Another story from within Met Firearms Squad

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by OldRedCap, Nov 7, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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?

    link
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  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. 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.
     
  11. 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!.
     
  12. 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
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. Was he not a transferee to the Doors Porches and Gates from Wiltshire Constab?