Home Politics & Debate
We've started our first discussion for our Christmas campaign which is focusing on religion or cultural beliefs that help you when you're feeling down. Some of the responses will be used anonymously on social media as a video. If you'd like to take part, head over to this thread.

Should police be able to avoid duty they don't like?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5408470.stm

In mixed minds about this. I'm not sure that the uniformed services should be able to avoid any duty on 'moral' grounds, but at the same time if someone does feel queasy about something and the police can fit their views in without compromising efficiency perhaps they should do so.

On this particular case, it may be complicated if there was also a welfare reason as well.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In principle, no. It should be the same as the army, in that you don't have political allegances, you are just paid to do a job. But you would also expect those in charge to be aware of any political (or any other) sensitivities also, and accomodate them wherever they can (same as any other job). But first and foremost, you signed up to do a job, so you have to do it. If the Israeli embassy was being robbed, and he was the only officer in the area, he would be expected to attend. I think he has a right to request that he's not given that particular job, but if his request is declined, then he has to do it. This is assuming there are no other factors, such as his personal safety.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When you sign up to the police you KNOW that there are gonna be times when you have to do something you might not agree with. Part the job.
    Personally i think if it was down to that, he should have been left to do the job hes paid for.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think he has a right to request that he's not given that particular job, but if his request is declined, then he has to do it. This is assuming there are no other factors, such as his personal safety.

    Exactly, he made a reasonable request to make a short term change in his duties because of exceptional circumstances and it was accepted. This happens all the time in virtually every company which has decent managers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't have any problem with someone making a request not to do something they feel uncomfortable doing. It seems he asked and an easy solution to his request was found.

    IF he had insisted that he not be made to do it and kicked up a massive fuss and refused to do it it would be another issue, but any reasonable request with an easy solution between an employee and their manager should be left at that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Apparently it "brings the service into disrepute" but it wouldn't unless some arse hadn't leaked it. Who actually cares in general? Only the israeli diplomat could possibly find something wrong with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    His request was unprofessional and the decision to grant it inexcusable. The officer works for the Diplomatic Protection Group, part of his job is to guard embassies – if he refuses to guard a particular embassy because of his personal views he’s in the wrong job and should be sacked.

    His job involved guarding the Israeli Embassy, I fail to see how events in the Middle East render him ‘unable’ to carry out duties at the London embassy. Guarding the embassy presumably involves protecting it from attack – does this officer think events in the Middle East justify an attack on the embassy? It’s the job of the police to protect, this protection is not dependent on nationality or religion – this officer has refused to protect, does he think those at the Israeli embassy do not deserve protection?

    Good on The Sun for exposing this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I shall await the Israelis whingeing about "anti-semitic" police officers with great interest.

    Police should be able to request not to do certain things, but if the request is denied they should do them. What the Met did sounds like good management to me; I would have no objection if a black officer was excused duties guarding the BNP, say.

    Dis, was the embassy left unguarded? No? well what the hell are you wittering on about then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Apparently it "brings the service into disrepute" but it wouldn't unless some arse hadn't leaked it. Who actually cares in general? Only the israeli diplomat could possibly find something wrong with it.

    So something is alright as long as the public don't find out about it?

    But the public interest is nothing to do with bringing the service into disrepute - its about whether uniformed personell should be allowed to pick and choose their duties and the relationship between employer and employee
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And of course your views would not be different if it were a Jewish officer with Israeli family asked to guard the embassy of Iran, syria etc?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, there isn't any disrepute if no-one knows about it is there? By definition. That's the only negative claim in the whole affair is that it gives the police force a bad name. Not that the police-officer was wrong, or his management were wrong, or that the job was un-done, or that he wouldn't have done it had he been denied a short-term transfer request. Just that it's giving the police force a bad name, which is wouldn't had it not been leaked to the press.

    It doesn't sound like a pick-and-choose situation to me. In fact FYI army, navy and airforce personel can be conciensious objectors if they go through the right channels...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see why police officiers should have special treatment tbh... It's not like the rest of workers can just pick to do what they like in their job... Some people choose a job and sometimes have duties added to it or duties in it they might not want to do, yet they still do it... so why not the police as well... at the end of the day if there is things you really don't want to do but that come with the job, well, the solution is easy, find an other job... Like Police officiers don't have enoiugh advntages next to the rest of us as it is...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Could you think of a job that would be considered comparable?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, military (worse imo), body guards and other security jobs...

    and frankly, if it's the risk involve with the job here that matters, most of the time just being a civilian have more risk than working for the police...

