Should Muslim Cops in London be Allowed to Refuse to Protect the Israeli Embassy?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Posted for POTUS by Whidden

I say no, if that's what they're assigned. However, on the basis of their religion (or simply beliefs), they should be able to request reassignment and have such a request granted.

You would think, that with an embassy, you would not need that many cops watching it.

If the Muslim cops in general don't want to guard it, let them off the hook. Unless there is a shortage of men, and they absolutely have to have someone.

I voted for yes, no, and I'm so confused

Well the guy did not refuse as such he tole the Metropolitian police that he had family in Lebanon and due to the Israelli campaign there he felt uncomfortable in protecting the government that was bombing his family. So he asked to be reassuigned he did not refue he asked and the Met granted his request after taking advice from senior officers. Also it is cop not cops this is an exceptional case and it is the first and last time it will happen according to the Met.

Had Israel not been in Lebanon he would have been happily protecting the embassy.

As for what Whidden said in the UK all emabasiess get police protection in fact as I said to joe in another post I passed the American Embassy to Scotland the other week and there was a muslim cop patrolling there.

I say yes ... if the cops dont want to watch that embasy they shouldnt be forcesd to ... but if a christian refused to police a muslim embasy there would be an upcry of racism

I voted:

GUILTY
http://www.inreview.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=674210

-HECK!

I have this cool effect on my mic that could make a wiked sound effect for that ... but firstly i have no idea how to upload sound onto the net like photobucket ... and i dont want to embarise myself

Well you can't embed video or audio files on INR. I'd just try to find a file storage site that allows MP3's, upload it and put the link here.

-HECK!

I voted no. Cops are there to protect and serve. IF they are unwilling to do their job, then they should not have that job.

I think the other aspect of it is that we are talking about an Israelli embassy, along with the US embassy it has got to be one of the most secure buildings in London and this guy for reasons I kinf of agree with does not want to protect it. So lets get this in context he is not refusing to save the little old Jewsih lady who is being mugged in Peckham and he is not refusing to find the culpirts who vandalised a Synagogue in Wembley with Swastikas and he is not saying he won't protect embassies just not that paticular one at that paticular time.

I would love to know how many times he has protected the Israelli embassy befroe he asked to be reposted.

I voted no and to back up my choice I want to draw your attention to another story.

I saw this story in the paper about a muslim Taxi driver refusing to take a Blind women in his car because she had a guide dog. Dogs are seen as 'unclean' in the muslim religion.

The owner of the Taxi company refused to appoligise to the woman and the case went to court. The blind woman won but the owner of the firm called her intolerant.

It is my opinion that, regardless or you beliefs, if you are paid to do a job then you should do it. If the taxi driver didn't want to touch the dog then he didn't have to, he could always have cleaned his car later.

The taxi driver and the company owner made this big stink about how the blind woman was intolerant of other peoples beliefs and costoms but they were doing basically the same thing. The Taxi driver left this woman on the street, with no way to get home, simply because he didn't want to do his job properly.

I'm all for respecting other peoples beliefs and rights but it is another thing all together when you refuse to do the job which you are paid to do.

White Tiger, in the case you pointed out the lady should have mentioned that she had a dog on the phone, and the whole thing could have been avoided. Sorry, but not all taxis take dogs in and its something that should be considered when calling for a taxi. They weren't being paid for their services; you only pay for a taxi after you use it. Sure, it sucks the dude wouldn't drive the woman, but its definitely not something worth suing over.

seeing-eye dogs are normally exceptions to No Dog Rules.

Yeah, but you can't expect everyone to make an exception. It is still a dog, after all. Some people are alergic. Some people just don't like them. A little forward thinking when you have that kind of disability would go a long way.

It isn't the fact that the driver didn't allow the woman and her dog in the car that annoys me it is the company owners reaction. The reason it went to court is because he refused to either A. appoligise or B. explain why the woman and her dog were not allowed in the car.

If a explaination was given then the whole thing could have been avoided but the owner refused point blank to deal with this womans complaint.

If the company allows exceptions then they should make perfectly clear in their adverts what they allow and don't allow. If the taxi advert had said that the driver may not allow animals in the car due to one reason or another then it is extremely unlikely that this woman would have chose to use the company in the first place.

If he didn't explain why the lady was not allowed in the car, then we wouldn't know the reason, now, would we? Of course, the company's un-apologetic attitute sucks, but I'd be flipping the woman off in front of her blind eyes if she sued me for such a lame-ass reason.


And how exactly would this blind woman read the (non-existant, of course) advertisement for the taxi company explaining that her dog wouldn't be allowed?

A taxi company usually has an advert in the local telephone directory (At least in Portsmouth). The woman in question was in some sort of meeting in London, I think it was, so someone would either of ordered for her or told her about the taxi company. The owner explained after the thing went to court and the story appeared in the paper.

Of course it was a stupid reason to go to court but that is the world we live in. I, personally, am totally against sueing anyone for any reason in normal situations, and I am not backing this womans decisions.

All I am saying it that if the two parties had been willing to talk to each other without jumping to the conclusion that both parties were discriminating against the other, either discriminating against the disabled woman or against the Taxi drivers religious beliefs, then this situation would not have escalated to the extreme that it did.

Wow, you're just making up quotes now. Good job P.O.T.U.S. Saves time having to go out and find them.

Right thought I would try and breathe some new life into this. A simple question should the Metropolitan police be allowed to ban Muslim cops from doing thier duty?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07112006/1...unal-claim.html

If you read the story and the bit about a Mosque that his sons attended the most important word is suspected it has never been proved also his sons attended the mosque he never has. Oh and if a Muslim cop upsets the US secret service that says more about them than it does about this cop.

That's interesting, Lodgebo. Sorry I didn't check it earlier.

I honestly don't know what I think about that one... I'll have to ponder it a while.


*goes off to find his pondering cap*