Excused Boots!

jambutty · 05-10-2006, 17:31

A policeman was excused duty when he objected to standing guard at the Israeli Embassy because, it has been reported, that his wife was Lebanese had he relatives in Lebanon.

Another thin end of a wedge?

What’s next? “Sorry Sarg I cannot police the Manchester United match. I’m a City fan.”

The copper in question should be sacked as should his superior who agreed to his request.

AccyJay · 05-10-2006, 17:35

I thought that the police were supposed to do there jobs without prejudice.

"Sorry Sarge i can't help the riot police today, i've got a headache"

WillowTheWhisp · 05-10-2006, 17:50

It's being looked into but I saw a spokesman on TV today say it was similar to excusing a policeman who had just experienced the death of his own child from attending the scene of a murder of a child.

AccyJay · 05-10-2006, 17:51

I'm sorry, but, that's nowhere near the same.

WillowTheWhisp · 05-10-2006, 17:54

I can see where it's coming from if Israel had attacked Lebanon and his in-laws were perhaps in danger. Protecting the embassy of people who could be killing your family could be a tough call.

AccyJay · 05-10-2006, 17:57

It part of the job though. Soldiers don't get that luxury. Doctors wouldn't say that are not treating you on these grounds.

WillowTheWhisp · 05-10-2006, 18:11

Yes I can see what you mean about part of the job but during WWII people with family in Germany weren't in the army were they? I'm sure I've heard of doctors refusing to treat people too for various different reasons.

lettie · 05-10-2006, 18:22

Doctors and nurses can refuse to provide care for people on religious grounds but it doesn't stop a patient getting treatment and care. For example a Roman Catholic GP can refuse to refer a woman for termination of pregnancy, there are some GPs round these parts who would refuse that referral but there are other GPs and ways of getting a referral. For the same reason doctors and nurses can conscientiously object to be within the operating theatre during a termination but.......they cannot refuse to provide post operative care for that patient.

Health Trusts and GPs can also refuse to provide care for any patient who has been violent or abusive on their premesis. In the case of hospitals the patient will receive a written warning and possibly a home visit by the security personnel and the police. If a hospital refuses to provide care it is the patient's responsibility to seek care elsewhere. This has come about fairly recently due to attacks on health staff by patients and visitors whilst doing their jobs. If you think that this kind of thing doesn't happen then think again.... It happened to me a fortnight ago..

WillowTheWhisp · 05-10-2006, 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by lettie

Doctors and nurses can refuse to provide care for people on religious grounds but it doesn't stop a patient getting treatment and care.

So that's a bit similar to this policeman thing because they put someone else in to do the guarding job. It just sounds like bit of compassion towards someone who may have been very worried about his own family.

katex · 05-10-2006, 18:32

I'm not too clear as to whether they thought he was in danger, or the Embassy might be from his lack of concentration in his duties, due to his animosity towards the Israelites (or maybe they were afraid he could claim stress later).. still doesn't quite seem right though, does it ? Have to shelve all personal feelings in your duties as a policeman I would have thought, and this guy not up to the job.

Have to agree, could set a precedence for policemen with lesser prejudices.

bullseyebarb · 05-10-2006, 18:43

Slippery slope.

WillowTheWhisp · 05-10-2006, 18:47

I'm not sure anyone would have been in danger at the embassy. It just sounds more like caring about someone's feelings when their own family may have been in danger in the Lebanon. I'm trying to think how I would feel if I was in that position. If members of my own family were in danger would I really be able to protect representatives of the people who may harm them?

If it was just a case of political alliances then I would have agreed with what you said about his duty coming first but in this case it seems more personal than that.

Busman747 · 05-10-2006, 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

A policeman was excused duty when he objected to standing guard at the Israeli Embassy because, it has been reported, that his wife was Lebanese had he relatives in Lebanon.

Another thin end of a wedge?

What’s next? “Sorry Sarg I cannot police the Manchester United match. I’m a City fan.”

The copper in question should be sacked as should his superior who agreed to his request.

Having given great thought to this subject - and at the risk of actually agreeing with Willow, I think that this officer is within his rights to ask that he not be assigned to this task.

The situation between Lebanon and Israel is very current, how could he possibly protect those that he sees as the murderers of his or his wifes countrymen?

Coppers are allowed to be anti-royalist, so would the authorities choose one such to guard the Queen or her family with their lives? of course not! If the policemans view is known, he would not be selected But he wouldn't be sacked! Can you imagine an Argentinian born Naval officer taking part in the fight for the Falklands? it would never happen. - but the officer would not be sacked!

There are so many situations where those that have an "interest" have been quietly put aside for the duration of the conflict or whatever - and their skills/training/talent has been put to use elsewhere.

So I think that this policeman was right in (as politicians say) "declaring an interest", and his superior was right in agreeing to change his duties.

cashman · 05-10-2006, 20:34

to me whatever the rights n wrongs of it, the police chief who transfered him to that duty in the first place is the one who should be slapped, or do they not use common sense.