Head Honcho Posted 5 October 2006 Author Posted 5 October 2006 I agree, there's one rule for one, and one for another, the 'do gooders' are being selectively pampering minorities etc becuase they don't want to offend etc but are then alienating the majority!! What needs to be done has to be good for the nation, yes it's multicutural and in multivutural Britain everyone has to be treated equally, no favouritism!!!! I watched a programme yesterday called 'ghetto britian' and it covered Bradford.....shockingly, over 50% of all muslims kids under 8 cannot speak english!!! There's households that don't speak english and don't consider it a neccessity!!! It may surprise you to know that English is no longer the most spoken first language in the US!
Dr The Singh Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 So the answer is yes they do have a special dispensation based on thier religion I may be wrong but isn't the helmet primarily used for health and safety? That's a risk they take, and fully acknowledge it!! Yes, your right they do have 'specail dispensation', BUT one which does not effect there duties and alter any aspect of the british justice system, hence they are treated exactly the same as any other officer and do exactly the same job as any officer!!!
Jon the Hat Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 Do you think it would be appropriate for an officer who's family had been directly threatened / attacked by say as group of City fans, to police a group of city fans, or do you think he might not be the best person to do it, if you have a pool of officers to choose from? You can say he should, in emergency circumstances, do his job alongside every other officer. However, there is no justification for saying it is unreasonable for the guy to say he is uncomfortable, in a routine siutation, in a particular role. It is also entirely reasonable and proper for his superior to approve the transfer. An inquiry is a ridiculous waste of money, kicked off by a gutless politicking commander who is pandering to the demands of the media.
Thracian Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 It's not so black and white Thracian!!! Obviously there are different degrees on how religious people really are, the 'pure' would be like the taleban, and the 'moderate' would be relatively non practicising!! At this moment most are moderate muslims, hence do not fulfill the qurans requests to the fullist and have there own independant thoughts on how things are etc. But if the quran is interpreted clearly by the Islamic leadership and the officer's independent thought was declared unacceptable by that leadership at a later date.....?
Phube Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 Don't Sikh officers have a special dispensation about the wearing of helmets? Yes, SIkhs are allowed to wear a turban instead of a hat but the turban must be that of a police identity, ie must have badge on etc!! Not going into the faith, the turban is the form of the 'khalsa' identity and has no justification on morals or personal beliefs. But even christian police officers work on xmas, and jewish officers work on the sabbath in Israel, becuase it's there duty!! Otherwise on those days who will be policing!! No need to police, because all the criminals will have the day off aswell!!!
Head Honcho Posted 5 October 2006 Author Posted 5 October 2006 Is it also unreasonable for an officer who was at the Hilsborough disaster to ask not to police another game?
Dr The Singh Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 But if the quran is interpreted clearly by the Islamic leadership and the officer's independent thought was declared unacceptable by that leadership at a later date.....? It depends who the Ilsmic leaders are, they may not be malwi's ie priest that teach the faith but moderates etc!! Obviously a religious teacher would state in his sermans that the quran is the highest point of authority but will the congregation follow that lead??? I think it was The Muslim Council of Britain, who are political group and not a 'religious' body, disagreed with the officers decision!!
Jon the Hat Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 Is it also unreasonable for an officer who was at the Hilsborough disaster to ask not to police another game? Exactly. He didn't refuse to do his job, or fail to do his job, he simply asked for personal reasons to be reallocated. I have no problem with that at all.
Dr The Singh Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 No need to police, because all the criminals will have the day off aswell!!! You fancy going with me to Israel on a sabbath for a robbing spree!!!
Thracian Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 It depends who the Ilsmic leaders are, they may not be malwi's ie priest that teach the faith but moderates etc!! Obviously a religious teacher would state in his sermans that the quran is the highest point of authority but will the congregation follow that lead??? I think it was The Muslim Council of Britain, who are political group and not a 'religious' body, disagreed with the officers decision!! I wonder why?
stez Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 Disagree, police should be inpartial to ethnicity, stature, wealth, creed, sex, disability, the law is for everyone, and should be impartial to everyone. The officer should resign, if he cannot do his duty!!! it's all been sorted now, because he never (technically) asked to be moved....
Steven Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 ...... the 'do gooders' ...... Since when has trying to do good the wrong thing to do.
Dr The Singh Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 Since when has trying to do good the wrong thing to do. Didn't you know, bad is the new good!!!! My bad!!!
Steven Posted 5 October 2006 Posted 5 October 2006 Didn't you know, bad is the new good!!!! My bad!!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.