Another story from within Met Firearms Squad

#1
MUSLIMS UNFIT TO SERVE?
By David Vance

Do you think that Muslims can serve our Nation and occupy positions of importance? I do.

Today brings a story concerning an experienced Muslim firearms officer who has begun race and religious discrimination proceedings against the Metropolitan Police after he was removed from a close-protection unit guarding senior dignitaries, including Tony Blair. Amjad Farooq, 39, a father of five, was told he was a threat to national security because his children had attended a mosque associated with a Muslim cleric linked to a suspected terrorist group.

Well, I don't wish to comment on this specific case for obvious reasons BUT in general, I would believe that the Metropolitan Police shoud be very mindful to ensure that no such links - or potential links - to Islamic terror amongst these senior squads of officers. It's precautionary and it's common sense.

Naturaly the whole "Muslims are discriminated against" bandwagon has kicked off following this news.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for this faux argument. We know that there are militant Islamists living amongst us in the UK who seek to kill as many of us as possible. See this news story to get an idea as to what some Muslim extremists have in mind. The Muslim Council of Britain continues to do a great disservice to the many decent Muslims living here as it screeches its usual refrain about how the British Muslim community is so hard done by.
 
#2
Do you have a link RedCap?
Anyway I agree with you. It would be very inadvisable to place people with potential links to terrorism in that kind of role, whether they be muslim or Irish or whatever. There are plenty of other roles within the MET that can be filled by these people without any problem.
 
#3
Is it just possible that the officer concerned was removed from such a sensitive duty in order to protect his family?

It is entirely possible that some extremists could have threatened to harm them in order to influence the aforementioned officer.
 
#4
I'd expect any officer to be removed from such a post it he/she had links to any terror or extremist group.
 
#5
What Links to terrorist groups? he's obviously been vetted etc etc. I would have thought he would be removed not because they think he would 'turn' but because of the extremely vulnerable position his kids attendance at the mosque have left him in.

its like saying that anyone who served in the forces between 1969 to date who has Irish lineage shouldnt have been allowed to carry a gun because of links to terrorism, to whit the IRA.

Anyone of polish, Czech hungarian etc etc etc. descent who served during the cold war shouldnt have been allowed in because of links to Soviet Bloc nations.

To tar this fella just because hes muslim, and his kids attend a mosque which had associations with an extremist cleric and suggest that he is linked to terrorism is ridiculous.

But to suspend him because his position is compromised is the only thing the ploice can afford to do.
 
#6
They removed a protection officer because they thought he couldn't be trusted.

That reminds me of what happened to another Prime Minister - Indira Gandhi. Even though Sikhs were angry with her she kept Sikh bodyguards - possibly because of political correctness and not wanting to appear anti-Sikh?

A local religious leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was first set up by the local Congress as an alternative to the regional Akali Dal party, but once his activities turned violent he was excoriated as an extremist and a separatist. In September 1981, Bhindranwale was arrested in Amritsar, but was released twenty five days later because of lack of evidence. After his release, he relocated himself from his headquarters at Mehta Chowk to Guru Nanak Niwas within the Golden Temple precincts.

Disturbed by the spread of militancy by Bhindranwale's group, Gandhi gave the Army permission to storm the Golden Temple to flush out Bhindranwale and his followers on June 3, 1984.

Many Sikhs were outraged at the perceived desecration of their holiest shrine, which remains controversial in terms of timing and effect to this day.

On October 31, 1984, two of Indira Gandhi's Sikh bodyguards Satwant Singh and Beant Singh assassinated her in the garden of the Prime Minister's Residence at No. 1, Safdarjung Road in New Delhi.
link
 
#8
He was removed because he failed the CTC vetting after it was found he allowed his sons to attemd a mosque were one of the Imams was suspected of having links to a terrorist group.

Thing is this happened back in 2003 so why did they bring it up now, the Met are ultra PC with that wind bag sitting at the top, I realy doubt they would do this, if that is teh case he is prob using the PC Climate to try and bully the Met to give in which is far more likly.
 
#9
Sorry for omission = link here http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/muslims-unfit-to-serve.html

I think this is part of the rush towards situation where, whatever happens, no one, just no one, is to blame. If the guy were kept on, after the bosses got to know this apparently blameless background, and then caused a problem, they would be crucified. Think back to the shooting that killed handguns. Reason and rights would take a back seat to the baying of the mob and the screams of the defenders.
 
#10
Sorry for omission = link here http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/muslims-unfit-to-serve.html

I think this is part of the rush towards situation where, whatever happens, no one, just no one, is to blame. If the guy were kept on, after the bosses got to know this apparently blameless background, and then caused a problem, they would be crucified. Think back to the shooting that killed handguns. Reason and rights would take a back seat to the baying of the mob and the screams of the defenders.
 
#11
As I understand it, the guy chose to send his kids to that mosque. Therefore, he must have approved of what was being taught there, otherwise why would he send his kids there?

If that isn't enough to raise suspicions, I don't know what is.
 
#12
Malteser said:
He was removed because he failed the CTC vetting after it was found he allowed his sons to attemd a mosque were one of the Imams was suspected of having links to a terrorist group.

