View Full Version : Inquiry into embassy police row

Spotting Bad Guys
5th Oct 2006, 05:34
Oh FFS....


I'm in the RAF - it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if I'm methodist, muslim or happy clappy seventh day adventist - you get on with it and do what you're told, right?

If it's a legal order (unlike those prosecuted for war crimes etc i.e. Nuremburg "I was only doing as ordered") then you crack on - this is inexcusable. You can't swear an oath of allegiance and then pick and choose to whom it might apply.....

Rant off


5th Oct 2006, 05:54
Association of Muslim Police Officers.....


Begs the question really doesn't it - is there an Association of Non-Muslim Police officers, if not, why not?? For fecks sake - that is Lunacy.

5th Oct 2006, 06:02
Grauniad: Met orders review after Muslim refuses to guard Israeli embassy

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, last night ordered an urgent review of a policy that allows officers to refuse certain duties on moral grounds after a decision to excuse a Muslim policeman from guarding the Israeli embassy.

PC Alexander Omar Basha, who is attached to the force's Diplomatic Protection Group, 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. The officer had reportedly attended a recent anti-war protest.

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said Sir Ian had ordered a rethink of the service's policy to consider special dispensations on moral grounds. "Having learned of this issue I have asked for an urgent review of the situation and a full report into the circumstances," he said. A Met spokesman earlier said allowances were occasionally granted to officers who objected to duties on moral grounds.

"In terms of the general protocol for officers requesting to be moved for any reason we'd say that on occasions, for a variety of reasons, an officer may have to be moved within a specific command," the spokesman said. "Each case is considered separately, balancing the needs of the Metropolitan police service against those of the individual and the role which they will have to perform."

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?"

5th Oct 2006, 06:48
Maybe its simpler than is being made out.

His wife is Lebonese. He gets ear ache from her about how evil Israel is. He asks his boss to move so that he can get some peace and quiet.

What would you do?

5th Oct 2006, 07:17
Pure 0'dark-thirty speculation...

Is it possible that there is more to it? In places like Afghanistan and Iraq, among others, those seen as working for Western powers or acting on behalf of Israel, no matter how tangential their involvement, are often targeted by extremists. Could this fellow fear for his well being and that of his family?

If this is the case, and the threat is credible, it might be reasonable of the police force to reassign him.

Curious Pax
5th Oct 2006, 07:19
I wondered when someone would notice that he asked, and was granted a move - no refusal to obey orders there that I can see. I'm slightly surprised that it was granted, but if it was a simple thing to do then it's no big deal. You have to wonder about them releasing the guys name though.

I suspect that this sort of thing goes on all the time - I would hope that BA has Jewish pilots for example, and I shouldn't think that they would operate to certain countries in the Middle East. In the current climate the same may apply to Muslim pilots and the US!

5th Oct 2006, 07:26
You have to wonder about them releasing the guys name though.
I believe that someone leaked the story to the redtop newspapers.
With a Lebanese wife and a Syrian father, his attendance at any 'incident' at the Israeli Embassy might have been seized upon by the same redtops, so it was, IMHO, a sensible decision to transfer him to another section.

Shannon volmet
5th Oct 2006, 07:42
"The officer, who has been named as Pc Alexander Omar Basha, is attached to the Scotland Yard's Diplomatic Protection Group."

So why did he request to be attached to the DPG in the first place? Surely by doing so, he accepted that he would be required to carry out all orders / assignments.

He should either leave the DPG or be re-assigned by his commanders as he is clearly not fit for the duties he is required to carry out as a member of the DPG.

Where will all this end? Will police officers be requesting re-assignment from football duty because they support Celtic and the match is between Rangers and Midlothian?
(exits, muttering )

5th Oct 2006, 07:51
Have just watched the officer in charge of the Muslim Police Officers Association on BBC Breakfast. He stated that he had been targeted by extremists and this is why the other chap had put the request in to be excused that duty.

5th Oct 2006, 07:56
I think it was a good call by the copper involved. I'm sure he was thinking through the scenarios and saw the obvious risk of compromise, intimidation (by his wife too ? :} ) and the possible risks posed by his appointment to the task - not a well thought out allocation of resource, was it ?

Anyway, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt since he took the oath and is one of us !

5th Oct 2006, 08:05
No no no no, you eithger copper or you don't. If you ask to be excused duties on moral or coersion grounds, then it's the beginning of the end. Targeted by extremists? Why aren't the extremists targeted by the cops??

I've been targeted by the missus this year, I didn't ask nicely for a go on her sister instead. The world's gone mad.

5th Oct 2006, 08:16
When you listen to the actual story instead of the blather in the redtops, it all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The guy asked to be re-assigned and when the circumstances of this indvidual case were assessed the request was granted. The request was not made on moral grounds.

The Hustler
5th Oct 2006, 09:50
I think the issue is that if this case is assessed on individual grounds, then so shoudl all the hypothetical cases mentioned above (precedence).

If you're a Hearts fan you could say you could be targeted by Hibs extremists (they do exist - the infamous Hibs Casuals)

The Police are supposed to be above all issues of race, creed, colour, sexual bias etc - it's turning out to be more and more that they are not.

