UPDATE: British Sikh Police Officer Humiliated For Practicing Sikhi
Gurmeal Singh, the British Sikh police officer who was humiliated for practicing Sikhi, will be compensated for “indirect harassment” and humiliation. Judge Murray Creevy ruled that the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) viola
ted his dignity.
The BBC reports that the Assistant Chief Officer at GMP, Julia Rogers felt that they had always acted in the best interest of Singh. However, GMP accepts the ruling and has already updated their policies.
After a heated conversation with his Sergeant about his inability to remove his turban while on the job, Singh feared that he would be made to look like a comic character on television by wearing a modified turban.
Ultimately the ruling according to Singh’s lawyer:
“… leaves him in difficulty in relation to his future career but will hopefully open the eyes of Greater Manchester Police. He joined the police because of his values as a Sikh. What is important now is what Greater Manchester Police will do to help him come back.”
26 Responses to “UPDATE: British Sikh Police Officer Humiliated For Practicing Sikhi”
Good Luck Sardar Sahib, We all with you. You r great. God Bless you and Good luck.
Now the so called victims are being compensated for indirect harrasment.Where will this madness end.Gurmail Singh should have stayed home practised his religion,instead he disobeys a direct order puts his colleagues lives in danger and becomesw a hero.Even in india the sikh policemen are not given this much leeway,and nobody complains.Looks like uk sikhpolice men have found a new way to collect compensation.
Good Luck Sardar Sahib, We all with you. You r great. God Bless you and Good luck.
So Mr. Mangat according to you if someone is facing racial discrimination, he or she should stay home. Like your name is half Indian and half firangi your thought process is also wearied like this. Sikhism is a religion made for saving the lives of innocent people, if we have all the capability to fight with injustice, why should not we fight. We are always the example setters; now next when u will face any hardship in u r life try thinking any example from Sikh religion you will get courage to fight.
Now the so called victims are being compensated for indirect harrasment.Where will this madness end.Gurmail Singh should have stayed home practised his religion,instead he disobeys a direct order puts his colleagues lives in danger and becomesw a hero.Even in india the sikh policemen are not given this much leeway,and nobody complains.Looks like uk sikhpolice men have found a new way to collect compensation.
So Mr. Mangat according to you if someone is facing racial discrimination, he or she should stay home. Like your name is half Indian and half firangi your thought process is also wearied like this. Sikhism is a religion made for saving the lives of innocent people, if we have all the capability to fight with injustice, why should not we fight. We are always the example setters; now next when u will face any hardship in u r life try thinking any example from Sikh religion you will get courage to fight.
Roger –
Yes – sikh police men in the UK have found a new way to collect compensation. As we speak, they are dialing up their lawyers and cue-ing up en masse for court sessions. And, of course, any complaint any of them makes will certainly not be justified…no need to consider concepts of accommodation and undue hardship…any such complainant should simply stay home and practice his religion.
I'm certain your pronouncement of Gurmail's Singh's madness – despite the fact you probably have no clue as to the facts and arguments put forth in this matter – is perfectly legitimate.
No doubt, the judge in question was a complete idiot, who did not consider the applicable laws of the land, and/or the facts before him, and/or the arguments put forward by the GMP.
Certainly, you are in a much better position to pass judgment on Gurmail Singh's complaint of harrassment.
Roger boy – I'm having a hard time deciding whether you're for real or a troll.
Roger –
Yes – sikh police men in the UK have found a new way to collect compensation. As we speak, they are dialing up their lawyers and cue-ing up en masse for court sessions. And, of course, any complaint any of them makes will certainly not be justified…no need to consider concepts of accommodation and undue hardship…any such complainant should simply stay home and practice his religion.
I'm certain your pronouncement of Gurmail's Singh's madness – despite the fact you probably have no clue as to the facts and arguments put forth in this matter – is perfectly legitimate.
No doubt, the judge in question was a complete idiot, who did not consider the applicable laws of the land, and/or the facts before him, and/or the arguments put forward by the GMP.
Certainly, you are in a much better position to pass judgment on Gurmail Singh's complaint of harrassment.
Roger boy – I'm having a hard time deciding whether you're for real or a troll.
