ChatterBank0 min ago
Do you think this is justified ?
22 Answers
Police are now to be issued with a softly. softly guide on how to raid Muslim homes. Officers are told to treat them with the same reverence as Mosques.
When seaching homes for terrorist suspects, they are to remove their footwear before entering.
Avoid rapid entry, also avoid dawn raids because it is a spiritually busy time.
To wait for prayers to finish and not to look at women whos faces may be uncovered.
These guidlines are covered in a briefing note ENTERING MUSLIM HOMES issued by the Avon & Somerset Force. The guide was based on advice from the Association of Muslim Police.
When seaching homes for terrorist suspects, they are to remove their footwear before entering.
Avoid rapid entry, also avoid dawn raids because it is a spiritually busy time.
To wait for prayers to finish and not to look at women whos faces may be uncovered.
These guidlines are covered in a briefing note ENTERING MUSLIM HOMES issued by the Avon & Somerset Force. The guide was based on advice from the Association of Muslim Police.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Do you have a link to this story?
Somehow I doubt that the police (if they suspect a terrorist is in situ) will remove their footwear before entering a house.
However, I do believe that a policeman should take his shoes off if he is entering a Muslim's house who is not a suspect, or if the Muslim is not suspected to be a 'threat'
Somehow I doubt that the police (if they suspect a terrorist is in situ) will remove their footwear before entering a house.
However, I do believe that a policeman should take his shoes off if he is entering a Muslim's house who is not a suspect, or if the Muslim is not suspected to be a 'threat'
-- answer removed --
Hmmm, so by your rule Oneeyedvic , if i started a religion up that forbidded policeman entering my house at all, does that mean they should never be allowed to enter.Or what about if i made a religion that forbids anyone at all to touch me?
Anyone who is in England should live by English law, no matter what religion, colour, man, woman, whatever. Its about time the country stood up to these people and the sympathisers who are trying to bring it to the dark ages.
Anyone at all visiting another country or living there should accept its laws. If i go to france i accept that i have to drive on the right. If i go to the middle east i am attacked for walking round topless. Can you imagine the uproar if i said i wanted a pub and a casino in their country? And if i asked for a strip club i would be beheaded...
Anyone who is in England should live by English law, no matter what religion, colour, man, woman, whatever. Its about time the country stood up to these people and the sympathisers who are trying to bring it to the dark ages.
Anyone at all visiting another country or living there should accept its laws. If i go to france i accept that i have to drive on the right. If i go to the middle east i am attacked for walking round topless. Can you imagine the uproar if i said i wanted a pub and a casino in their country? And if i asked for a strip club i would be beheaded...
"If i go to france i accept that i have to drive on the right. If i go to the middle east i am attacked for walking round topless. Can you imagine the uproar if i said i wanted a pub and a casino in their country? And if i asked for a strip club i would be beheaded..."
You are hardly comparing like for like - the examples given in the question relate to a person's home.
So in your analogy - If you purchased a plot of land in France, then you would have the right to drive your car on the right hand side of the road. If you walk around topless in the middle east, in a private residence, then you will not get attacked.
I also don' t think you can compare starting your own religion to a religion that has been established for thousands of years and has around a billion people who follow it!
You are hardly comparing like for like - the examples given in the question relate to a person's home.
So in your analogy - If you purchased a plot of land in France, then you would have the right to drive your car on the right hand side of the road. If you walk around topless in the middle east, in a private residence, then you will not get attacked.
I also don' t think you can compare starting your own religion to a religion that has been established for thousands of years and has around a billion people who follow it!
If police have reasonable grounds for suspecting that crimes have been committed or are being planned - and lets not forget that a magistrate has to verifty this when issuing a warrant, then I see no reason why Muslims should have a more softly softly approach than anyone else. Respect for all raidees or for none at all.
I wonder what kind parallel universe a muslim woman must have been living in for them to cower in terror at a man being able to see their face. If - and I don't believe it for a second - a woman will be consumed by hellfire if she does not leave her house without a heavy black mask on her face - surely her merciful God would respect that in the police raiding her home she was not the one at fault being caught maskless.
It is incredibly unhealthy for any society to foster or permit the concept of women hiding themselves from one half of the population for their entire lives.
As for the raids themself, it is tactically absurd to check beforehand with a suspect's so-called community leaders (why don't indigenous Britons get these community leaders?) or to read a book on religious etiquette. As a poster earlier stated, anyone can set up a religion and are free to make up whatever practise they choose. It's a foolish police force that panders to it.
Either muslims are funny little people with chips on their shoulder that need to be constantly soothed like babies or they are ordinary pragmatic citizens who believe in democracy and have no more or less rights than the rest of us.
Which is it?
I wonder what kind parallel universe a muslim woman must have been living in for them to cower in terror at a man being able to see their face. If - and I don't believe it for a second - a woman will be consumed by hellfire if she does not leave her house without a heavy black mask on her face - surely her merciful God would respect that in the police raiding her home she was not the one at fault being caught maskless.
It is incredibly unhealthy for any society to foster or permit the concept of women hiding themselves from one half of the population for their entire lives.
