Forum Topic

P.C. or not P.C.

I just wonder how many of us feel that the Metropolitan Police Service is becoming a mealy-mouthed, pathetic, bunch of apologists for trying to do the job we pay them for? This latest hoo-ha over the Muslim P.C. in the diplomatic protection squad just makes me furious and frankly I don't believe a word that has come from on high making pathetic excuses for this individual. As one Police Officer put it - he volunteered for the D.P. Squad and therefore must have been aware of what would be expected of him, the Met. are supposed to police "without fear or favour", yeh right. I always had the highest regard for our Police, that is going down the pan at a rate of knots. What with don't refer to young hooligans as yobs in case the little darlings get offended, you do begin to wonder what the point of a Police Service is, no wonder youngsters don't respect them.

Vanessa Smith ● 6815d47 Comments

Wasn't trying to present an argument Phil, just postulating possibilities re: a rationale behind responses that are more emotive than reasoned. Vanessa's original posting was to do with the various results of "political correctness", the discussion seguaying into particular current examples.

Nigel Moore ● 6809d

NigelYour argument does at least have the benefit of a certain logic which is sadly missing from some of the other posts on this thread.  However I would venture that the arrival of white settlers in Australia bears no serious resemblance to that of Muslim refugees and asylum seekers in the UK.The British, and other Western European powers come to that, colonised those they considered to be lesser breeds by the use (or at the very least by the display) of military force.  The native Americans and, I suspect, the Tasmanian aborigines objected to this process but did not have the means to prevent it from happening.As far as I am aware nobody is demanding that you, I or Jack Straw observes Islamic religious practices or that Vanessa wears a veil.  We are simply discussing the right of those who wish to wear a veil to do so.Nobody will tell me who, what or how to worship, what I can eat or what I must wear.  In return I do not presume to make similarly unreasonable demands of other people.

Phil Andrews ● 6809d

John’s comment on a white Christian Australian society is perfectly correct. Early Australians (actually English then of course) carried out what may have been the only totally successful genocide in history with the Tasmanian aborigines, and I already noted the mission-inspired imposition of a dress code for the mainlanders.Perhaps it’s the memory of what has been achieved in the past by incomers with a feeling of moral/social superiority that excites foreboding when similar attitudes are recognised?

Nigel Moore ● 6809d

"we may never all always agree but we can at least try to see the other persons point of view and try and understand how it looks from their perspective, and I think that's what this is about."Agreed but doesn't this apply just as much to you as other people. You seem to rule out that Muslim women who wear a veil have done so of their own accord. If it is done as an up yours gesture then I would applaud that - very punk and very British.You could equally argue that women who wear short skirts are being oppressed in a male dominated society and that they should be banned to emancipate them.

Justin Harris ● 6809d

The introduction of Australia into what was already a very depressing thread allows us to see hypocracy at its worst. The Aussie quoted defends their christian culture, neglecting to point out that this was achieved by destroying the indigenous Aborigine culture, pursuing a "white australia" policy for decades, and imposing an alien system of government. (The same, of course, applies to the US historically)For Jim, the introduction of Australia allows him to remind us of his tendency to overt racism. To that I offer the following advice I overhead many years ago - "Saxony for the Anglo-Saxons! English go home!" I am adised that Braunschweig is very nice.

John Connelly ● 6809d

I think the issue is more that women in this country have fought for emancipation, the vote and equality and rightly or wrongly quite a few of us see the veil as oppressive and something from centuries ago. As I said I too respect and observe local customs when abroad. The fact that it is being reported that more young women are choosing to wear the veil seems to be a sort of "up yours" gesture and sends the message that our ways aren't to their liking, fine, I don't have a problem if that's how they feel - but then I ask the question why choose to live in a democratic country that so obviously offends you? I doubt there are many people left that don't agree the diversity we have in this country has enriched all our lives and made London especially the place to be. However, I don't want to live under Sharia law and if I did I'd find somewhere where I could - our democracy isn't up for grabs, and to live here is to understand that, not to threaten people when you can't get your own way. The news from Ireland proves that in the end the ballot box is far more effective that the bullet, we may never all always agree but we can at least try to see the other persons point of view and try and understand how it looks from their perspective, and I think that's what this is about.

