England Gone Mad

If you need any further proof that England is well on the road to dihimmitude read this revolting story.

“Sir Ian Blair has ordered an ‘urgent inquiry’ after a Muslim police officer was excused from guarding London’s Israeli Embassy after he objected to the duty on ‘moral grounds’. “

For the rest of the article, click here.

This policeman should have been fired immediately. But the English are so afraid of their Muslim population that they reassigned this immoral Jew-hater to another embassy. Such a society is doomed. The sun has truly set on this once greatest of empires.

And here is a poem published in the British magazine Punch in 1883. Winston Churchill memorized it as a schoolboy in Brighton and continued to recite it through the dark days of Hitler’s rise to power when Europe chose the deadly path of appeasement.

Who is in charge of the clattering train?
The axles creak and the couplings strain;
And the pace is hot, and the points are near,
And Sleep has deadened the driver’s ear;
And the signals flash through the night in vain,
For Death is in charge of the clattering train.

This entry was posted in Israel. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. jayne
    Posted October 6, 2006 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Returned to the house (and central heating etc) fingers numb and tent back to front, upside down and blown over. Required more wine and defrosting (family laughing unfeelingly from bathroom window and offering no assistance in this insanity whatsoever – pagans).
    I sent you a ‘balanced’ article – no Muslim bashing, not into bashing anyone if possible. If your reading is correct (and I strongly feel that all this man’s disclosures should have been private – major, major breach of security that has gone unmentioned)- why is this now public? What is being provoked here? I’m fairly sure that it is not in our interests to go along with it – morally or politically (presupposing the 2 are divisible).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Robert J. Avrech
    Posted October 6, 2006 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the link. I must say the article strikes me as a, “On the one hand, and yet on the other hand…”
    Hardly Muslim bashing material.
    My gut reaction is this: it’s a terrible precedent which could spill over into the British army. What happens when you have British/Muslim soldiers “hesitate” to fight in certain conflicts because, well you know the rest.
    There’s always a “good and rational reason” to excuse private behavior. But we have to ask, what’s good for the majority of the people? That is the basis of civil law. Without such law we are reduced to anarchy. As it says so often in the Prophets: “Each man did what was good in his own eyes.”
    If this one policeman is excused from this one duty, well, where do the dominoes next fall?
    As for being irritable, no apologies necessary. Have a lovely and meaningful Shabbat, and please think of us as your American Ushpizin (Aramaic for guests) this Succot, as we will fondly think of you, and all our Seraphic friends.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. jayne
    Posted October 6, 2006 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Dear Robert,
    Unfortunately most of this has unfolded on the radio when I’m in the car or newspapers as I sit in Starbucks and read before shule (only opportunity this week). The Guardian seems relatively balanced:
    I interpret what I hear through prison nurse trained ears – the same jargon drummed into us, being massively and deliberately misinterpreted. Something nasty is afoot, now the Israel bashing is over for the moment … let the Muslim bashing begin (discriminately – avoid the real bad guys because they get angsty about it and do nasty things, whereas a policeman is safe bait). We should know better because we know what the bad guys are capable of doing if they had identified this man outside the embassy. The tabloids here (major Pallywood outlet) humiliate him for his more than realistic fear and we rush in at their beck and call to an orchestrated feeding frenzy.
    Won’t play and I’m taking my ball home, they can get their self-righteous rise somewhere else.
    Looking out at the black north of England skies and thinking tent not succot. Rain heavily falling. Where did I put said tent and wasn’t there a broken pole? Lamp would be good. Loft?
    Sorry if I sounded irritable in my last post.
    Shabat shalom and those about to be drenched answering the irrational call of succot salut you,

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Robert J. Avrech
    Posted October 6, 2006 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Please send me the relevant link or links so I can better understand. Have a lovely Shabbos and Succot. Thanks so much.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. jayne
    Posted October 6, 2006 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    We have been assured that he did not refuse orders, that he would have gone on duty outside the embassy if he had been required to do so. The issue was not his professed religion or political sympathies but the geographic location of his family. Quite rightly and professionally he disclosed this concern. A subsequent risk assessment deemed that this might have potentially compromised the security of people working in the embassy and he was redeployed. For this he has been named, shamed and placed in a very vulnerable position.
    Regarding our round of ‘G-d help …’let us trust HaShem can multi-task.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Robert J. Avrech
    Posted October 5, 2006 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    If Muslim policemen can, at will, refuse orders because their families are held hostage in other countries, then they should not be allowed to be coppers–they are, de facto, not reliable. There is a chain of command. If it is made so flexible — then it is useless; civil order becomes chaos, and guess who suffers first?
    G-d help the Jews.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. jayne
    Posted October 5, 2006 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    There is a big upset following the media bloodfest here. Never trusting the bugger, MSM, cuts both ways. The question remains (and incidently, ‘moral objections’ have since been robustly denied) if I had relatives hostage to fate in Syria and the Lebanon, would I want to be identified by the media as defending the Israeli consultate on prime time-tv – whatever my sympathies? The word is that it was , ‘risk assessed’ and an exception was authorised (details not disclosed). He would have, and was willing to, serve otherwise. Forgive me if I’m wrong but isn’t this poor man illustrative of how far the other side might go? And he would have stood his post if necessary, and thankfully it wasn’t….
    You are barking up the wrong tree here – somone with a big wooden spoon is stirring the mud to see what come up. G_d help this poor man and spare his family.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Sammy Finkelman
    Posted October 5, 2006 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    >> Sir Ian Blair has ordered an ‘urgent inquiry’ after a Muslim police officer was excused from guarding London’s Israeli Embassy after he objected to the duty on ‘moral grounds’. ”
    >> This policeman should have been fired immediately.
    Do you really want such a pioliceman to guard the embassy? At least he is honest – or more likely, at this point does not consider an attack on the embassy or people in it, within the realm of possibility.
    Would you rather have a policeman who agrees to guard the embassy – and then betrays his trust?
    Perhaps people like that should be encouraged to excuse themselves. And in that way thedy will reveal themselves early because someone who might co-operate in an attack probably at an earlier stage in his life would merely want not to protect it.
    I’ll give you another example. the state of israel does not draft Arabs (although it will take volunteers if they come from the right backgrounds, particularly Bedouin)
    Has Israel been making a mistake for the past 58 years? Should they have been drafting Arabs?
    Or – suppose a Secret Service agent said he didn’t like the President of the United States and would not want to be the one protecting him. Should he forced to?
    Remember, Indira Gandhi and Anwar Sadat were killed with the partciopation of some of their protectors (in the case of Indira Gandhi, Sikhs, who had formerly been the most relaible, became compromised or open to that because iof a Sikh movement started by Pakistan, and in the case of Sadat – the same Ismalists who later founded Al Qaeda had managwed to infiltrate or convert some people in his entourage.
    If somneone asks to be excused from protecting you, wouldn’t it be the wisesst thing to agree? And also, WOULD IT BE WISE TO FORCE PEOPLE TO HIDE RELUCTANCE?
    So they probably did the right thing. The only thing is, it probably shouldn’t be easy to get themselves into such a situation -maybe anyone who asks to be excused should be sounded out very carefully – niot in way as to force him to retract but also nt in a way so to encourage this in any way.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Posted October 5, 2006 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    thanks. i saw your nice comment and compliment. there are a few topics i want to blog about, including my recent trip to israel, some history topics and my grandfather, but i keep on getting distracted by ridiculous nonsense, like etrogim (who cares, though my post titled “bastard etrogim” is getting a lot of hits for some reason). oh well, anything to procrastinate from what i really need to be doing . . . studying.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Robert J. Avrech
    Posted October 5, 2006 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    You might be right. But in the meantime, our police are still honoring the chain of command.
    But we have to fight to maintain the upper hand, no question about it.
    BTW, I loved your blog about your grandfather, Z’L.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Posted October 5, 2006 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    the difference is that it is riotous students from such colleges who will one day assume (or at least attempt to assume) positions of leadership and be in a position to give the orders to the policemen.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Robert J. Avrech
    Posted October 5, 2006 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the link. Awful.
    Look, I believe we have a real problem on our campuses, but there’s a huge difference between policemen who choose when and where to follow orders and riotous students.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Posted October 5, 2006 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    i’m afraid america is not far behind england, though for different reasons. a little while ago jake (i think it was) and i had a difference of opinion over how tolerant the columbia u. community really is when it comes to freedom of expression.
    i recommended an experiment that we each walk across campus wearing t-shirts–his with left-wing slogans and mine with religous/conservative/right-wing slogans–and see how we would each be received. he thought we would both be ignored.
    well such an experiment is no longer needed, as yesterday’s riot confirms my impressions of that pseudo-liberal insitution.
    to read about the literal riot that broke out at an event sponsored by the CU Republicans at http://www.nydailynews.com/10-05-2006/news/local/story/458736p-385995c.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting