Tuesday 1 December 2009

Search For A Culprit Over: Police Responsible Again

Well, it seems the search for a scapegoat is over already in Monday’s latest dog-related death.

Is it the grandmother who babysat a four-year-old despite knowing the dog’s capabilities? Why, no, she’s some kind of heroine for her actions, it seems:
His grandmother Helen Foulkes, 63, desperately tried to save him but was herself attacked. The youngster suffered horrendous injuries to his face, neck and body.
Is it the mother, who left the boy and his brother in a house known to have a dangerous dog?
John-Paul was attacked in the early hours of yesterday at a terraced house in Wavertree, Liverpool, where he was staying with his 13-year- old brother Craig. Their mother Angela Foulkes, a 39-year-old caterer, was away.
No, she’s probably untouchable.

Especially in ‘Self Pity City’. Already, the clergy have been round to comfort the family give the media soundbites about how ‘devastated’ they are. And she has today performed the vital rite of modern chav mourning, laying flowers and a taped note in the full glare of the cameras...

Is it the dog owner himself, who certainly seems to have been well known in the area?
The dog was owned and trained by John-Paul's uncle Christian Foulkes, aged 21. Residents said Mr Foulkes, who recently joined the Army, would often prowl the neighbourhood menacing people with the snarling animal.
Hmm, as an Army man and grieving family member, he’s probably untouchable.

Despite the neighbours’ comments:
Neighbour Amy Leigh, 23, said: 'It was like a status symbol to show everyone how tough he was. The dog was seriously deranged and no one would touch it.'
No. None of the above.

It is, of course, the fault of the police yet again:
Last night it emerged a complaint had been made to police nine months ago about a potential dog-breeding operation at the house.

The February call was taken by a civilian worker but never acted upon and will now form part of a separate police inquiry.
Well, so what? Is simple ‘dog breeding’ against the law?

Are the police supposed to nip round every time the curate’s Labrador gets frisky with the church cleaner’s Pomeranian bitch?
Chief Superintendent Steve Ashley said: 'We had one complaint from a housing officer that the premises was being used to breed dogs.

'I regret to say we did not respond to that. The operator decided that was not a police matter and advice was given over the phone. That is not Merseyside Police policy.

'The words "dangerous dogs" was not used. That will form a separate investigation
If the words ‘dangerous dogs’ weren’t used, what the hell are the police to do?

But no, they make far better, less likely-to-backfire targets for the media blame-game than the owners of the dog and the parents who put their child in danger, don’t they?

Related: Over at Bystander’s , the usual suspects so keen to look on the lenient side with human criminals, and to deride poorly-drawn-up laws, and to castigate others for expecting legislation to be driven by sentiment rather than the cool, calm legal experts, totally lose their collective shit:
” Let's not be mealy mouthed about this. There is no reason for any civilised person to want one of these savage animals. They should all, even the 'aaah-he's-so-cuddly' so called pets, be destroyed. If the original Dangerous Dogs Act had been enforced (tricky because it was so badly drafted) the breeds would already have died out. I have seen cases in recent years of breeding and selling these lethal animals. The police have a softer policy these days, at least in London, allowing attack dogs to survive if chipped and neutered. Sod that. Destroy them all. One innocent child is worth more than all the dogs in the country put together.

Enough!”
*snicker*

‘Daily Mail Subscriptions Desk? Yes, I’d like a gift subscription for someone, please…’

13 comments:

dr cromarty said...

Is anyone anything other than 'devastated' when something happens to them (be it light showers when they go otu without a brolly or their family wiped out with Ebola virus)?

WV: hymen

Joe Public said...

C'mon this is a democracy.

Let's put it to the vote - do you put down the dangerous dog, or, its owner?

Anonymous said...

No doubt there will be 'lessons to be learned' all round. Some poor civilian support staff member will be hung out to dry and then made to attend a seminar of some sort, lots of noises made about how it will never happen again and then IT WILL!

The DDA was badly drafted but there was strong and effective policing undermined by animal experts and the courts. It cost a fortune in training and kenneling but the eye was taken off the ball and there are probably more of the nasty brutes around now than ever in 1991.

Still that hag of a grandmother will have to spend the rest of her miserable life knowing she was responsible for her grand child being TYSON's treat and the child's death. Then again she will probably be helped to rationalize that it wasn't ehr fault. IT WAS THE POLICE's fault.

Unbelievable!

English Viking said...

Make all owners have a license and all dogs wear muzzles in public. Dog without license or muzzle = dead dog + prosecuted owner.

For those rare occasions that a dog attacks someone in the a private dwelling, nothing can be done, except to prosecute the moron that thought it would be a good idea to leave a small child in the same room as an animal with a biting force greater than that of a lion. You cannot legislate against that kind of stupidity.

James Higham said...

