Go back
British Muslim cop....

British Muslim cop....

General

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wheely
...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...
...Changed my mind. Do you English still have something called the Victoria Cross? A tradition to be...

Vote Up
Vote Down

I think the point we're trying to make is that you can't compare the Muslim copper situation with that of a Jew protecting a Nazi Germany embassy... the latter simply wouldn't have happened.
We're now in the 21st century, and things have moved on slightly...

Vote Up
Vote Down

The point is that next time, it might be a more urgent duty the cop in question is called to perform - save the life of a Jewish hostage or something. You can't have police officers refusing duties or even asking to be transferred in cases like that. You need officers who are going to do what they're told, when they're told.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wheely
No it isn't.

Your point is what to do with someone who has refused to perform his duty.

However, there's no indication that he did refuse to do his duty.
Did he or did he not go to the Israeli embassy?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dfm65
The point is that next time, it might be a more urgent duty the cop in question is called to perform - save the life of a Jewish hostage or something. You can't have police officers refusing duties or even asking to be transferred in cases like that. You need officers who are going to do what they're told, when they're told.
Spot on dfm!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Indeed. But you'd still fire the jew?

D
It's not really a comparable situation is it?

My view of it is that the [soon to be ex] cop in London simply hates the Israelis that much that he used any excuse he could find to avoid doing anything which seemed like 'helping' them. If he truthfully couldn't do his job because of religious/nationalistic reasons perhaps they should've asked him before employing him. [I seriously doubt his honesty though]

Vote Up
Vote Down

Surely his duties as a policeman and a paid public employee are to serve and protect the public.

If he is not up to the job he should not be in it.

Irregardless of his religion, skin colour, sexual orientation etc etc..

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by blade68
I think the point we're trying to make is that you can't compare the Muslim copper situation with that of a Jew protecting a Nazi Germany embassy... the latter simply wouldn't have happened.
We're now in the 21st century, and things have moved on slightly...
Why couldn't a jewish police officer have been assigned to protect Nazi Germany's London embassy in the 1930s, before the horrors of the Nazi regime would have been known to the English Police?

If you choose to stand by your assertion that it couldn't have happened based on hindsight, then you'll have to refrain from making judgement on this case for 70 odd years.

Things have moved on slightly? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5299938.stm
http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000397.html

D

Vote Up
Vote Down

Ragnorak,
It would appear that the general consensus is against you!

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Indeed. But you'd still fire the jew?

D
Why not go one step further? Everybody now:

'Trow de Joo down de well,
(Trow de Joo down de well!)
So my cantry can be free!
(So my cantry can be free!)
You've got to greb hhhim by hhhis hhhorns,
(You've got to greb hhhim by hhhis hhhorns!)
Den we hhhev a big par-TEE!!!
(Den we hhhev a big par-TEE!!!)'.

Just you down the back:

'Trow de Joo...'

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
It's not really a comparable situation is it?

My view of it is that the [soon to be ex] cop in London simply hates the Israelis that much that he used any excuse he could find to avoid doing anything which seemed like 'helping' them. If he truthfully couldn't do his job because of religious/nationalistic reasons perhaps they should've asked him before employing him. [I seriously doubt his honesty though]
How doesn't it compare?

Did you read the quotes from my earlier post? Is the rhetoric not the same?

How is it hateful to be morally opposed to a nation's actions in murdering hundreds of children in very recent times?

D

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by blade68
Ragnorak,
It would appear that the general consensus is against you!
Oh, I must be wrong so. 🙄

Tell me, people saying that he should be sacked, how can you sack somebody when policy is in place to accommodate exactly his objection?

D

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Ragnorak

How is it hateful to be morally opposed to a nation's actions in murdering hundreds of children in very recent times?

D[/b]
Could you be more specific please? Not sure what you're referring to here...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Oh, I must be wrong so. 🙄

Tell me, people saying that he should be sacked, how can you sack somebody when policy is in place to accommodate exactly his objection?

D
That's actually a fair point!

Policy sucks!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by blade68
Could you be more specific please? Not sure what you're referring to here...
Try reading the article which is linked to in the first post of this thread, and which we have been debating for the past 3 pages.

Then read the link to the independant which I posted regarding Israel's indescriminate bombing of children in the recent war with Lebanon (http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000397.html)...
Here's a quote...
"Of the 615 people so far confirmed dead, Save The Children says that almost half are children. They make up one third of the 3,225 injured, and about 45 per cent of the nearly one million Lebanese refugees are under the age of 18, according to Unicef."

D