Vanessa Smith ● 6810d

Some 400 years ago (arithmetic not a strong point!) the MayFlower sailed from our shores and its occupants wrongly or rightly became the Settlers in the New World because they were persecuted in England.......Think about THAT!

Lois Westby ● 6810d

Can’t speak for your deodorant Phil, but would assume that you take your stance regardless of other people’s opinions. Personally the debate doesn’t greatly interest me. I suspect the furore over the veil issue is because people see it as a thin edge of the wedge, the same mind-set that won’t conform to an alien culture leading to demands that “natives” conform to the incomers’ values/customs etc.It’s not so different from old colonial Brit’s scorning those who “went native”, and early Australian missionaries insisting that aborigines wear clothes.Coming from what at the time was essentially a mono-cultural society, I’ve always been delighted to experience street scenes with the diversity of cultural dress that London offers, but then I’m somewhat of a foreigner myself.On the other hand, when travelling in more exotic countries I’ll either wear native dress or such western gear as fits in. I would never wear shorts or T-shirts in Muslim countries – as a visitor I believe it’s incumbent on me to conform to their feelings (quite apart from being safer!). I’ll wear a skull-cap visiting a synagogue and if I was ever brave enough to visit a nudist beach I’d strip off. For me that’s all part of the experience of life.Having said that, there is a definite depressive psychological effect when living in a country where women are only visible as black blobs. Here, it’s a curious variety; out there it’s unrelentingly gloomy and slightly sinister. Of course it was my choice to be there, but as a man it was a creepy aspect.Now the part veil showing the eyes, that’s something else!

Nigel Moore ● 6810d

Agree with what Phil has written 100% Our society is secular and liberal which is the way most of us want it but it should not become a dictatorship of the majority in which people who have different values are increasingly forced to conform.Amazingly I also am totally in agreement with George Galloway on the subject too. He wrote:"We have been on the other hand more tolerant than most of the minorities in our midst. What on earth is tolerant or secular about demanding of religious people that they should amend their religious observance to suit those who don't share their beliefs? No politician has any right to enforce a dress code on those to whom he is beholden for his very role in life."I think all too often 'common-sense' is used to cover what is at root simple Islamophobia. The irony is that the furore over this is likely to encourage more Muslim women to wear a veil as a very healthy expression of their rights as opposed to a religious observance.

Justin Harris ● 6810d

I have to say that I find the whole direction of this discussion depressing.  Remember, we are not speaking here about anybody's right to plant bombs or act illegally in any other way.  We are talking about people's right to dress how they wish.Where does it all end?  Having disrobed Muslim women and attired them in jeans and tee-shirts, what comes next in our crusade to ensure that they become "like us"?  Maybe we should consider banning kebabs and curries and force-feeding them with McDonalds or fish and chips?  What musical tastes do we consider it appropriate for Muslims living in "our" country to acquire?  Holst?  English folk?  Kylie Minogue?Should watching, and enjoying, football and EastEnders not be made a necessary prerequisite of citizenship?It took me many years to understand that cultural diversity based on mutual respect actually makes for a stronger and more cohesive society, only for me to discover that those who always held true to those values now seem to have abandoned them.  Wherever I am everybody else seems to be in the opposite place, and it leaves me wondering whether I am wearing the right deodorant.

Phil Andrews ● 6810d

Knowing plenty of Aussies - I suspect that is about right - at least they are spared the mealy-mouthed tripe that we get from Ruth Kelly et al, who are all trying to jump on the "right-on" bandwagon, you have to give the Aussies their due no-one could be in any doubt how they feel, a spade is most certainly a spade! It may not be tactful but at least they're honest, and good on 'em. Perhaps they could give some lessons to our lot?

Vanessa Smith ● 6810d

That was "interesting" Nigel and I found myself nodding with agreement. I do enjoy reading about these difficult matters when it is well written and argued...by moderates on either side too.An Australian viewpoint was bound to be "to the point" and not dallying around.Matthew Parry once reported in THE TIMES about a visit he made to an observation platform in SYDNEY where colourfully clad visitors were viewing the wonderous scenes across the city from on high. There was a happy holiday mode.Suddenly the lift doors opened and out came a middle eastern looking gentlemen ..draped in gold bracelets, gold watch etc etc...leading a line of three human beings dressed in the nikab veil (covering their faces). It must have looked like a camel train.Matthew Parry reported that he was affronted by the sight..particularly in such a outward looking,sporting and free country.  I suppose the three could have been men, or secret service agents looking for someone!

