They will portray us the same whether we support H4H or not. They thought the same before the charity existed.
The point I have been making throughout had nothing to do with whether the police officer should have been wearing it, but about the stupid comments about the charity being pro war and people who support it being pro war.
I lost friends in Iraq when their Hercules was shot down. I attended repatriations in my home town. My dad was in the Royal Air Force and was involved in the Falklands conflict, as was my Royal Navy brother. My husbands were all in the Royal Air Force, the last involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was his squadron members who were shot down in Iraq.
I know exactly what it's like, sitting at home, waiting, terrified, planning what you're going to tell your children about why daddy's not coming home. I've sat with enough wives to explain it to you in great detail.
So no extremist bastard is going to tell me that they don't like the British Armed Forces and I can't wear a wristband in support of a charity to help those injured in wars most of them didn't agree with and didn't want any part of it.
This is Britain. We have free speech. I am free to wear what I like. I am not pro war. I am extremely anti war.
While I have sympathy for your personal circumstances there are three things I need to say in reply...
1) I haven't ever said that the H4H charity is pro-war. So you're wasting your time trying to persuade me on that point.
2) The OP talks about whether the policeman should have been wearing the band or not. You say that your main point isn't about that, it's about the charity being incorrectly labelled as pro-war. So why are you even coming at me?
My position all along has been the copper should have followed the rules. He should have followed the rules because they are the rules, and not as some have rather stupidly suggested as some act of appeasement. It's that simple.
3) When you wrote "This is Britain. We have free speech." I have to ask if you understand that that applies equally to all British Citizens.
I find the idea of appeasement utterly abhorrent. I would love to see all these trouble-makers kicked out. BUT, and here's the bit that many in this thread are missing over and over and over again. This country has rules. Those rules forbid vigilante justice, and the same rules provide certain rights. One of those rights is the freedom of speech, and it applies equally, even to people like Choudray. If we start to pick and choose which British Citizens are protected and which aren't then we are on our way to the sort of society that Choudray and his ilk want for this country. That's an erosion of the liberties of ALL British Citizens.
there is some kind of double standards that go on people get upset if people are anti muslim ,but if muslims are anti British you don't see the same kind of upset.
When over here they should appect lifestyle and Culture, just as we should appect their lifestyle and Culture in their country..But by appect does not mean having live differential.
Just as long as you live within the laws of the land,
Exactly! Some people go on about it actually being a bad thing to dislike Islam!
I'd have thought that if one were gay, then it would be the only logical step?
Or would people think that even gay people should still embrace Islam, for fear of being called racist or even worse, the sin of all sins "islamaphobe!!" ;-);-)
The Met have spent over £1m policing rallies led by Choudary where he has been allowed to spew his hatred. That is the free speech we allow him, yet he has the nerve to bully a young Pc for wearing an armband.
The Met have spent over £1m policing rallies led by Choudary where he has been allowed to spew his hatred. That is the free speech we allow him, yet he has the nerve to bully a young Pc for wearing an armband.
The man is pure scum.
And how many times have cops stopped EDL from using their free speech.but they allow that evil Pig Choudary to use his free speech.if his types are allowed freedoms of speech so should the other side .is then that is right and fair and would and double standards
Ok, fair enough, apologies for implying you seemed to be siding with Choudary.
Thank you. Apology accepted.
The only thing I am siding with is the rules and laws of this country. But so many here are so wrapped up in their emotional tirades oin what they see as an attack on a charity that they have lost objectivity. IOW, the basic arguments of the OP have gone right over their heads.
Although I still disagree with you re your views on the policemans right to wear the wristband!
I would imagine that the only people that would be offended by the policemans decision to wear a wristband would be people like Choudary, who are anti this country, and who support terrorism. And considering it, I wouldn't care in the slightest what they thought or if their sensitivities were hurt!
You're free to disagree and express that opinion. That's freedom of speech at work which is something that you I stand for and Choudray doesn't. However, your response deals purely in emotions.... what you think about who might be offended. The police uniform guidelines are about maintaining a dress standard in order to preserve the air of objectivity so that a policeman's authority isn't eroded. In simple terms it's about first impressions. The rules are there to help prevent people pre-judging a policeman any further than they might simply by virtue of him being a policeman. So whether you or I think it should be allowed for a policeman to wear a charity band in support of injured soldiers, particularly in the middle of of what looks like an ethnically diverse shopping street, really doesn't matter. The uniform guidelines are clear and that's exactly what Choudray is picking on.