As for the raids themself, it is tactically absurd to check beforehand with a suspect's so-called community leaders (why don't indigenous Britons get these community leaders?) or to read a book on religious etiquette. As a poster earlier stated, anyone can set up a religion and are free to make up whatever practise they choose. It's a foolish police force that panders to it.
Either muslims are funny little people with chips on their shoulder that need to be constantly soothed like babies or they are ordinary pragmatic citizens who believe in democracy and have no more or less rights than the rest of us.
Which is it?
Despite all the politically correct comments on here, the fact is our police are damned if they do - and damned if they don't. It's time that everyone living in this country undertand that the law and our police have to be respected - different rules for different sections of society just can't work. Seems to me if police take their shoes off to enter a house where the suspects are in fact, criminals, all it would take is a few well placed drawing pins and the culprits would be off! This really is 'pussyfooting'!!
Part 1 of 2�
I believe this has been blown out of proportion. The advice I've seen is not as clear cut as is being reported.
There is guidance issued (about all faiths and cultures) explaining what may or may not offend somebody and how that can be dealt with and of course advice on dealing with Muslims has input from the Association of Muslim Police Officers.
The guidelines are that consideration should be given as to whether dogs are required because of cultural beliefs. Is a dog needed to search a building or could officers do it safely and successfully? What is being looked for? If small items are being looked for that officers might not be able to find then a dog would be suitable but if you're looking for a large person then is a dog needed?
Removing shoes is dependant on the issue being dealt with. Arresting somebody, breaking up a fight etc is very different to going to a Muslim house to take a statement, deliver a death message etc where it would be appropriate to take off your shoes. If an address has to be entered and there are any believed risks then of course shoes/boots wouldn�t be taken off.
This advice is no different from the advice given regarding other religious premises. You wouldn't expect to see police officers standing guard at a Synagogue that had been broken into whilst munching on a bacon sandwich, or sitting on the altar of a church to take a rest from chasing a burglar around the graveyard.
I believe this has been blown out of proportion. The advice I've seen is not as clear cut as is being reported.
There is guidance issued (about all faiths and cultures) explaining what may or may not offend somebody and how that can be dealt with and of course advice on dealing with Muslims has input from the Association of Muslim Police Officers.
The guidelines are that consideration should be given as to whether dogs are required because of cultural beliefs. Is a dog needed to search a building or could officers do it safely and successfully? What is being looked for? If small items are being looked for that officers might not be able to find then a dog would be suitable but if you're looking for a large person then is a dog needed?
Removing shoes is dependant on the issue being dealt with. Arresting somebody, breaking up a fight etc is very different to going to a Muslim house to take a statement, deliver a death message etc where it would be appropriate to take off your shoes. If an address has to be entered and there are any believed risks then of course shoes/boots wouldn�t be taken off.
This advice is no different from the advice given regarding other religious premises. You wouldn't expect to see police officers standing guard at a Synagogue that had been broken into whilst munching on a bacon sandwich, or sitting on the altar of a church to take a rest from chasing a burglar around the graveyard.
Part 2 of 2�
The advice is issued with a covering theme that every situation is different and every situation should be treated on its merits. The advice is there to give officers guidance on different religions and cultures. The advice is there for all cultures (including Christianity, dealing with the elderly, dealing with special needs). Unfortunately only some of it gets reported on.
I am a Police Officer and I do get fed up with some of the crazy political correctness that is prevalent (the fact we are all labelled Citizens rather than people/members of the public which just keeps reminding me of the comedy Citizen Smith, and the fact that whenever police numbers are quoted, PCSO's are included and the figure released is "total number of officers" which appears to be an attempt to massage the figures and lead the public into believing we do the same job - we don't, we work together but have different roles and vastly different training and powers) but in fairness this advice has been taken out of all proportion and has been misreported.
The misreporting causes all sorts of problems � not least members of cultures and religions who have been told we have to do certain things in all situations when we don�t, and then (understandably) say that guidance is being ignored.
The advice is issued with a covering theme that every situation is different and every situation should be treated on its merits. The advice is there to give officers guidance on different religions and cultures. The advice is there for all cultures (including Christianity, dealing with the elderly, dealing with special needs). Unfortunately only some of it gets reported on.
I am a Police Officer and I do get fed up with some of the crazy political correctness that is prevalent (the fact we are all labelled Citizens rather than people/members of the public which just keeps reminding me of the comedy Citizen Smith, and the fact that whenever police numbers are quoted, PCSO's are included and the figure released is "total number of officers" which appears to be an attempt to massage the figures and lead the public into believing we do the same job - we don't, we work together but have different roles and vastly different training and powers) but in fairness this advice has been taken out of all proportion and has been misreported.
The misreporting causes all sorts of problems � not least members of cultures and religions who have been told we have to do certain things in all situations when we don�t, and then (understandably) say that guidance is being ignored.
If this is true, it is outrageous,if they choose to live here they must abide by our rules, if they dont like it they can always go and live somewhere else, people are sick and tired of this country bowing down to these people ,they are getting away with murder , God knows what it will be like in ten years,
Latest Posts
Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News2 mins ago
Home & Garden6 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