Jim Lawes ● 6810d

I was forwarded the following email this morning demonstrating that much the same debate goes on in Australia. Not knowing how typical this is of Australians in general (I suspect it is), and without comment (not really knowing the context), I include it here for interest:……………………………………………………………Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament."If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia Law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on National television."I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that is false.  If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country.Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off"."Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.………………………………………………………………………Quote:IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.  Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.  Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.  I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia.However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.  As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.  We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.  Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!Most Australians believe in God.  This is not some Christian, right wing, political push but a fact because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.  It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.  If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept ours and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like " A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from.  By all means keep your culture but do not force it on others.This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, "THE RIGHT TO LEAVE".If you aren't happy here then LEAVE.  We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here.  So accept the country YOU accepted.………………………………………………………………

Nigel Moore ● 6810d

AnnNothing wrong with the AIB ta very much, nice bit of investment help here in the UK. As for the camel Shamrock Express here at Heathrow haven't got a lorry big enough for him I'll bring a goat instead. Get the soda bread buttered and the white pud frying and sod the burkhas.

Helen Fogarth ● 6811d

Helen,You're a girl after my own heart.......bring the camel over here for a few weeks, my lawn is well overgrown!While you are here, we can wear our burkhas and take on the AIB.

Ann S. Allridge ● 6811d

apologies...

Keith Iddon ● 6811d

I'm absolutely not implying anything of the kind Keith - I of all people know just how unreasonable some people can be in trying to misrepresent the views of others on such a sensitive issue.  I'm just trying to establish some ground rules and to introduce some logic into the discussion.  Jack Straw himself said he wanted to encourage debate, so surely it makes sense to try to agree on what it is we are debating first?

Phil Andrews ● 6811d

What if some of these cultures have practises that the majority find abhorrent?To imply we are having a pop at multi-culturalism is not on.There are bounds to what some feel acceptable and all cultures have to realise that they are not perfect and have to adapt and compromise(as Brits have done).I personally will respect someone or not on the grounds of their behaviour ,not where they are from or what religion they are.This applies to white,blacks and purples with green stripes.Likewise,I don't respect someone on the grounds of what their job title is,only on how well they do their job.Anyway,you speak about multiculuralism as if it is a choice that we all made.Is it?

Keith Iddon ● 6811d

I would agree that there is a case for certain of the more extreme types of veil to be restricted in banks and building societies.  On the other hand removing one so that Jack Straw can see what you look like is just plain insulting.  The argument about "trust" at an MP's surgery doesn't stack up.  Surely it is the constituent who needs to be convinced of the MP's trustworthiness, not the other way around?However, to go back to my original point this discussion really does have wider implications for the type of society we envisage ourselves to be.  When we speak of a multi-cultural society, are we thinking of one in which all cultures and traditions are respected equally, or one which consists of "hosts" who determine the accepted norms of behaviour, religious belief and dress, and "guests" who are obliged to adhere to those norms?It is a reasonable question to ask.

Phil Andrews ● 6811d

Can anyone tell me where I can get veil to match my red hair and freckles, as I am sure we will all need them by 2010. Oh I forgot you won't be able to see me so it does not matter, must get back to feeding the camel and getting some more water from the well in Brentford High Street you know the one by the church that was pulled down to build a mosque.

Helen Fogarth ● 6812d

Jim,Loved your photos of those ghastly 'burkhas'.Our banks have a strict 'Please remove your helmet on entering the bank' rule.....balaclavas too would not be acceptable....but wouldn't a burkha be a great cover up for a slimly built potential bank robber?????????Just a thought.Now  my name will be added to "The List"!!!!!!

Ann S. Allridge ● 6812d

The papers are of course full of this subject - and interestingly I read a good article in the Sunday Times where one veiled woman indignantly asked how Jack Straw would feel if asked to take off his sunglasses for instance. I always take my sunglasses off if I am in a shop or having a conversation with someone - it is only good manners AND I don't have to be asked - I also found that small children don't like it when you wear sunglasses as they can't see your eyes.

