More on the Muslim PC

The Met has been defending the decision to allow a Muslim PC to transfer away from guarding the Israeli embassy. The Sun claimed that his decision was based on "moral grounds", i.e. he disagreed with Israeli actions and so decided not to guard their embassy.

The Association of Muslim Police Officers said it was a "welfare issue" and that he had felt "uncomfortable and unsafe". There are only two possible explanations: 1) he was worried that some group would attack him personally for daring to guard the Israelis or 2) he was worried that some group would attack the embassy and he might get hurt doing his job.

However, the Met has now released a new reason for the decision "on the basis of risk and safety". Again the question arises why this Muslim police officer felt at risk guarding the Israeli embassy more than any other PC?

But don't think about it too hard because the Metropolitan Police Authority has a new definition of security that explains it all: (from the BBC)

"From a security point of view, the Met would be seriously criticised if this guy has relatives in Lebanon and his picture was used around the world to demonstrate the irony about having a Muslim defending the Israeli embassy in the UK."

Yes, that would be terrible, showing the world that in Britain it is possible for Muslims to look after Jews. But perhaps someone could explain what that has to do with security. It certainly seems that the Met has been caught out with this one which is why we're seeing a rash of contradictory explanations, none of which make much sense.