    Did someone force them to sign up? Did they have no clue that you have to do what you are ask to do before they join?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    His request was unprofessional and the decision to grant it inexcusable. The officer works for the Diplomatic Protection Group, part of his job is to guard embassies – if he refuses to guard a particular embassy because of his personal views he’s in the wrong job and should be sacked.

    And the fact that his wifes family was in the middle of a war zone isnt at all mitigating circumstances?

    It was a temporary change during a period which I assume was very stressful for him and his family. This sort of thing is done by virtually every big company.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Could you think of a job that would be considered comparable?
    A doctor? And if you we're a doctor and were given a patient that just happened to have had an affair with your wife, for example, then it wouldn't be an unreasonable request for another doctor to look after that person instead. It would be unreasonable for them to flat out refuse to do the job though. But any decent manager would do whatever they can to switch things around, because they understand that their workers aren't robots.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, military (worse imo), body guards and other security jobs...

    Did you not see me say that you can be a concious-objector in the armed forces?

    As I'mWithStupid said, people have tough jobs, and no they can't pick and choose, but any sensible person would take into account why you wouldn't want to do something if you had a good reason.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    And the fact that his wifes family was in the middle of a war zone isnt at all mitigating circumstances?

    Would a British Jewish police officer with family in northern Israel be right to avoid service guarding the Lebanese Embassy? I don't think so. He shouldn't avoid duty and the fact that he made the request is unprofessional...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Would a British Jewish police officer with family in northern Israel be right to avoid service guarding the Lebanese Embassy? I don't think so. He shouldn't avoid duty and the fact that he made the request is unprofessional...

    We have no idea whether or not he (the jewish police officer) could have been moved onto other duties, so thats just groundless speculation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Did you not see me say that you can be a concious-objector in the armed forces?

    As I'mWithStupid said, people have tough jobs, and no they can't pick and choose, but any sensible person would take into account why you wouldn't want to do something if you had a good reason.

    Yes I agree with that, but when I have a job where they ask me to do something that I have good reason to not do, it doesn't make any difference either...

    I am not saying it is the best way to do it or that it should be that way, but if it is one way for some it should be for everyone...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    We have no idea whether or not he (the jewish police officer) could have been moved onto other duties, so thats just groundless speculation.

    My point was, were that the case I would believe the request should not be granted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am not saying it is the best way to do it or that it should be that way, but if it is one way for some it should be for everyone...

    Well if you have a reasonable boss, it probably is that way for everyone. Obviously, if they say no, you can quit or suck it up. But I don't see why it should be an issue if you can just swap with someone else for a couple of months.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Operational requirements should dictate. if they can move him they should, but not at the expense of either the job or anyone else/

    the army and conchies isn't relevant. You can register as a CO, but you're then discharged from the army (and you can only do it certain circumstances - if you're in Iraq you have to grin and bear it until you get back).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My view is that generally speaking it is wrong of any policeman to be moved because of beliefs, political or otherwise.

    Just as I think those fireman in Scotland were wrong to refuse to attend a Gay Pride march, it is wrong of this man to refuse to guard the Israeli embassy on principle.

    The only consideration to be made is if the transfer request was made on welfare grounds rather than moral ones (as the police claims is the case).

    If it had transpired in certain circles that a man married to a Lebanese woman was guarding the Israeli embassy while Israel bombed the country to fuck, it is not unreasonable to fear for the safety of the wife's family in Lebanon- or even for the wife herself in Britain.

    The man has now said he's more than happy to resume his duties at the embassy so there might be some truth in all of that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It seems that the man made a reasonable request, based on his concern for his extended familys welfare. He didn't demand, he didn't insist, he didn't refuse to do his job, he simply asked if he could be stationed elsewhere while events were as they were.

    Plenty of other police officers put in other requests to the rota, this one has been picked up by sensasionalist journo's looking for a fight with the met. It seems that no one involved (including the Israeli embassay) had any objection, so who are we to judge.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Plenty of other police officers put in other requests to the rota, this one has been picked up by sensasionalist journo's looking for a fight with the met. It seems that no one involved (including the Israeli embassay) had any objection, so who are we to judge.

    If only a certain evil Murdoch red-top rag took note of that...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the desicion to let people avoid certain duties is taken on a case by case basis, so its perfectly fine, it is not the armed forces, it is the CIVILIAN police force and thus, people can be made exempt from thing on the discretion of superiors
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    [...]the fact he made the request is unprofessional
    Exactly wrong. To have not raised the circumstances would have been unprofessional, as would demanding changes.
Sign In or Register to comment.