Vanessa Smith ● 6812d

5pmThank goodness the Websites and Forums have come back on line again..after a 7 hour break.I had wondered if the appearance of a Burqa clad man/woman on this Forum had resulted in the plug being pull out on our whole empire for dare being so questioning. My name has already appeared on an East London Muslim Website!The bl***y cheek of these non conforming and bossy incomers! We're having to tread on egg shells..whilst some of them rant and rave in our ears!Will return to this thread tomorrow..if I haven't been silenced!

Jim Lawes ● 6812d

"Phil, if the Muslin population in Blackburn has reached 20%and the inflexible,intolerant,men and religious bosses are demanding this fashion style to persist in inappropriate circumstances..why do you support it?"JimWhere a woman dresses in this way against her will to satisfy somebody else's "demands" I absolutely do not support it.  But I know many Muslim women who without question adopt various degrees of cover completely of their own choice, and in such circumstances I see no reason why I should criticise them.I have operated in the world of politics for quite a long time, and I have to say that being able to look a person in the eye is no guaranteee against being fed the most appalling BS.  And if being able to do so is essential to establishing honest intent, then I guess we should be grateful that Mr. Straw doesn't wear a veil rather than his constituents. When Muslim neighbours of mine start to tell me that I'm wearing the wrong clothes, then I'll join the chorus.

Phil Andrews ● 6812d

Very true! We were very happy to be a "different" minority and just wanted the tolerance from others to be able to do our own thing. Unlike political islamism (or any other form of extremist religion for that matter), we did not want world domination - just peace and love man!!.

John Coxall ● 6812d

""We'd like to integrate more with the Hounslow community but they look at us in a strange way..what's wrong with them?"ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooTHE TIMES reports "Ahmed Versi of the Muslim News saying  that it had become "open season to demonise Islam" adding "Straw's action will exacerbate fragile community relations"Phil, if the Muslin population in Blackburn has reached 20%and the inflexible,intolerant,men and religious bosses are demanding this fashion style to persist in inappropriate circumstances..why do you support it?  Surely it's a crazy way for OUR communities to be heading..unless of course we give in and let the Mullahs overrun us with their stern doctrines? I want none of it!!

Jim Lawes ● 6812d

"Good morning Cllr Andrews, thanks for agreeing to see me at your Surgery........"And your name Sir?"oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooWell done Jack Straw...for raising this delicate issue. The day the streets of Hounslow become flooded with this fashion  or cultural style will be the time for me to think about leaving..or should we stand our ground and protest? It's not the women who would upset me..but the accompanying men who deny the ladies freedom.

Jim Lawes ● 6812d

Except that the hippy philosophy is more inclusive and tolerant of those who are not hippies and the hippy culture is not about threatening those who are not hippies.

Keith Iddon ● 6812d

As to the question of whether or not the veil is religious or cultural, I guess the fact that it is estimated that only 5% of muslim women in the UK wear the veil pretty much answers that one. As I understand it the veil was originally an Arab, rather than muslim habit (and was probably originated for the practical purpose of keeping sand and sun from your face).In Europe, we have increasing numbers of young muslim women wearing the hijab and the niqab as a political statement of Islamism (literally being "holier than thou").In this respect it is little different from the long hair and beard I affected during my hippy years during the '60's - what David Crosby referred to as "letting my freak flag fly"

John Coxall ● 6812d

There really is no need to get so  snotty or patronising if you think I have got something wrong, an adult debate is what we try to have on this Forum, throwing your teddy out of the pram over something so trivial is a bit O.T.T. - I do know the difference between the M.P.A. and the Met. Police strangely enough, I like most people am going on what was reported in the media - and whether he agreed with that daft woman or not - Sir Ian Blair is still a waste of space in my view.

Vanessa Smith ● 6813d

Good

Keith Iddon ● 6813d

"The idiot who said that the term "yobs" should not be used was a female member of the Met. Police Authority and the even bigger idiot Sir Ian Blair agreed with her. "The Metropolitan Police Authority is not the same as the Metropolitan Police Service. It is the independent board which oversees the police force. Sir Ian Blair has categorically denied ever even expressing an opinion on the use of the word 'yobs'. If you are so determined to believe something that is untrue then I won't bother troubling you further with the facts.