So my question is why on earth should we respect what that type of person thinks anyway?
You (possibly) and I (certainly) are free to think and say whatever we feel about Choudray and his views. The policeman is free to think whatever he likes about Choudray too. But once the uniform goes on then he is a representative of Her Majesty's Constabulary and he is bound by certain rules and obligations.
Your last point I don't want to answer because comparing help for heroes charity to a charity supporting suicide bombers, to me is not comparable.
But it does illustrate different points of view and how the perception of someone can be altered simply by association no matter how illogical. That's exactly what the uniform code seeks to avoid.
While I have sympathy for your personal circumstances there are three things I need to say in reply...
1) I haven't ever said that the H4H charity is pro-war. So you're wasting your time trying to persuade me on that point.
2) The OP talks about whether the policeman should have been wearing the band or not. You say that your main point isn't about that, it's about the charity being incorrectly labelled as pro-war. So why are you even coming at me?
My position all along has been the copper should have followed the rules. He should have followed the rules because they are the rules, and not as some have rather stupidly suggested as some act of appeasement. It's that simple.
3) When you wrote "This is Britain. We have free speech." I have to ask if you understand that that applies equally to all British Citizens.
I find the idea of appeasement utterly abhorrent. I would love to see all these trouble-makers kicked out. BUT, and here's the bit that many in this thread are missing over and over and over again. This country has rules. Those rules forbid vigilante justice, and the same rules provide certain rights. One of those rights is the freedom of speech, and it applies equally, even to people like Choudray. If we start to pick and choose which British Citizens are protected and which aren't then we are on our way to the sort of society that Choudray and his ilk want for this country. That's an erosion of the liberties of ALL British Citizens.
1. I didn't say you had. I'm explaining my posts in this thread.
2. As above.
3. Yes. Totally.
I see some mention that this officer didn't follow the 'rules'. Is there a rule somewhere which says that police officers are not allowed to wear such wristbands?
I see some mention that this officer didn't follow the 'rules'. Is there a rule somewhere which says that police officers are not allowed to wear such wristbands?
Not according to some guidelines that one of those posters posted, no.
The only thing I am siding with is the rules and laws of this country. But so many here are so wrapped up in their emotional tirades oin what they see as an attack on a charity that they have lost objectivity. IOW, the basic arguments of the OP have gone right over their heads.
You're free to disagree and express that opinion. That's freedom of speech at work which is something that you I stand for and Choudray doesn't. However, your response deals purely in emotions.... what you think about who might be offended. The police uniform guidelines are about maintaining a dress standard in order to preserve the air of objectivity so that a policeman's authority isn't eroded. In simple terms it's about first impressions. The rules are there to help prevent people pre-judging a policeman any further than they might simply by virtue of him being a policeman. So whether you or I think it should be allowed for a policeman to wear a charity band in support of injured soldiers, particularly in the middle of of what looks like an ethnically diverse shopping street, really doesn't matter. The uniform guidelines are clear and that's exactly what Choudray is picking on.
You (possibly) and I (certainly) are free to think and say whatever we feel about Choudray and his views. The policeman is free to think whatever he likes about Choudray too. But once the uniform goes on then he is a representative of Her Majesty's Constabulary and he is bound by certain rules and obligations.
But it does illustrate different points of view and how the perception of someone can be altered simply by association no matter how illogical. That's exactly what the uniform code seeks to avoid.
You've repeatedly accused people of either being emotional or using emotive language (myself included earlier in this thread) -as a way dismissing their argument - while at the very same time avoiding the statement of fact. H4H is NOT a political charity so your incredibly long winded posts which keep stating over and over that the policeman wasn't obeying the rules is bullshit. There is no rule as again the charity is NOT political. Good lord it's not that difficult to understand so I'm assuming you disagree with that statement and do consider them a political charity otherwise why would you be repeating the "rule" (which DOES NOT apply) over and over and.............over.
There was me thinking that it was in the Sayings of The Prophet that Muslims should grow a beard but shave their mustache. I have read somewhere though that a devout Muslim (you know, the ones likely to be fundamentalists) wouldn't trim their beards as that isn't allowed according to the Prophet. Looking at the picture of the officer it seems to me that his beard is trimmed. In fact I think it is quite obvious. So wouldn't that rule him out as a potential extremist? Clearly though you're some kind of beard expert when it comes to Muslims so what do I know.
