Religious Symbols.

[Captain Kong]

I watched BBC News last night and it showed a Police Training College,
As the Policemen and women were marching around the Parade ground, One was a SIKH complete with Turban.

Now that is a Religious Identity, What next?... A ****** Police Woman in a complete Burkha and Niqub???
Where will it all end??
Cheers
Brian

[Jim Brady]

I noticed that too Brian.
Regards.
Jim.B.

[John Pruden]

sikhs can ride a moter bike without a helmet we can't!!!!!law is for all not a few?jp

[alf corbyn]

the government also allowed sihks to wear turbans so they could recruit them in the police force as did london transport to get drivers & conductors. with regards crosses and religion. if she is that keen why doen't she have it tattooed on?. i think we should ban all religious artifacts in hospitals to start with; then go on to ban turbans on motor cycles and continue with burquers and anything that hides the face for identification purposes. that should sort out the ******s a bit. then we should ban all queers from being partners in public, let them practise thier un-natural acts behind closed doors. they didn't allow it in the fifties.the fall of the roman empire started like that.
don't get me wrong! we used to get on well with them in the MN but they didn't pressure anyone.

[Stuart Henderson]

What annoys me is the thought that our Servicemen are not allowed to wear their uniforms when on leave or off duty freely......
Stuart H
Ex RMB/ MN

[Captain Kong]

Hi Stuart ,
That started when the IRA started to target British Servicemen, In Germany or in Holland when the Servicemen were driving home on leave in uniform towards the Ferry terminals, the IRA would wait at road junctions and then shoot them.
So outside of barracks they now wear civilian clothing.
Cheers
Brian.

[EIFION]

Please gentlemen let us refrain from the racist and bigot stuff, if you read the facts you would know that the difference between the cases was based on dangling jewelry being a danger and not whether it was a crucifix or not. Personaly i mistrust all faiths each being as primitive and barbaric as the other, the odd thing is that both ***** and christianity are both based on judaeism and can be considered as mere sects of the later. The lawyers will of course make a small fortune out of this stuff as I believe they have a right of apeal against the ruling. Incidentally the wearing of a cross is against the teachings in the Bible, somethingt along the lines of making craven images of the lord thy god etc

[Rocky]

then go on to ban turbans on motor cycles and continue with burquers and anything that hides the face for identification purposes.

Tinted visors or mirrored even if part of the helmet and not some stick on piece of junk are already banned in the uk as the hide your face it has nothing to do with health and safety

This from an old rider who had to go out and get a replacement and now have to wear shades under the visor to protect from bright shining lights in the eyes and the shades do not have any safety features

[Robin Ellis]

Fed up of being an ethnic minority in my own country, I emigrated, and now I'm an ethnic minority in another country

But, unlike all those who emigrated to the UK, I have to speak the language, I have to register for tax, I have to have (and carry at all times) a National Identity Card which has my photo and fingerprints on it. I have to earn my own living as I am NOT entitled to any benefits at all even though I am now a permanent resident.

Hang on a moment, why don't I emigrate back to the UK and sponge off all you tax payers??????

[Ivan Cloherty]

Please gentlemen let us refrain from the racist and bigot stuff, if you read the facts you would know that the difference between the cases was based on dangling jewelry being a danger and not whether it was a crucifix or not.

Eifion

I think we are all intelligent enough to read the facts, whether anyone wants to be racist or bigots is certainly up to the individual in any case (they may have personal reasons for being so). From what I read no one is basing their remarks on ONE individual case, but if we/they were we/they are sure that the individual involved would have the sense to cover up her symbol, whether it being a danger from dangling or hygiene reasons.

My reading of the remarks made is why is the cross a danger in a ward for hygiene reasons, when a headress of other religions, whether ****** or Hindu etc etc is not. Do the employees who wear these headresses change them for a sterile one when they enter the hospital, after the ones they are wearing have been subjected to airborne pollution, people sitting on the bus behind them coughing on them, we know that very few people these days cover their mouths when coughing, as I have often felt a cold moist draught on my neck whilst using public transport, those are the FACTS and we do have the sense to be aware of them.

Furthermore the crux of the matter in the European Court was the cruxifix and the word jewelry was a red herring introduced by the hospital to make their case, as the lady in question said, if it had been a question of jewelry she would certainly not have worn it, but to her the cross was as sacred as any Sikhs turban or a ******s headress.

Please credit your fellow contributors with more sense than you appear to give them credit for Ivan