May be you should read my posting a bit more carefully.As the judgment says & as i have written this dude was compensated for indirect harrassment.It is as if you or some one else was paqssing by & somebody fell,due to their own violition & then the judicial system comes & orders you to pay compensation to him because you indirectly helped him/her fall.How will you feel then.That is the jist of this case,but because the british system is bit eccentric,like the british citizens they do not want to hurt somebodys feeling.Well boo-hoo.Yes i am for real and an ex cop.
May be you should read my posting a bit more carefully.As the judgment says & as i have written this dude was compensated for indirect harrassment.It is as if you or some one else was paqssing by & somebody fell,due to their own violition & then the judicial system comes & orders you to pay compensation to him because you indirectly helped him/her fall.How will you feel then.That is the jist of this case,but because the british system is bit eccentric,like the british citizens they do not want to hurt somebodys feeling.Well boo-hoo.Yes i am for real and an ex cop.
Thank God Roger is an ex-cop -who'd want this kinda person in a position of responsibility….
Thank God Roger is an ex-cop -who'd want this kinda person in a position of responsibility….
Ahhh Roger…I am a lawyer and your comment is absurd.
I beleive you may have some deep rooted pyschological issues with how you view yourself and this comes out on how you talk to people.
Please contact a therapist to assist you in becoming a better human being.
Warm Regards from Australia,
Ahhh Roger…I am a lawyer and your comment is absurd.
I beleive you may have some deep rooted pyschological issues with how you view yourself and this comes out on how you talk to people.
Please contact a therapist to assist you in becoming a better human being.
Warm Regards from Australia,
Will all of you read the posting carefully,it says the judge found victim to be indirectly harassed & humiliated.There is a difference between harassment & discrimination.How thin skin does a person has to be to be indirectly harassed.Guess by gurmeal singhs case not very much.
Will all of you read the posting carefully,it says the judge found victim to be indirectly harassed & humiliated.There is a difference between harassment & discrimination.How thin skin does a person has to be to be indirectly harassed.Guess by gurmeal singhs case not very much.
Dear P.Singh
Courts dont make decisions based on shallow surfaces,this decision will come back to bite a lot of people.However you are right lets drop this discussion,thanx for all the inputs.Sorry if i offended your sensibilities.
Dear P.Singh
Courts dont make decisions based on shallow surfaces,this decision will come back to bite a lot of people.However you are right lets drop this discussion,thanx for all the inputs.Sorry if i offended your sensibilities.
Roger –
Exactly – the court did NOT make a decision on a shallow surface argument. The key point you are missing/not grasping, is that the court made its decision based on facts and arguments pertaining to "indirect discrimination"/"adverse effect discrimination", and considered harrassment as well.
From the information available, the complaint was legitimate, the facts supported the claim of "indirect discrimination", and the judgment was sound and reasonable.
This decision will NOT come back and bite a lot of people because this isn't some landmark decision introducing the concept of "indirect discrimination"/"adverse effect discrimination". These principles have been around for many years, and have been discussed in large numbers of cases, in more than one common-law jurisdiction.
As a Sikh, I'm interested in hearing about Gurmeal Singh's case…because he is a fellow Sikh; however, the legal argument, legal principles are nothing new, and nothing exciting to to write home about since they've been explored thousands of times already.
Roger –
Exactly – the court did NOT make a decision on a shallow surface argument. The key point you are missing/not grasping, is that the court made its decision based on facts and arguments pertaining to "indirect discrimination"/"adverse effect discrimination", and considered harrassment as well.
From the information available, the complaint was legitimate, the facts supported the claim of "indirect discrimination", and the judgment was sound and reasonable.
This decision will NOT come back and bite a lot of people because this isn't some landmark decision introducing the concept of "indirect discrimination"/"adverse effect discrimination". These principles have been around for many years, and have been discussed in large numbers of cases, in more than one common-law jurisdiction.
As a Sikh, I'm interested in hearing about Gurmeal Singh's case…because he is a fellow Sikh; however, the legal argument, legal principles are nothing new, and nothing exciting to to write home about since they've been explored thousands of times already.
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to ask, is it possible for me to read this case and the judgment on the Internet? If so, does anyone have the link? I am interested to learn the exact facts of the case.
Thanks.
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to ask, is it possible for me to read this case and the judgment on the Internet? If so, does anyone have the link? I am interested to learn the exact facts of the case.
Thanks.