As for that kind of beard being a red rag to a bull when it comes to members of EDL, I would have thought that just the presence of Asian-looking police officer would be enough to stir things up, but again I am no expert. Are you a member of the EDL?
Yeah of course, it's the only reason why I would dare come out with such a thing.
Sorry, haven't yet clicked onto the link, though I would have imagined that the doctor in question could be charged with something akin to aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation? Or something similar to that....
For what? Trying to recruit doctors to IS held areas?
'Incidents' such as the wearing of the wristband ONLY add fuel to the fire of Choudray and his ilk. Most normal right-thinking people wouldn't bat an eyelid at a British police officer showing his support for a worthy charity.
It's precisely because I'm not a cold fish that I feel this way.
Pointless carrying on this conversation with you - we are obviously poles apart in our appraisal of what should be 'permitted' in our own country.
We're not poles apart at all. I think we both abhor Choudray's actions. There is a difference between us though. You feel that it's okay for a policeman to decide ad hoc whether or not he should follow the uniform code, and I think you vastly under-estimate the threat from people like Choudray. You seem happy to turn a blind eye and dismiss them as insignificant. I think that is incredibly short-sighted. I see them as dangerous radicals exploiting the rules that we have made for our own society to further their twisted agenda. As long as we have those rules then we must abide by them strictly, because Choudray and his ilk are waiting to pounce on any slip.
We're not poles apart at all. I think we both abhor Choudray's actions. There is a difference between us though. You feel that it's okay for a policeman to decide ad hoc whether or not he should follow the uniform code, and I think you vastly under-estimate the threat from people like Choudray. You seem happy to turn a blind eye and dismiss them as insignificant. I think that is incredibly short-sighted. I see them as dangerous radicals exploiting the rules that we have made for our own society to further their twisted agenda. As long as we have those rules then we must abide by them strictly, because Choudray and his ilk are waiting to pounce on any slip.
Chris Frost, you are making this into a far bigger issue than it is. No one actually gives a toss about what happened. It isn't news.
You're right, it's not national news. It's just an obscure thread in forum. I don't particularly want to waste any time with this. However, many in this thread have displayed the kind of disregard for society's rules that lead to exactly the sort of losses of civil liberties that Choudray wants. The fact that it fails to be recognised is worrying.
The Met have spent over £1m policing rallies led by Choudary where he has been allowed to spew his hatred. That is the free speech we allow him, yet he has the nerve to bully a young Pc for wearing an armband.
Yes, it's dismaying that so much money is wasted on this kind of policing. Do you know how much the Met has spent guarding the Ecuadorian Embassy where Julian Assange is hiding out?
You're right, it's not national news. It's just an obscure thread in forum. I don't particularly want to waste any time with this. However, many in this thread have displayed the kind of disregard for society's rules that lead to exactly the sort of losses of civil liberties that Choudray wants. The fact that it fails to be recognised is worrying.
Yes, it's dismaying that so much money is wasted on this kind of policing. Do you know how much the Met has spent guarding the Ecuadorian Embassy where Julian Assange is hiding out?
Much of the police budget is wasted on crap allowing people like these to have their say.
Youtube is full of rubbish produced by these morons, and no one takes any notice of them, but they seem to be big issues when brought to life on forums, when the reality is, they're meaningless, and Choudary has just wasted more of his time, and ours by discussing his childish pranks.
Comments
1) I haven't ever said that the H4H charity is pro-war. So you're wasting your time trying to persuade me on that point.
2) The OP talks about whether the policeman should have been wearing the band or not. You say that your main point isn't about that, it's about the charity being incorrectly labelled as pro-war. So why are you even coming at me?
My position all along has been the copper should have followed the rules. He should have followed the rules because they are the rules, and not as some have rather stupidly suggested as some act of appeasement. It's that simple.
3) When you wrote "This is Britain. We have free speech." I have to ask if you understand that that applies equally to all British Citizens.
I find the idea of appeasement utterly abhorrent. I would love to see all these trouble-makers kicked out. BUT, and here's the bit that many in this thread are missing over and over and over again. This country has rules. Those rules forbid vigilante justice, and the same rules provide certain rights. One of those rights is the freedom of speech, and it applies equally, even to people like Choudray. If we start to pick and choose which British Citizens are protected and which aren't then we are on our way to the sort of society that Choudray and his ilk want for this country. That's an erosion of the liberties of ALL British Citizens.
