Originally posted by blade68You are missing the point.
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, wha ...[text shortened]... remember that they're paid to do a job, and if they don't want to do it they should be fired.
The point isn't to decide if he was entitled to refuse to perform his duties but to see if he DID refuse to do his duty. So far, to me, it seems he didn't.
Originally posted by WheelyIt'll be a cold day in hell when I believe anything a police person says - I made that mistake in the past - they are excellent liars especially in court.
If he really feared for his own safety, as he says, rather than just objecting to protecting the Israeli embassy.........
Do you think the Israeli embassy workers would've kidnapped him and beheaded him?
Utter balderdash.
Originally posted by RagnorakOkay, to follow your hypothetical situation.
It was a hypothetical. Look it up.
And by the way, are you saying that Germany had no embassies in the 1930s?
D
In the 1930's Nazi Germany had embassies.
In my opinion, if the goverment allows an embassy then they are not condemning the regime in which case if a jew does not want to guard the embassy it is his own lookout, so I would say he should be "re-assigned".
And I was laughing because bringing the nazis into a debate is usually the last resort of those losing an argument but in your case it's often the first!
Originally posted by blade68Why couldn't it have happened?
But that would never have happened... that would be akin to asking a mouse to go and patrol a cat shelter.
Mouse patroling cats? My point exactly. Lets have a look at some quotes from a previous Israeli leader...
Sharon:“I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him.”
Sharon:"“Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us....”"
Adolf Hitler, 1933: "The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were. … I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions"
The parallels are there. Would you fire the jewish person for not guarding Nazi Germany's embassy (for the aid of varg; hypothetically in the 1930s)?
D
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakThere was a slightly bigger risk of harm to a jewish person in Nazi Germany than there is in present day London.
The parallels are there. Would you fire the jewish person for not guarding Nazi Germany's embassy (for the aid of varg; hypothetically in the 1930s)?
D
They probably wouldn't have been only fired.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveYou are speaking with 20-20 hindsight.
There was a slightly bigger risk of harm to a jewish person in Nazi Germany than there is in present day London.
They probably wouldn't have been only fired.
Remember in the 1930's, nobody was aware that the rhetoric coming from Nazi Germany was actually more than that. Apparently, people only found out about the concentration camps as they began liberating them at the end of the war.
D
Originally posted by VargSo you were serious. Well, I'm glad to have educated you a little as to the fact that Nazi Germany had an embassy in the Uk in the '30s so you don't look so clueless the next time.
Okay, to follow your hypothetical situation.
In the 1930's Nazi Germany had embassies.
In my opinion, if the goverment allows an embassy then they are not condemning the regime in which case if a jew does not want to guard the embassy it is his own lookout, so I would say he should be "re-assigned".
And I was laughing because bringing the nazis into a deba ...[text shortened]... s usually the last resort of those losing an argument but in your case it's often the first!
It appears to me that you are only debating me, A) because of who I am, or B) because I mentioned Nazis in the discussion.
My position is that he shouldn't be fired, as it seems yours is.
Are you going to change your position to that of Dr Strangelove's and Blades, so that we can continue this debate? Or are you going to continue posting nonsense directed at the poster, rather than the post?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakExcept for the Jewish people - they found out first hand a bit earlier on.
Apparently, people only found out about the concentration camps as they began liberating them at the end of the war.
D
It was no consolation to them that other countries supposedly didn't know how bad it was.
1 edit
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveDon't you English have any pikes left around the Tower, or along the Bridge?
....refuses to carry out his protection duties at Israel Embassy.
Should be sacked methinks.
http://tinyurl.com/pep6p
You used to be very good at sticking people's heads on them. A tradition to be revived, perhaps?
He knew what he was getting into when he swore an oath and took Her Majesty's coin.
A policeman is a neutral enforcer of the law.
The only reason i would accept from him is that he wouldnt mind being on embassy duty, but threats to his and his family's safety made duty impossible.
Policeman should not be above their duty.