interesting Email I received

[Chobbersjnr]

Makes you think, does it not?

Subject: Police rules - interesting




UK’s Bedfordshire Police’s rules regarding terrorists and dangerous criminals:

If they’re non-Muslim

• Consider the most opportune time of day to be able to arrest suspects with minimum resistance
• Apply all necessary force to enter the premises and arrest suspects accordingly.

If they’re Muslim:

• Community leaders must be consulted before raids into Muslim houses.
• Officers must not search occupied bedrooms and bathrooms before dawn.
• Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises.
• Cameras and camcorders should not be used in case capturing women in inappropriate dress.
• If people are praying at home officers should stand aside and not disrupt the prayer. They should be allowed the opportunity to finish.
• Officers should take their shoes off before raiding a Muslim house.
• The reasons for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.
• Officers must not touch holy books or religious artefacts without permission.
• Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.

With this continuing appeasement, no wonder it’s now predicted that
Britain will become an Islamic state by 2070.
(Time to think about your children.)

SO THAT THE 40%+ OF BRITISH VOTERS WHO DIDN’T VOTE LAST TIME
MIGHT GET THE MESSAGE. THERE’S SO LITTLE TIME LEFT!

[Kodiak]

I have no idea where you got that e-mail from but it is clearly Utter Rubbish and you should have put it straight in the Trash Can where it belongs.

[DeHaviLand]

Just crap, dont believe everything you read on the internet, and checking up wont do you any harm either.

This is a copy of the letter sent by Bedfordshire Police in answer to a freedom of information act request about those supposed guidelines.

Our Ref: 2010/00207
Dear Member of the Public,
REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Reference No F-2010-00207
With reference to your request for information received on 26th February 2010, I note you seek access to the following information:
The following is an item circulating on the internet which is self explanatory.
Will you please verify to the authenticity of it as true copy or otherwise, put out by the Bedfordshire Police for guidance of its officers.
I am required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act) to handle all requests in a manner that is blind to the identity of the requestor. Any information released in response to a request is regarded as being published, and therefore in the public domain without caveat.
In response to your questions, I have today decided to release the information requested in full as I can see no harm to any individual, the community, the police service or other bodies. After considering whether releasing this information will affect the good order and functioning of community, government or other public service affairs, I believe it is in the public's interest the information be released. The information lies within the arena of public safety and may provide common benefit to members of the community. Releasing this information will not identify any individual or compromise any court case, law enforcement or investigation.
With reference to your recent enquiry and in response to your question I can confirm the following:
Response – The item you refer to is incorrect and is not ‘Bedfordshire Police’s rules regarding terrorists and dangerous criminals’ as the website claims.
Bedfordshire Police does have guidance for entering households which was derived from National Home Office / Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) guidelines. While the information on the website is not the same, there are some similarities to our guidance for some basic considerations when entering Muslim households, especially for pre-planned operations, which is summarised below:
Innocent occupants of a household such as women and children may be present and Police should never under-estimate the impact of any loss of their personal dignity. Muslim women may be more flexible in their choice of dress at home amongst family members than outside and police entry could contribute to a loss of dignity. Opportunity should be afforded for occupants to cover themselves sufficiently to comply with the etiquettes of "Hijab" if a non-family member is present - and that includes the head for women..
The same level of etiquette and respect should be observed in Muslim households as in a Muslim place of worship, such as a Mosque.

[Chobbersjnr]

Well, well, makes you think.

[DeHaviLand]

Unfortunately it didnt make you think. You just toed the anti-muslim line without putting your inadequate brain into action

[bekisman]

This rubbish has been 'doing the rounds' for years:

Vikram on August 3, 2005 11:28 PM ·
Perhaps the NYC cops can follow the helpful guidelines laid out for their British counterparts. I'm sure the techniques will help so very much in making their terror sweeps speedy and sensitive all at the same time.

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001952.html

[Chobbersjnr]

Unfortunately it didnt make you think. You just toed the anti-muslim line without putting your inadequate brain into action

I put no personal slant in my first post and you have no idea what line I toed. Must you stoop to derogatory personal remarks? Make one wonder who has the inadequate brain.
I posted an email I received. No more than that.

[3of8]

Got to agree with DeHaviLand...

Your quote:

With this continuing appeasement, no wonder it’s now predicted that Britain will become an Islamic state by 2070.
(Time to think about your children.)