I'd have thought that if one were gay, then it would be the only logical step?
Or would people think that even gay people should still embrace Islam, for fear of being called racist or even worse, the sin of all sins "islamaphobe!!" ;-);-)
Far worse, and seemingly ignored is this.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/the-met-spent-1million-policing-rallies-led-by-islamist-hate-preacher-anjem-choudary-10291179.html
The Met have spent over £1m policing rallies led by Choudary where he has been allowed to spew his hatred. That is the free speech we allow him, yet he has the nerve to bully a young Pc for wearing an armband.
The man is pure scum.
And how many times have cops stopped EDL from using their free speech.but they allow that evil Pig Choudary to use his free speech.if his types are allowed freedoms of speech so should the other side .is then that is right and fair and would and double standards
The only thing I am siding with is the rules and laws of this country. But so many here are so wrapped up in their emotional tirades oin what they see as an attack on a charity that they have lost objectivity. IOW, the basic arguments of the OP have gone right over their heads.
You're free to disagree and express that opinion. That's freedom of speech at work which is something that you I stand for and Choudray doesn't. However, your response deals purely in emotions.... what you think about who might be offended. The police uniform guidelines are about maintaining a dress standard in order to preserve the air of objectivity so that a policeman's authority isn't eroded. In simple terms it's about first impressions. The rules are there to help prevent people pre-judging a policeman any further than they might simply by virtue of him being a policeman. So whether you or I think it should be allowed for a policeman to wear a charity band in support of injured soldiers, particularly in the middle of of what looks like an ethnically diverse shopping street, really doesn't matter. The uniform guidelines are clear and that's exactly what Choudray is picking on.
You (possibly) and I (certainly) are free to think and say whatever we feel about Choudray and his views. The policeman is free to think whatever he likes about Choudray too. But once the uniform goes on then he is a representative of Her Majesty's Constabulary and he is bound by certain rules and obligations.
But it does illustrate different points of view and how the perception of someone can be altered simply by association no matter how illogical. That's exactly what the uniform code seeks to avoid.
You miss the point again.
And refuse to answer questions again.
Interesting.
2. As above.
3. Yes. Totally.
Forgot to say, supporting the charity has nothing to do with politics.
I didn't say this was about me. You keep saying things that are blatantly untrue. I wonder why? Is your argument really that poor?
Not according to some guidelines that one of those posters posted, no.
Must be particular forces then, I'm not aware of mine having any such policy. Wouldn't surprise me if the Met did though.
Even if they did, Choudary had no interest in the rules, he wanted a video to spout more of his vile views.
If he was concerned, he could have written to the Met asking for information on their policy.
Thankfully, no one has shown any interest in this, apart from a few on this thread.
Indeed he could.
The officer should have told him to move along or face arrest for obstruction.
You've repeatedly accused people of either being emotional or using emotive language (myself included earlier in this thread) -as a way dismissing their argument - while at the very same time avoiding the statement of fact. H4H is NOT a political charity so your incredibly long winded posts which keep stating over and over that the policeman wasn't obeying the rules is bullshit. There is no rule as again the charity is NOT political. Good lord it's not that difficult to understand so I'm assuming you disagree with that statement and do consider them a political charity otherwise why would you be repeating the "rule" (which DOES NOT apply) over and over and.............over.
Are you one of Choudary's followers?
Oh you can't ask him that he gets offended. But you know, it's ok for him to say it to you.
For what? Trying to recruit doctors to IS held areas?
WHat uniform code are you referring to?
Of course it is obvious that anyone who objects to the scum Choudary's harassment of a serving police officer on this thread is a member of the EDL.
That is appeasement logic for you in a nutshell.
And why the leadership of this country has allowed extremism to grow at an exponential rate.
Yes, it's dismaying that so much money is wasted on this kind of policing. Do you know how much the Met has spent guarding the Ecuadorian Embassy where Julian Assange is hiding out?
Much of the police budget is wasted on crap allowing people like these to have their say.
Youtube is full of rubbish produced by these morons, and no one takes any notice of them, but they seem to be big issues when brought to life on forums, when the reality is, they're meaningless, and Choudary has just wasted more of his time, and ours by discussing his childish pranks.