5th Oct 2006, 10:01
The 'retribution' from an opposing footbal fan is hardly likely to be fatal, whereas extremist HAMAS or MOSSAD is no game.

5th Oct 2006, 10:03
Seems to me you're heading towards the Slippery Slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy) argument there, Hustler.

This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.

Note that these arguments may indeed have validity, but they require some independent justification of the connection between their terms: otherwise the argument (as a logical tool) remains fallacious.

This case was evaluated on its individual merits. The other hypothetical examples mentioned should of course also be evaluated on their individual merits, but they don't have anything to do with the present case. There doesn't seem to be much justification for the stance that the one will inevitably lead to the other.

Curious Pax
5th Oct 2006, 10:57
Rather a jump there Ben - one Muslim copper asks not to do a particular aspect of his work. Various possible reasons - given that it was granted then fears of some form of retribution against him strikes me as the most likely. Not exactly Muslims laying down the law for the rest of us is it.

As I See It
5th Oct 2006, 11:03
The 'retribution' from an opposing footbal fan is hardly likely to be fatal, whereas extremist HAMAS or MOSSAD is no game.
Would suggest you find out what exactly Mossad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad) is before you quote them as extremists in the same vein as Hamas :ugh:

5th Oct 2006, 11:07
G-CPTN: Extremist MOSSAD?
Last time I checked MOSSAD is like our MI6 or the CIA in the USA so donít think they would target a Muslim PC guarding their embassy.
Maybe you know more and could explain.



None of the above
5th Oct 2006, 11:21
Is there some sort of 'get out' when it comes to Muslim police being sworn in to the office of constable? How do they swear allegiance to the Monarch when she (or he) is head of the Church of England?

5th Oct 2006, 11:42
easy for me to say sitting here I know, butIs it possible that there is more to it? In places like Afghanistan and Iraq, among others, those seen as working for Western powers or acting on behalf of Israel, no matter how tangential their involvement, are often targeted by extremists. Could this fellow fear for his well being and that of his family?Doesn't that mean ... they've won?

5th Oct 2006, 12:12
Could this fellow fear for his well being and that of his family? We pay the armed forces for being in the firing line overseas, we pay the police for being in the firing line here, particularly the Diplomatic Protection Group. If threatened he should have arrested or at least reported them and then carried on with his appointed duties. If he felt he couldn´t do that he should hare resigned.

The police, no more than the services, shouldn´t have to carry those who feel unable to cope with the pressures of the job. If you can´t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

5th Oct 2006, 12:19
A sergeant of mine has two saying for just such an occasion: -

1 This is not the Boy Scouts

2 If you don't like it you know where the door is.

If he's disobeyed a lawful order he should be disciplined and kicked out if necessary.

5th Oct 2006, 12:24
THEY have definately won, the question remaining is 'when do we declare the result'
He joined the police, a 'disiplined' force, and refused to carry out duties assigned to him. As I see it this guy should be down the road, end of.
Imagine the armed forces in similar circumstances..
"Well yes Mr Mohamed, the REST of the squardron will be going to Afganistan, but you can stop here and guard the NAFFI"
They're laughing all the way to the mosque.

Curious Pax
5th Oct 2006, 12:39
Yawn - he didn't refuse to do anything. It would also seem that he is back on duty there, which suggests that his problem was being Lebanese (or having close Lebanese ties) whilst that country was at war with Israel. Now that has finished he would appear to have no objections any more.

Of course in this day and age anything tangentially related to what Muslims do or want gets blown up into a 'them vs us' discussion, which obscures the real issues between the Muslim community and the rest of Britain. There are many such issues on which 'the rest' ought to take stand, but I don't think this is one of them.

simon brown
5th Oct 2006, 13:10
It wouldnt surprise me in the least, that the upper echelons of the Police sought legal advice, which would come down in favour of the copper in question on "Human Rights" grounds etc etc . They then have to concoct a cock and bull story about being targetted etc etc to appear PC to the media.

5th Oct 2006, 13:14
As CP points out, he didn't refuse to do anything. He made a request which was looked at, and granted.

If anyone else here who is saying "He has no rights - should stand up and get shot at - he's not entitled to do anything but die in the course of his duty" were to receive death threats if you fly one aprticular flight, please tell me you wouldn't ask to be rostered for something else that day...

terryJones - if a serving soldier were to be threatened with being killed on return to the UK from Afghanistan or similar country, I think he would take it very seriously, don't you? Or woud you just laugh it off? And I don't think he could be blamed for asking for a transfer to another unit - but then perhaps you do, and would prefer it if he got killed needlessly...

Oh - and None of the above - there is no get-out clause. The oath sworn by police officers has nothing to do with the monarch's position as head of the Church of England. It has rather more to do with being Head of State.

The AvgasDinosaur
5th Oct 2006, 13:21
As I understand it, he didn't disobey any order or refuse to undertake any duties he just asked for an alternative assignment.
Nurses dont have to work where there are abortion operations undertaken.
Be lucky