One rule for us, one rule for them

The Telegraph reports that a Muslim policeman's "moral objections" have prompted his commander to excuse him from guarding the Israeli embassy.

Obviously the Met. and the Glasgow Fire Brigade operate different policies to "moral objections". Glasgow firemen get reprimanded and demoted for having "moral objections" while Muslim policemen have their sensibilities respected .

This tells us a lot about Britain today. The firemen had "moral objections" to being required to hand out leaflets at a gay march. A spokesman for the fire service said "Their refusal was a fundamental breach of their core responsibilities".

Actually, I thought their core responsibility was to put out fires not hand out leaflets, but I guess I'm not in touch with modern fire fighting techniques. However, wasn't this Muslim PC's refusal a similar "fundamental breach" of his "core responsibilities" - especially as he is in the branch of the Met which is supposed to protect embassies. It couldn't be more core to his responsibilities.

Back to the firemen - the spokesman also said "Firefighters cannot, and will not, pick and choose to whom they offer fire safety advice" - but Muslim coppers can?

This poses a number of questions.

Why was this PC allowed to be excused from his "core responsibilites", while Glasgow firemen weren't (though I still dispute that handing out leaflets is a core responsibility)?

Is it because he is Muslim and they aren't?

Does it have anything to do with the subjects of their "moral objections" - i.e. it's OK to have moral objections to Israel, but not homosexuals?

Answers on a postcard, please.