Thing is this happened back in 2003 so why did they bring it up now, the Met are ultra PC with that wind bag sitting at the top, I realy doubt they would do this, if that is teh case he is prob using the PC Climate to try and bully the Met to give in which is far more likly.
Can you 100% back your statement up!.

CTC Vetting is carried out on all new recruits to the Metropolitan Police beit Constables or civil staff. You do not go through CTC vetting again one you are in the Job. This Officer was probably subject to Developed Vetting which can be carried out once in the Job and if you are working in a new posting or position in an enviroment of extreme sensitivity & confidentiality.

I have been through the Developed Vetting process and I can assure you, no stone is left unturned!.
 
#13
I'm presuming (and we all know that that is dangerous) that the reasons were explained to said officer when his posting was changed.

I'm sure that if they were pesented as such, a reasonable person could accept them, and that the individual could be found an equivalent position that does not expose him to these concerns.

Why then is he complaining now? Maybe to make a political point, or to get money out of the system. Maybe I'm being unfair and this is someone else complaining 'on his behalf'.

Somehow I suspect that we do not have the complete story here.

PB
 
#14
stoatman said:
As I understand it, the guy chose to send his kids to that mosque. Therefore, he must have approved of what was being taught there, otherwise why would he send his kids there?.
1 Unaware of exactly what was going on
2 He thought it was a good school in terms of performance and facilities. I have been associated with some such places and there are many that leave much to be desired.
3 His kids had friends who attended the school
4 It was recommended to him
That's 4 in a very short period of thinking. The idea that his sending the kids there was part of some terrorist plot is guilt by association. That way Salem lies.
 
#17
Yep. this is the met. we'll take any old idiot. Even if you fail your vetting; which, in the current climiate with the most PC force in the country, would be done lightly.....i think not.

job trawls get done every now and again, we poach off the counties, the counties poach off us. cheaper than recruiting from the street and training someone up from scratch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6123472.stm

According to the beeb neither the federation or the association of muslim police are falling over in their rush to support him.....hmmmmm?

now, if the d/supt from SB gives you some advice about the company you're keeping do you (a) say yes boss and quietly make a few changes or (b) run off to imran khan's favourite employment law firm (google the solicitor's firm).......

Well, this bloke's career in the SO dept at the yard's bolloxed now.don't suppose the carrot crunchers will have him back, or were they pleased to get rid of him in the first place?

what's he been doing since 2003 anyway, have't got much sympathy-he can come and deal with the normal shit of day of day policing like the rest of us.
 
#18
Ive been a copper for 18 years, first six in the Met and over this period Ive seen the job plummit in standards. The real decline started after the Stephen Lawrence murder when that cnut Michael Mansfield QC took his political bandwagon around the country that resulted in the Mcphereson report and the subsequent decay of inner city life.
As far as this latest case of Americanitis is concerned when we all sue somebody because "where there is a blame there is a claim" I would be interested the know if the claim came after a negative PDP or a failed internal job application.
The point I'm making is because of proportional representation and positive discrimination a lot of "minority" officers are promoted to posts tHat they are unsuitable for and when they are removed because they cant do the job then the immediate smoke screen comes up along with the bottom lip sticking out and they SUE!
Vetting is nothing new I remember when I served in my regiment and people were removed from front line duties because their grandfathers were ex members of the scottish socialist workers party and nobody sued or took it to the press then.
I would like to pass the officer this message:
STOP WHINGING, GET ON WITH YOUR JOB THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO DO STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR RELIGION AND LEARN TO INTIGRATE WITH THE REST OF BRITAIN AND FURTHERMORE STOP FEEDING THE GUTTER PRESS CR*P STORIES THAT STIR UP MORE RACIAL UNREST.
 
#19
1) I don't think any of us know enough about this guy's background to determine whether or not he was a security risk. I am keeping an open mind - for the time being.

2) When the powers that be apply the law more leniently to minority groups than they do to the majority, it is completely counter-productive as it causes incredible resentment amongst that majority... eg, official Police escort for Muslims actively inciting murder at Muhammed cartoon demo. This is just a vicious circle that causes ordinary Muslims to retreat further into a 'them and us' victim culture.

I think Australia has got it right. For example, when that firebrand preacher down under said something like 'uncovered women were asking to be raped', he was dealt with firmly and quickly.

Back to our Muslim Policeman - I would say tread very carefully. If he's not causing trouble, or at risk of being blackmailed through his kids, leave well alone. We should keep our powder dry for the Abu Hamzas, Abu Quatadas, and the likes of Trevor the unemployed Muslim firebrand sparky on social security - I can never remember what he calls himself!

SLR
 
#20
I was ready to launch into a rant about the quality of vetting adjudication within the Met; however there may be something in one of the posts above.

If there is any credence in Needle Point's statement, we should look for the three combat indicators he has identified before rushing for the moral high ground.

1. Statement of outright support from Muslim Police Officers Association
2. Same from the Federation.
3. Engagement of expensive Silks from certain chambers.

Although it would presently seem unlikley that these options will fly, there might be some perverse irony that the officer could end up being represented by Cherie Booth :?:

AQ have made it plain that they are planning long term operations and are seeking to subvert the establishment to achieve that.

Heavan forbid, if this was first picked up by line management then we should have even more faith in the system!!
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top