Andy Jones ● 6813d

Nail on the head Vanessa

Keith Iddon ● 6813d

The idiot who said that the term "yobs" should not be used was a female member of the Met. Police Authority and the even bigger idiot Sir Ian Blair agreed with her. However, we digress, it seems to me that respecting other cultures is a two way street, when I have visited Catholic countries and been sightseeing I have covered up in places of worship as requested to do. I have no problem with the hijab but the full veil thing I do find offends me, I cannot imagine it is very safe either, especially when driving or crossing the road as it restricts the wearer's vision, this whole thing of cultures has to be a two way effort, at the moment all I can see is a lot of toadying going on to avoid people bandying around the "R" word, and a lot of people trying to outdo one another in the stakes to see who can be more "right on". I do believe that the vast majority of people in this country are getting mighty fed-up with this constant barrage of the indigenous population seemingly having to make all the compromises and changes, that cannot and will not contribute to good community relations.

Vanessa Smith ● 6813d

Not sure who it was but the context was that it was stylistically inappropriate for an official report to an outside body not that it was the wrong phrase to use in general. The point would be the same if someone said that you should say 'armed robber' rather than 'blagger'. The worst you can accuse anyone of is pedantry.

Andy Jones ● 6813d

Kevin,It was,I believe, the Deputy Comm. who said that yobs should not be referred to as such but her name escapes me at the moment.

Keith Iddon ● 6813d

This seems like a very good example of how Daily Mail half truths quickly become accepted facts with some people all to willing to believe newspapers with an interest in generating controversy.A Muslim policeman with a Syrian Lebanese background was transferred off diplomatic duty at the Israeli embassy not due to his objections to doing the job but because he and his employers considered there were safety implications. At the height of the conflict in the Middle East recently it was a common sense decision that someone with relatives who could be vulnerable to kidnap should not be put in a position in which he could be pressured into compromising security at the Israeli embassy. The officer personally expressed a wish to be transferred back once the conflict had died down.No one in the police has ever said that yobs shouldn't be described as yobs. The press furore is about a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority - which monitors but doesn't run the police - saying that it was an inappropriate word to use in a report for that body. The Met have issued a statement to the press that said = "Any suggestion that the Commissioner has backed a blanket ban on the use of the word 'yobs' is totally ludicrous. He has never made any comment at all regarding its use. It is commonly used and can be an appropriate description for those responsible for antisocial behaviour. " Don't think this made the Daily Mail but why spoil a good story.I thought Life on Mars was an excellent series but the whole point was not how wonderful the police were in the seventies - they weren't and they were quite accurately portrayed as boorish, dishonest bigots - but how John Sim's character slowly persuaded them how good modern policing methods such as keeping records of interviews, not beating up suspect and respect for their female colleague's abilities got results. Jack Straw made the comment that if a Muslim woman wanted a face to face meeting with them he took that literally and would ask them to remove their veil. It is a personal expression of preference not a attempt to dictate to someone how they should express their faith. If he feels he can do a better job for these women as their MP by saying what he thinks then he should say it. The most hostile people to the wearing of veils that I know are all Muslims, not just women but men as well, and there will be a lot of agreement as they feel exactly as Jack Straw does.

Andy Jones ● 6813d

I have been told by Muslims that the veil is more about culture than religion and that the Koran does not say that women should wear a veil.I think it is devisive in certain circumstances and the reality of modern life should be considered when someone decides to wear it. It is a fact of life that some people will see it as confrontational and will not trust nor wish to interact with anyone hiding their face for whatever reason.The person wearing it has to own this and not criticise those who see it asas 'unhelpful'to good community relations.They have to accept it and get over it or agree to remove it if it makes some people uncomfortable certain situations or stop wearing it.I think there may be a small element of some people who wear it to fuel these tensions for their own ends

Keith Iddon ● 6813d

It is indeed a matter of religious expression, rather than simply of culture.  As I understand it Islam requires its women to show "modesty" in dress in the company of males who are not their husbands, but that there is some theological debate as to how far this entails covering the face and head.  This, I believe, is why some Moslem women simply wear a headscarf whilst others cover their whole faces except for their eyes.  This may strike many of us as oppressive, but I suppose the test lies in whether it is done voluntarily.

Phil Andrews ● 6813d

Not sure Phil that the veil has got much to do with religious expression either.Are you sure it's not just a cultural add-on to suit the mores of male oppression?

