Police told a young boy who was savaged by a rottweiler cross that he will have to put up with the dog sharing the same garden. Ten-year-old Kieran Mitchell was playing in his garden when he was grabbed by the dog, owned by a downstairs neighbour in the same block of flats.
Kieran needed 17 stitches – but police took the dog away for only one day and gave its owners a warning.Hmmm…
The owner of the six-and-a-half-year-old dog, which is called Khia, defended her pet. Angela Cunningham, 38, said: “She can be overly friendly but she has never bitten anybody.
“I believe Khia jumped on the boy and her claws caused the lacerations. The report from the council’s dog control team said the boy suffered lacerations, not bite marks.”Oh, well, that’s OK then, as long as he was just cut to ribbons, and not bitten!
Meanwhile, over in another part of Scotland, they seem a bit more…well, maybe ‘robust’ isn’t quite the word:
Officers were called to a house in Bellshill after three-year-old Lara bit the owner’s cousin and a friend. But Danielle Henderson claims her dog was simply being protective of her newborn pups and the police reaction was over the top.The police reaction being, incredibly, to summon a vet to put the dog down right there and then in front of the owner!
Ms Henderson (20), of Amethyst Avenue, Bellshill, described Lara as a ‘friendly’ dog, adding: “I was devastated when she was put down. They said she was being sedated, but she died in front of me.”Ah. So, apparently to lie about what action was being taken too, according to the owner.
The police themselves are adamant that they were doing what she herself requested:
The court heard evidence from a vet and a police dog handler who both said Ms Henderson wanted Lara put down - something Mr Murray disputed in court. Vet Colin Elliot defended his practice’s role in the situation.
He said: “A vet was called out under police instruction to euthanasise a dog that had bitten two people. The vet cannot make that decision.” A
police spokesman described the dog’s death as ‘unfortunate’, but added: “We were responding to a call about a dangerous dog. “We took advice from a vet and a dog handler at the scene that the dog had to be put down. The owner wanted that.”She claims she didn’t. And this is a very shaggy dog tale indeed, with no-one wanting to take a hard look at it:
Government advice issued to police under the Dangerous Dogs Act outlines circumstances in which an owner can be charged and an animal seized pending a court hearing, but there is no mention of police having the power to destroy a dog.
A spokesman for the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to comment on the police handling of this case…It seems quite incredible, in this day and age, that no owner consent form would be used to prevent this sort of counterclaim…