Does this case make any sense?

Little Acorn

Just saw this on sky news,so looked it up and am very confused as to how this case was even listened to in court.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Sikh-Police-Officer-Told-To-Remove-Turban-Wins-Compensation-From-Greater-Manchester-Police/Article/200910115397953?lid=ARTICLE_15397953_SikhPoliceOfficerToldToRemoveTurbanWinsCompensationFromGreaterManchesterPolice&lpos=searchresults



This man was doing training for RIOT policing.
Of course he would be asked to wear a helmet!

Before anyone pulls the racism card,I'm not.
I just think this case is an absolute farce.

If a turban is part of you religion,and it is against your religion to take it off,
then that's perfectly fine and you have every right to follow your religion, stick by your belief's and for people to respect your decision.

But you also need to have respect for the rules governing certain jobs.
Everybody knows that riot police have to wear helmets,
so why apply for a job that you KNOW will bring you to a situation where your religious beliefs will be affected?

The police would legally HAVE TO ensure their officers wore helmets for health and safety reasons.

If they said he didn't have to wear a helmet,
would he have sued them for an injury claim?

This is the bit I'm most confused about:

"We felt we acted in the officer's best interests, but accept the findings and have already updated the policies this relates to," she said.

Have they changed their health and safety guidelines on the merit of this one case?
Could this put other officer's health and safety at risk?
Will there be a surge of injury claims in the future, from officers who claim they weren't adequately protected in their job?

Could someone who knows abit about health and safety guidelines please try to answer my questions,cos I'm genuinely curious and baffled by it all.

Imo,his superior officers should not have being punished/sued for doing their job and following their own safety rules.
They were only trying to protect him from harm.

Rabies

The tribunal heard that in a meeting with one sergeant to discuss the riot training, Mr Singh was asked: "Can you take that thing off?"

I think that is the line that caused the problem.
He found it insulting to his religion.

Personaly, he should have known he can't wear a helmet and should have asked to not be part of riot training or any real riot situations where deemed possible.
But also, his superiors should have known about his religious stance too.

Should never have reached court. No pay out should have been given.

Black Swan

Give him a larger helmet that would allow him to wear his turban? Problem solved.

Overheal

This is a discussion that could be much better off in Politics.

Anyway it sounds like it wasn't so much that there was a conflict between Turban and Helmet: but the officers in charge, and their ability to resolve the situation, were lacking. The report says the officer was fairly forceful in insisting he take the turban off to complete the exercise. Its more like "I felt pressured and threatened" and less like "OMG someone asked me to take off my turban Im suing them with my sue button Beep oh I pressed it your in trouble now bitches." It would be like asking a woman to pee standing up if you didnt know any better, but then trying to force them to pee standing up when they told you No.

Little Acorn

Thanks for your replies guys.
I'm starting to see the argument abit clearer now,
that maybe it was the manner he was asked rather than just the fact that he was asked.
Because my first impression was just wow! and couldn't get it at all.

Jet Black

He just need's a tur-met.(turban/helmet)
Problem solved, case closed, were's my cake?

Little Acorn

Mask wrote: »

He just need's a tur-met.(turban/helmet)
Problem solved, case closed, were's my cake?

spadder

Tur-met:D
I think we're on to something here, maybe a layer of fibre-glass over the turban.

wolfric

I'm going to make a new religion that expresses explicitly that i'm not allowed wear clothes outside. I also have done a black balaclava when i'm entering a building that involves finances (ie a bank). Asking me to put clothes on of course would be deeply offending. I mean what right have people not to be exposed to my private parts when i want to go to the shops.

It's like getting into the porn industry and being a Christian who swears not to have sex before they're married.

If he was under age and not able to deal with people then fine but he's mature enough to be able to say "no it's against my religion. Can i get together or have a meeting later and discuss this"

I hate the fact that people immediately fall for racial or religious prejudice when people accuses you of it. The officer did not have to be informed about his religion. Training rules are for safety... if he didn't want to abide he should have just quit.

Mask

Mask wrote: »

He just need's a tur-met.(turban/helmet)
Problem solved, case closed, were's my cake?

Del boy already though of it. No cake for you

Tur met

thomond2006

This guy is in real danger from the:

biko

Stupid man.

Of course I'm all for riot police not wearing helmets during riots, it evens out the odds somewhat.

I'm trying to decide who's a bigger fool.


On one hand you have the guy that everyone is going to aim their rocks at next g20 or whatever..

On the other the spastics that gave him 10k for the pleasure..

Nodin

Magnus wrote: »

Stupid man.

Of course I'm all for riot police not wearing helmets during riots, it evens out the odds somewhat.

Actually, theres no mention that he couldn't get a helmet on, just that the guy told him to take off the turban, which is a no-no.

(Sikhs are noted for their martial abilities by the way, so even if they don't were lids, it doesn't seem to have held them back).

Nodin

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I'm trying to decide who's a bigger fool.


On one hand you have the guy that everyone is going to aim their rocks at next g20 or whatever..

On the other the spastics that gave him 10k for the pleasure..

Considering that theres been Sikhs in the brit police for decades now, and for centuries in the Brit army, I'd say the "spastics".

o1s1n

Things like this make me Sikh to my stomach tbh.

RMD

I think let him wear the turban if he wants, but just let him know he wont be insured against any head or face injuries as he's not wearing appropriate protection.

orourkeda

Respect for religious beliefs is all well and good.Based on my very narrow understanding I imagine that a person cannot be sacked, reprimanded or refused entry to the police solely on religious grounds. If this person refuses to wear the necessary protection on religious grounds what happens if they are sent into a riot without the requisite protection.Whats the alternative? Surely working in a job like this is all about obvious practicalities rather than expression of religious beliefs

orourkeda

RMD wrote: »

I think let him wear the turban if he wants, but just let him know he wont be insured against any head or face injuries as he's not wearing appropriate protection.

But this is just opening yourself up to all sorts of claims and trouble.

orourkeda

This was a training exercise.

In the "real world" the right to religious expression isnt foremost on the minds of people in the middle of a riot. How "offended" would he be if he were allowed to go into a riot without the requisite protection and became seriously hurt as a result.

Whatever one's feeling on the police how do they win in a situation like this.

citizen_p

how do riot ploice in the country hes from do it....

or make him sign somthing saying if he dies its his fault