SO THAT THE 40%+ OF BRITISH VOTERS WHO DIDN’T VOTE LAST TIME
MIGHT GET THE MESSAGE. THERE’S SO LITTLE TIME LEFT!

If that's not toeing the anti-Islamic line I'd like to see what is!

If you can take the time to copy and paste into a forum, surely you can take the time to Google 'Bedfordshire Police Rules' ? That way you won't end up with egg on your face.

[Chobbersjnr]

Got to agree with DeHaviLand...

Your quote:

If that's not toeing the anti-Islamic line I'd like to see what is!

If you can take the time to copy and paste into a forum, surely you can take the time to Google 'Bedfordshire Police Rules' ? That way you won't end up with egg on your face.

That quote was part of the Email and I ventured no opinion. Therefore, no egg.
To avoid other insults and attacks, I have no anti-Muslim feelings whatsoever and made no personal statement of belief in the original post apart fom saying that the message I received was interesting and it is.

[changilass]

This is why I think that a comment from the op with the initial post makes sense.

Saves folks getting the wrong end of the stick, or worse still, simply grabbing it in the middle.

[buddyrich]

Or you could have saved time by not bothering to post anything in the general section of the forum because all you're guaranteed is ignorance and stupidity.

[crayola]

This is why I think that a comment from the op with the initial post makes sense.

Saves folks getting the wrong end of the stick, or worse still, simply grabbing it in the middle.

Are you implying that it's ok to post spammed emails containing racist lies as long as you don't say you agree with the content?

Is this official policy?

[Anfield]

That quote was part of the Email and I ventured no opinion. Therefore, no egg.
To avoid other insults and attacks, I have no anti-Muslim feelings whatsoever and made no personal statement of belief in the original post apart fom saying that the message I received was interesting and it is.

When you say that you found Email "interesting" what exactly did you mean?
Before posting did you not think about validating the contents?

Well, well, makes you think.

makes you think what?

[changilass]

Are you implying that it's ok to post spammed emails containing racist lies as long as you don't say you agree with the content?

Is this official policy?

I was commenting on the confusion caused due to lack of an opening opinion by the op, rather than the content or policy.

I apologise profusely for omitting to say IMHO only.

The content is there for all to see and everyone can make there own opinion of it.

[Sara Jevo]

Makes you think?

It sure did.

It made me think that you didn't think very hard at all - you came across something (which a little bit of research would have shown to be complete ****) that pandered to your prejudice and decided to spread the poison.

Shame on you.

[Chobbersjnr]

This was not a spammed email but a message that was being relayed to a lot of people. It is interesting to know that there are people who promulgate this sort of half true propoganda and I was interested to see what reaction it would get here on the org. That's why I put no personal slant on it in the beginning.
Your reactions have been interesting also.
BTW surely this is religious, not racist.

[Sara Jevo]

This was not a spammed email but a message that was being relayed to a lot of people. It is interesting to know that there are people who promulgate this sort of half true propoganda and I was interested to see what reaction it would get here on the org. That's why I put no personal slant on it in the beginning.
Your reactions have been interesting also.
BTW surely this is religious, not racist.

Yes, and you are one of them!

It's interesting you do not identify the source of this material, or why that source believed you may be interested in receiving it.

You made a conscious decision to distribute inflammatory and bogus material that any reasonable person would deduce is designed to incite prejudice and hatred of a particular religious and/or racial group.

You are either extremely ignorant, naive or prejudiced.

I'm sure if you rang a solicitor, he or she may advise you to retract this, so that you have some mitigation in the event of prosecution.

[crayola]

This was not a spammed email but a message that was being relayed to a lot of people. It is interesting to know that there are people who promulgate this sort of half true propoganda and I was interested to see what reaction it would get here on the org. That's why I put no personal slant on it in the beginning.
Your reactions have been interesting also.
BTW surely this is religious, not racist.

You have described a spammed email rather well. It is indeed interesting that there are people who promulgate this sort of propaganda. I wouldn't have expected you to be one of them and I wouldn't have expected you to use the 'religious not racist' excuse. Shame on you.

[golach]

This was not a spammed email but a message that was being relayed to a lot of people.

It is a spammed e-mail

[Chobbersjnr]

the 'religious not racist' excuse. .

Not an excuse but a statement of unbiased fact.