1 edit
From the Metropolitan Police Federation - "The officer had not refused to do duties and had made a simple request which it was "fairly sensible" to grant"
From Metropolitan Police Authority member Peter Herbert - "From a security point of view, the Met(tropolitan police) would be seriously criticised if this guy has relatives in Lebanon and his picture was used around the world to demonstrate the irony about having a Muslim defending the Israeli embassy in the UK."
EDIT: Now do you understand? He didn't fear the Israelis in the embassy, he was worried about reprisals from extremists in the Islamic community.
Always good to wait for more information before jumping to conclusions.
Originally posted by RagnorakIt's not hateful of course... no-one wants to see kids killed regardless of religious persuasion.
How is it hateful to be morally opposed to a nation's actions in murdering hundreds of children in very recent times?
D[/b]
But wherever there is conflict there will be casualties/fatalities - I'm not saying that it's right, but it is a fact!
British kids were killed during WWII bombing raids, but do we still not eat Frankfurters?
I'm sure there were kids killed at the 9/11 massacre, but do Americans still not eat curry (only 20% of curry houses are actually owned by Indians by the way)... I'm getting away from the point somewhat... so I'll return back to the issue at hand!
In one of the articles it read:
The case has provoked unease from those who worry that officers may be able to start picking and choosing their duties. John O'Connor, a former Flying Squad commander, told today's Sun: "This is the beginning of the end for British policing. If they can allow this, surely they'll have to accept a Jewish officer not wanting to work at an Islamic national embassy? Will Catholic cops be let off working at Protestant churches. Where will it end?"
Indeed - where will it end?
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakI would morally oppose protecting a paedophile but as a cop I surely would be morally obliged to protect them if the occasion arose.
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
I don't think it should be allowed for them to pick and choose their assignments - especially when it is merely their word that is being relied upon. If a senior officer allocated him to the job he would have been aware of his 'ethnicity', if he was considered unsuitable he should not have been chosen.
And in any case when the bloke applied for the job of embassy protection [etc] he knew who it would include - it's not as if the hatred of jews is a new phenomenon to Muslims.
It just disgusts me that government paid employees are taking the pi$$ again.
Originally posted by blade68That point was aimed at Dr S, specifically...
It's not hateful of course... no-one wants to see kids killed regardless of religious persuasion.
In article he quoted to start the thread...
"PC Alexander Omar Basha objected to being posted to protect Israel's embassy in central London from possible terrorist attack because he disagreed with the country's bombing of Lebanon."
Dr Strangelove: "My view of it is that the [soon to be ex] cop in London simply hates the Israelis that much that he used any excuse he could find to avoid doing anything which seemed like 'helping' them."
D
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveDo you read previous posts in threads?
I would morally oppose protecting a paedophile but as a cop I surely would be morally obliged to protect them if the occasion arose.
I don't think it should be allowed for them to pick and choose their assignments - especially when it is merely their word that is being relied upon. If a senior officer allocated him to the job he would have been aw ...[text shortened]... to Muslims.
It just disgusts me that government paid employees are taking the pi$$ again.
The officer did not refuse to do his duty and was concerned for the safety of himself and his family because he could be shown around the world as a Muslim protecting the Israeli embassy during the attack on Lebanon. I, like he, suspect there would have been a few fanatic Muslims who might have taken objection to his doing that.
Also, you prefer the word of an ex-policeman writing in a rag like the Sun to the words of the Metropolitan Police federation and a current member of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakThe whole point is, it should be irrelevant which embassy [or person] he is protecting.
That point was aimed at Dr S, specifically...
In article he quoted to start the thread...
"PC Alexander Omar Basha objected to being posted to protect Israel's embassy in central London from possible terrorist attack because he disagreed with the country's bombing of Lebanon."
Dr Strangelove: "My view of it is that the [soon to be ex] cop in London s ...[text shortened]... any excuse he could find to avoid doing anything which seemed like 'helping' them."
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI wasn't serious.
So 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.
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 ...[text shortened]... e you going to continue posting nonsense directed at the poster, rather than the post?
D
Was your ridiculous leap of logic serious?
It wasn't me who said the nazis didn't have embassies, it was you who said that I said it.
I don't believe he should be fired full stop from the police force but demoted to another section.
I don't know why you think my posts are targeted at you, it was clearly a response to your comment about nazis.
Originally posted by WheelyI'm not making facts up - just giving another scenario on a diferent level.
Now you're sounding like an idiot. Read the facts, don't make them up yourself.
OK, if a lollipop lady had had an arguement with a family on the estate, and the next day the 6 year old child of that family came to her to cross the road, and the lollipop lady refused to escort her across - what would happen?
It's very simplistic I agree, but in essence it's the same thing.
Originally posted by VargVarg, you at least tend to read things through before making your comments.
I wasn't serious.
Was your ridiculous leap of logic serious?
It wasn't me who said the nazis didn't have embassies, it was you who said that I said it.
I don't believe he should be fired full stop from the police force but demoted to another section.
I don't know why you think my posts are targeted at you, it was clearly a response to your comment about nazis.
Please refer to the BBC account of events. It would seem the policeman was actually being quite sensible to ask for a transfer.
Originally posted by WheelyWhat!?
EDIT: Now do you understand? He didn't fear the Israelis in the embassy, he was worried about reprisals from extremists in the Islamic community.
It didn't even cross my mind that he was afraid of the Israelis in the embassy.
I heard about this on the radio, perhaps something lead me to believe he was afraid of reprisals from the islamic community.
Originally posted by blade68It is true that you are giving another scenario but you are giving one that has absolutely no relevance to this policeman who seems to have had a legitimate concern for the safety of himself and his family.
I'm not making facts up - just giving another scenario on a diferent level.
OK, if a lollipop lady had had an arguement with a family on the estate, and the next day the 6 year old child of that family came to her to cross the road, and the lollipop lady refused to escort her across - what would happen?
It's very simplistic I agree, but in essence it's the same thing.