From the Times Online: "Avon and Somerset Constabulary has begun to equip its female officers with a uniform issue hijab to wear when they enter a mosque... The scheme is believed to be a first for the British police. The Metropolitan Police, the largest and most diverse UK force, said that it issued headscarves to its Muslim female officers but not to non-Muslim officers."
It would be easy enough to write this off as merely being ultra-PC; it wouldn't be the first time for this police force. "In 2006 the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset had to apologise after it emerged that the force had used positive discrimination to try to increase the number of female and ethnic minority officers, randomly excluding 186 white male applicants during a recruitment drive on the grounds that they were already over-represented." But that's a different order of issue; in job discrimination, even if it's "reverse", someone has been harmed. Even the advocates of reverse discrimination don't deny this; they merely think it's whitey's turn for a change. But no one is actually harmed by changing uniform headgear when indicated.
It can also be argued, however, that excessive accommodation is a concession of authority to a single religion. One could argue that providing a uniform hijab for Muslim officers is a reasonable concession to that officer, but requiring non-Muslim officers to wear one is not merely pandering to a single religion, but to one given wing at that- not all Muslim women wear hijabs. Wouldn't a requirement to wear one be the government taking sides in an internal dispute within Islam? What do you think?