator, as somebody with whom you can see their whole expression.  Eyes might be the windows to the soul, but facial expression can make/break a situation.

 

NVCs take up most of how we communicate (as I've been told in countless training sessions).

 

Unless, of course, the only place those covered officers patrol is an exclusively Muslim one where everybody is guaranteed to take notice of a female police officer wearing such clothing..............and that's not how we police......

 

Now, my exposure to different religions is fairly limited (not much diversity of religious expression in my area), but I've got a feeling that areas where they 'make' women wear these items of clothing are still somewhat challenging in terms of what they'll let ladies do - or even whether they'll take any notice of women at all..........I'm more than happy to be corrected, maybe some women like wearing them, maybe it makes them feel 'empowered'.

 

 

 

 

You know, being a copper just isn't for some people.  If you want to hide your face away from people (for whatever reason), maybe a job that primarily involves communications (and confrontation) isn't for you.

 

I know of officers who have been criticised for wearing 'shades' on a sunny day when dealing with people.........

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are all being too kind. The Chief officer concerned should be suspended and subjected to a rigorous examination - starting with his thought processes - clearly he hasn't thought through the consequences of his ideas; one wonders if this extends to operational decisions :tongue_cheek:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CC who is at the head of this particular idiotic suggestion has also hit the headlines before. The second paragraph does trouble me a great deal, I wonder what happened to the money received for selling the tickets?

 

 

Weeks earlier Mr Thompson admitted a decision to refuse to identify a string of on-the-run criminals left his force looking ‘silly’. Bureaucrats had turned down a request by the Daily Mail under freedom of information laws to name the ten suspects who had spent longest on the run.

 

And his force was also slammed for selling tickets to a public misconduct hearing for an officer caught smoking cannabis. It employed events firm Eventbrite to allocate seats at the hearing.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The CC who is at the head of this particular idiotic suggestion has also hit the headlines before. The second paragraph does trouble me a great deal, I wonder what happened to the money received for selling the tickets?

 

 

Weeks earlier Mr Thompson admitted a decision to refuse to identify a string of on-the-run criminals left his force looking ‘silly’. Bureaucrats had turned down a request by the Daily Mail under freedom of information laws to name the ten suspects who had spent longest on the run.

 

And his force was also slammed for selling tickets to a public misconduct hearing for an officer caught smoking cannabis. It employed events firm Eventbrite to allocate seats at the hearing.

 

 

 

We all make mistakes. However, if a Chief Constable makes three such mistakes or ill-judged decisions, he really has to have his competence questioned. Is this not the sort of thing that PCCs were crated for; if so, what is the relevant office-holder doing to examine this matter?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weeks earlier Mr Thompson admitted a decision to refuse to identify a string of on-the-run criminals left his force looking ‘silly’. Bureaucrats had turned down a request by the Daily Mail under freedom of information laws to name the ten suspects who had spent longest on the run.

Not always possible to do due to potential ID issues so not always as it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The CC who is at the head of this particular idiotic suggestion has also hit the headlines before. The second paragraph does trouble me a great deal, I wonder what happened to the money received for selling the tickets?

 

 

Weeks earlier Mr Thompson admitted a decision to refuse to identify a string of on-the-run criminals left his force looking ‘silly’. Bureaucrats had turned down a request by the Daily Mail under freedom of information laws to name the ten suspects who had spent longest on the run.

 

And his force was also slammed for selling tickets to a public misconduct hearing for an officer caught smoking cannabis. It employed events firm Eventbrite to allocate seats at the hearing.

 

 

When I first heard of this CC's pronouncements on the burka by police officers I assumed he was just another ACPO type seeking to court media publicity but having learned of his activities regarding `on the run' criminals and selling tickets for a misconduct hearing I can but conclude that he should make an appointment with his Force's MO without delay.

No wonder public respect for the Police Service has plummeted. Many MOPs will think that if that is the standard for those at the top of the Police Service then what is it for those in the lower ranks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think it should be allowed. It will affect such a small proportion of any new recruits I cant imagine it would be an issue and it may offer up some experience and expertise in certain areas which could prove invaluable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 8 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.