Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveMaybe not sacked, as it appears the rules allowed him to make the refusal. But certainly you have to ask why such a policy exists.
....refuses to carry out his protection duties at Israel Embassy.
Should be sacked methinks.
http://tinyurl.com/pep6p
Imagine if police could chose to not come to the aid of the victim of a crime because they don't morally approve of their lifestyle. What if a police officer disapproved of single mothers?
Oh dear, political correctness ties itself in knots.
The poor PC has human rights to consider - can't have him doing a job which is against his beliefs.
Seriously, I think he should be allowed to work or not work where he likes, but if it is part of the job then he should ask for a transfer to a different job.
If you guys read the article about this case at the BBC you'll see that the policeman himself has said that he doesn't think it right for individual officers to pick and choose the duties they perform based on their own personal moral choices.
He has said that he felt for his own safety. This may not be the case but it is worth bearing in mind before jumping to conclusions.
EDIT: He also didn't refuse service but asked if he could be transferred to different duties. This does happen from time to time in the police force.
Originally posted by WheelyYes, I didn't mean he refused service.
EDIT: He also didn't refuse service but asked if he could be transferred to different duties. This does happen from time to time in the police force.
Initially when I heard this story I thought he was fully entitled to request different duties, after all it happens all the time.
But it seems that his particular job involves call-outs if necessary, possibly to the Israeli embassy.
If not doing this duty means he can't do the job then he needs transferring to a different job.
Originally posted by VargI would agree that if he doesn't perform the duty he has been assigned then he shouldn't be in the police force but although initially it seems this is the case, further reading suggests it might not be. If he really feared for his own safety, as he says, rather than just objecting to protecting the Israeli embassy then he probably did the right thing in asking for a transfer.
Yes, I didn't mean he refused service.
Initially when I heard this story I thought he was fully entitled to request different duties, after all it happens all the time.
But it seems that his particular job involves call-outs if necessary, possibly to the Israeli embassy.
If not doing this duty means he can't do the job then he needs transferring to a different job.
It seems that there is quite a significant investigation going on into what happened and perhaps it will all become clearer later.
I think it's more simple than any of you are suggesting.
The police are the police regardless of colour or creed, Joe Public sees the uniform first above everything else.
If someone refuses to carry out a reasonable duty asked of them they should be subject to disciplinary procedures.
If a bin man refused to collect the garbage off a certain street, what would happen to him?
People should remember that they're paid to do a job, and if they don't want to do it they should be fired.