I'm not sure if I wish to live in such a place anymore. EVery day you point to some new inanity in our land and though it is good you do that, I think you understand what I mean.

staybryte said...

The whole milieu (sp?) in which the poor child was growing up reminds me of a scene in a Samuel L. Jackson film of a few years back. I think it was simply called "187".

In it, Jackson plays a teacher in dreadful American schools driven out of his mind by the moral poverty of his "students".

Near the end, when confronting one of the worst miscreants, he simply tells him, with some venom: "Your way of life is BULLSHIT."

Seems apt.

woman on a raft said...

Given that the last time this happened the jury refused to convict, I'd say there is a low chance that the CPS will even bring a case when handed the police file.

Just for once I don't blame them.

Ellie Lawrenson, 5, was mauled to death by a dog. It happened to be a dog of known violence, but other dogs can turn. It had previously bitten Ellie's aunty and attacked another dog. Perhaps this is normal in St Helen's, Merseyside. The case came to court in 2007.

The parents left Ellie, despite knowing that Grandma was out of her skull. The Guardian says:

Ms Jacqueline Simpson, 45, had drunk two bottles of wine mixed with lemonade and smoked 10 joints on the day she let the dog into the house, where it attacked Ellie, grabbing her by the throat and shaking her.

The judge queried why Kiel Simpson, Ellie's uncle, who was jailed for eight weeks this year for illegally owning the dog, Reuben, contrary to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, did not face other charges.

The judge did not, so far as I know, query why the parents left the child with the bombed-out grandma and whether it should have been put to a jury that the parents also owed Ellie a duty of care.

Jaqueline Simpson was cleared of manslaughter after a jury found she was not criminally responsible for the death. Mr Justice Royce, sitting at Liverpool Crown Court consoled himself: "The greatest sentence passed in this case is a life sentence of regret this lady has passed on herself."

Possibly the reason the police were so ruffled this time was because they did a great deal of work in 2007 on the strength of this case:

Merseyside police, in a month-long dangerous dogs amnesty, were handed 200 animals and seized a further 47 dogs whose owners were being sued under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

The complaint about the dog in the case of John-Paul Massey was from a housing officer, not just any neighbour with a grudge, and so the police should have reacted. (My guess is that the council and police are playing pass the toxic parcel here - the council covered their backsides by reporting it and are not going to allow the police to say they had no knowledge.)

JuliaM said...

"Is anyone anything other than 'devastated' when something happens to them..."

Thry shouldn't have been in this case. All the warning signs were there...

"Let's put it to the vote - do you put down the dangerous dog, or, its owner?"

Both?

"No doubt there will be 'lessons to be learned' all round."

Except by the people who should learn them, but seem incapable of taking in these lessons.

The 'Jeremy Vine' show had a spot on this yesterday and the usual 'My dog is fine, I'm a responsible owner, I trust it implicitly with my kids' chap came on. The dog? A Presa de Canario cross.

The breed made infamous by this case.

"...the eye was taken off the ball and there are probably more of the nasty brutes around now than ever in 1991."

I don't think there's any doubt about that. And by crossing them to 'disguise' them from the DDA, they are potentially even more dangerous.

JuliaM said...

"You cannot legislate against that kind of stupidity."

Sadly not.

And the alternative harsh punishment that would once have been visited on the culprits pour encourager les autres is stayed by misguided sympathy at their loss...

"I'm not sure if I wish to live in such a place anymore."

I can certainly see why the emigration rate is up!

"...he simply tells him, with some venom: "Your way of life is BULLSHIT."

Seems apt."


It does indeed. A very good film, that. Didn't get as much publicity as it needed though.I think audiences preferred the far more audience friendly Michelle Pfeifer film based on similar themes.

JuliaM said...

"Given that the last time this happened the jury refused to convict, I'd say there is a low chance that the CPS will even bring a case when handed the police file."

Me too.

"Perhaps this is normal in St Helen's, Merseyside."

Now, there's a disturbing thought...

"The judge did not, so far as I know, query why the parents left the child with the bombed-out grandma and whether it should have been put to a jury that the parents also owed Ellie a duty of care."

Nope. I suspect it'll never be asked here either, not by anyone in authority.

"The complaint about the dog in the case of John-Paul Massey was from a housing officer, not just any neighbour with a grudge, and so the police should have reacted. (My guess is that the council and police are playing pass the toxic parcel here - the council covered their backsides by reporting it and are not going to allow the police to say they had no knowledge.)"

They should have, but they are not the main culprits here, not by a long chalk.

MTG said...

Now it is all too clear that chief officers are so underpaid they are reduced to stealing lipstick, perhaps the police are also untouchable?

banned said...

What everyone else said, haven't heard a word about 'dad' in this entire case, hardly surprising.

Anonymous said...

Latest: "The uncle of a four-year-old boy mauled to death by a pit bull-type dog in Liverpool has been arrested on suspicion of his manslaughter."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8392842.stm