Brits Fire Muslim Police Officer

[GI Joe]

(London) Frankly, this (http://interested-participant.blogspot.com/2006/11/brits-fire-muslim-police-officer.html) makes pounds worth of sense to me. All potential threats to national security should be removed.

From ITV.com: (http://www.itv.com/news/britain_c3b35f5f40899964d660b69b4e4ced46.html)

A Muslim police officer is taking legal action against the Metropolitan Police after he was removed from a team protecting Tony Blair.

Amjad Farooq, who was a member of the Diplomatic Protection Group SO16, claims he was forced out because of his religion.

The 39-year-old claims he was told his presence might upset the American secret service, which works closely with the Metropolitan Police unit.

Contrary to Farooq's assertion, Scotland Yard considers him a potential threat to national security because his children had attended a mosque with links to a suspected terrorist group. Nonetheless, with political correctness dictating policies in the United Kingdom, Farooq may win his discrimination case.


http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185267.php

[DPlague]

(London) Frankly, this (http://interested-participant.blogspot.com/2006/11/brits-fire-muslim-police-officer.html) makes pounds worth of sense to me. All potential threats to national security should be removed.

From ITV.com: (http://www.itv.com/news/britain_c3b35f5f40899964d660b69b4e4ced46.html)



Contrary to Farooq's assertion, Scotland Yard considers him a potential threat to national security because his children had attended a mosque with links to a suspected terrorist group. Nonetheless, with political correctness dictating policies in the United Kingdom, Farooq may win his discrimination case.


http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185267.php

Alright, let's assume for a second that he was in fact fired for his religion and nothing else. Would you see a problem with that? Because I am sure that is how he sees it and that's why he has a problem with it. And so do I.

[Dutch]

Alright, let's assume for a second that he was in fact fired for his religion and nothing else. Would you see a problem with that? Because I am sure that is how he sees it and that's why he has a problem with it. And so do I.

Alright, let's assume for a second that he was in fact fired for his connections to a mosque with links to a suspected terrorist group. Would you see a problem with that? Because I am sure that is how scotland yard sees it and that's why they have a problem with it. :D

[DPlague]

Alright, let's assume for a second that he was in fact fired for his connections to a mosque with links to a suspected terrorist group. Would you see a problem with that? Because I am sure that is how scotland yard sees it and that's why they have a problem with it. :D

If they can prove, without doubt, that he did in fact have connections with known terrorists, then no, I would not have a problem with it because he could be a threat. I've answered your question, now please answer mine.

[Missouri Mule]

How can this be? It doesn't fit the politically correct agenda. Pigs are flying it would seem.

[DPlague]

How can this be? It doesn't fit the politically correct agenda. Pigs are flying it would seem.

One just flew through the window and hit me in the head. I blame the Swiss, with their fancy knives and chocolate. :rolleyes:

[muffins]

(London) Frankly, this (http://interested-participant.blogspot.com/2006/11/brits-fire-muslim-police-officer.html) makes pounds worth of sense to me. All potential threats to national security should be removed.

From ITV.com: (http://www.itv.com/news/britain_c3b35f5f40899964d660b69b4e4ced46.html)



Contrary to Farooq's assertion, Scotland Yard considers him a potential threat to national security because his children had attended a mosque with links to a suspected terrorist group. Nonetheless, with political correctness dictating policies in the United Kingdom, Farooq may win his discrimination case.


http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185267.php

PC Farooq had been working for the DPG for six weeks when he was told he had failed his security checks.

His solicitor, Lawrence Davies, told the Independent: "Muslims are labelled guilty by association."

The newspaper also says PC Farooq denies any links to extremist groups or inappropriate behaviour.

It claims he was told he was a threat to national security because two of his children had attended a mosque associated with a Muslim cleric linked to a suspected terrorist group.
My bold
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6123472.stm

He gets sacked because his two children, not him, attended a mosque associated with a cleric with alleged links to a suspected terrorist group?

Come on! That's even more wishy-washy than Bush's reasons for invading Iraq! :lol: