Mixed messages

Imagine the scenario: your job allows, nay requires that you stand, heavily armed, outside the embassy of the regime currently shelling your family. Wouldn't it be an act of the utmost professionalism to ask if you can take your large machine gun and guard someone who you didn't feel an overwhelming urge to give, y'know, maybe just a little ding 'round the earhole? The D*ily M*il (I feel dirty just typing those words!) thinks not. Apparently,

"Critics [i.e. - the D*ily M*il] accused Met chiefs of bowing to political correctness, saying the decision set a dangerous precedent."


Which precedent would that be? The one that says that moral issues should not be considered when deciding what duties our public servants carry out? That one has already been set - as long as you are fireman who's afraid of being wolf whistled at.

So the D*ily M*il reasons thus:

If you might get wolf whistled at by gayers then obviously that's very stressful and you should just disobey orders and not turn up for your duties. However, if you are placed in a stressful situation whilst armed then the professional thing to do is "suck it up, beardy-boy".

From the M*il's own article:

"Richard Barnes, a Tory member of the Metropolitan Police Authority... said: 'I think it was crass management in the first place. They should have recognised there could have been a problem and not suggested this officer be posted at this embassy.'"

Christ - the M*il has me agreeing with Tories now! The Diplomatic Protection Group are not your usual bobbies - they are highly skilled and heavily armed professionals and I for one am glad that their stresses are taken seriously. Dunno about you, but I'd rather face an offended fireman armed with a hose than a grief stricken marksman with an automatic weapon, no matter what the D*ily M*il might think.

Still - at least I'm back to my usual ground state of barely suppressed rage now. It's better than coffee I tell ya!