Chris

OK, so we're going to have to compare what I'm actually saying with what you claim I'm saying.

To kick off, I originally said:

but for a great many older people an ear-ring in a man's ear says a whole lot of things about him that might lessen or destroy their trust in him and his authority. - towny

which you interpreted as:

you basicly said in your first post that a good reason for discriminating against men wearing earings is that some people from older generations may make mental accusations about thier sexuality - zrbyte

and I said:

It is not appropriate to expect these people to change their thinking to accommodate policemen who want to wear ear rings. It is the policeman who is the public servant and it is his duty to be accessible and approachable to all sections of society. - towny

which you interpreted as:

you basicly said in your first post that it is ok to discriminate to satisfy the small minded minority (i.e. those who think that males who wear earings are gay, what a silly concept - zrbyte

As you can see when you put our posts side by side, I said nothing at all about sexuality. As a matter of fact, the ruling by thse who have introduced the new dress code said nothing about sexuality either. It is certain un-named gay police officers, who have not even talked directly to the BBC, who are 'said to be' making a sexuality issue out of this. In my original post I complained that some people insist on looking for anti-gay discrimination where there is none. What you are saying really just proves this.

Now, as for bigotry: You have insisted on sprinkling your reading of my opinion with a liberal dose of your own value judgements. This never makes for a clear discussion of issues, unless you have no interest in understanding points of view that differ from yours.

Here is what dictionary.com says of the word 'bigot':

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. - Dictionary.com

So, a person is not a bigot simply for having a strong opinion. It is intolerance of those whose opinions differ that is the deciding factor. Your readiness to dismiss those that have a problem with ear rings as the 'small minded minority' with 'silly ideas' is making you look like a bigot.

Race is absolutely not a comparable issue in this case. The scale of the issue is relevant: there are many races, and it is impossible to find one single race that absolutely everyone from every race will be happy with. The very scale of the problem makes it impossible to deal with by simply banning one thing or another. So, we do the best we can: rather than have no police officers of any race, we strive to have representative numbers of each race.

The scale and nature of the potential ear ring problem is completely different. It is most likely only older people who have a problem, and relatively small numbers of police officers who would wear an ear ring. So, it is a simple matter to deal with the problem quickly and decisively by requiring them to remove their ear rings for the 8 hours they are on shift. If it is a problem because of older people, then time will solve the problem for us. All we need is a little patience.

So, I have given reasons why I think that scale of problem is a relevant factor when deciding what to do about claims of 'discrimination'. (Note I say what to do about, not whether to ignore). Can you give reasons why you think scale of problem is not relevant?