It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.
What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.
“Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.”
The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.
“Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.”
It is the decision being reviewed here not the officer.
“But the Association of Muslim Police said it was a "welfare" matter- the officer had Christian and Muslim relatives in Lebanon and was concerned for his safety.” ***
Is that statement true? Does the supervisor involved confirm that?
If so, then why would the officer’s supervisor not excuse him if someone else was available to do the job?
*** I believe the quote should read “was concerned for their safety” as opposed to his safety. It does not follow with the rest of the content in the quote. I have written to sky news to ask for clarification.
|