Keith Iddon ● 6813d

PhilMy point is not to be confused with anti multi culturalism,though I get concerned about what it is that is supposed to be holding us together as a nation(answers on a post card please!).My point is that there is a marked lack amongst some Muslims to compromise in the slightest in order to help multi culturalism along and to accommodate,for a short time, the needs of others.Indiginous Brits have made big compromises over the years and have accepted the needs of others in many areas of life.They should lighten up a bit and allow people,particularly women,more choice and more say in their lives and try to'modernise'their culture so that it fits the world in the here and now arena.We don't need to be lectured about oppression from people who do not allow freedom of thought,dress or expression to members of their own creed.

Keith Iddon ● 6813d

KeithI doubt whether the hood was an expression of religious conviction.The simple point I was making was that if we accept that we are a multi-cultural society then it followes that that society ipso facto will comprise a multitude of cultures, the values of which ought to be respected.  If you take the view, as I did once, that we should not be a multi-cultural society then the argument for asking for the veil to be removed stacks up.  But not unless.

Phil Andrews ● 6813d

Cultural imperialism to ask to look at someone's face...?Pull the other one.To ask to talk to someone face to face is a simple human consideration and to deny someone that right it inconsiderate.The Muslim religion is not reknowned for its tolerance toward the views of others and there has been a typical over reaction from parts of the Muslim world about this.A lot of Muslims would not mind being asked this,so what is wrong with us asking for it. If someone does not want to remove their covering all well and good but we are entitled to ask them to if it makes us feel uncomfortable or that  it is oppressive to good communication.A young bloke in a hood once knocked on my door selling brushes etc.and I asked him to take off the hood during our conversation.He asked why and I said that I didn't do business with anyone whose face I couldn't see and I then asked him why he thought it was ok to approach someone's house and knock on their door wearing a hood that partially concealed his face,therefore his identity.Was I wrong...I don't think so.

Keith Iddon ● 6813d

I don't think Jack Straw's comments can be considered in the same light.  They were at best insensitive and some would say downright insulting.  Would he ask a Sikh constituent to remove his turban before being permitted to address him?IMHO Straw was playing to the gallery, possibly with one eye on the Deputy Leader's job.  He may have qualified his comments but they will be accepted gratefully at face value by those whose agenda is to divide (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5415478.stm for a perfect example).  The bottom line is that we are either a multi-cultural, multi-faith society or we are not.  Compelling people from other cultures to look, dress and act in the same way as the majority is not multi-culturalism, it is cultural imperialism.I agree with Vanessa that we do need a debate, but we also need to establish some ground rules first and respect for one another's traditions and beliefs must surely be one of them?

Phil Andrews ● 6813d

No surprise there then - another waste of space if ever there was one - these people seem more interested in being on a personal crusade than building community relations. I know Jack Straw's comments have come in for a lot of flack - but he's right in that we urgently need the dabate around all these issues which have been stifled under the cloak of political correctness.

Vanessa Smith ● 6813d

I was always very suspicious when they started calling themselves a Service - presumably they are now "customer focussed" with performance targets based on "best practice" providing "constructive dialogues with key stakeholder groups".Gobbledegook indeed.Wasn't this beautifully summed up in the recent TV series Life On Mars - contrasting the no nonsense ethics of Jack Regan and the Sweeney with the current vogue for psychological mumbo-jumbo.It was interesting to see our own local Police Chief defending the office in question.

Leo Newman ● 6814d

Agreed Vanessa,and it is sad to see.Yet another example in our wonderful modern world of all the old values being ignored so that the tail can wag the dog.I have great sympathy for the average bobby and believe in supporting them as much as poss.,but I do feel that they are 'lions led by donkeys' to borrow an old phrase.They are under the cosh of university educated,politically correct career diplomats from both the home office the and force itself.Did you read the story,some months ago now, about the South African chap who used to be a bobby in Jo'burg?He did his 2 years waiting to qualify by residency for entry into the police and worked on a sink estate in Mansfield.He set himself the target of breaking the record for the amount of arrests in one year and did so(nicked about 310 if I remember).He was told by his bosses to behave himself and not show the rest of them(average 11 nicks a year)up.Needless to say he is a champion to the people whose lives were previously blighted and an embarassment to the profession he serves so well.Madness!

Keith Iddon ● 6814d