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…
12 comments:
"euthanasise" a dog?
Euthanase, surely?
Any action by the Police would have been as a result of guidelines or instructions handed down to them by the law of the land or authorised bye-laws. The decisions would not have been made by some 'fat, lazy, right-wing, nazi-oriented, flatfoot' tossing a coin and making a decision. Before the cops are criticised, ask yourself who makes the laws and tehn criticise them.
Can't wait for Melv, Fiddly and the rest to comment on this!
Penseivat
So.....too soft in the first case and too harsh in the second case....as an opinion!!! It's all subjective and opinions vary. Dog didn't bite in the first case...i can understand that being reasonable mitigation.
But did the vet not support the fact that the owner wanted the dog putting down? Undermines the accusation against the police.
Pense,
I'll save my scorn about plod for the the utter shambles that is going on in Croydon at the moment.
Noggin the Nog
Pense,
I'll save my scorn about plod for the the utter shambles that is going on in Croydon at the moment.
Noggin the Nog
Noggy,
I've told you before, don't repeat yourself. Not only is it rude but it casts doubt on your mental state.
Re the house search: Police policy (as laid down in law and instructions from (very) senior officers, is that a search of a house where a child is reported missing is carried out almost immediately. That search is of the rooms, under the bed, wardrobes, etc. Any other type of search would require a warrant obtained from a magistrate after reasonable grounds had ben given. No reasonable grounds, no warrant, no intensive search or a criminal act has been committed. The latest search would have been after formal interviews of Gran and her boyfriend led to those reasonable grounds and the warrant. The alternative would be for you to blog that "Fat, lazy, overpaid, nazi bastards, force their way into innocent people's home and destroy it." or some such. No doubt things could have turned out differently but lie isn't perfect. A sad day all round now it's been confirmed that a child has lost her life.
Penseivat
Pense,
Yet more straw man rhetoric from you. I have never described the Police in the terms you have used.
I guess repeating the same positio is at least better than constantly changing it to suit. Your position is somewhat different to the one you had just a few days ago, on this very blog. You seemed to think it was OK to arrest people on the assumption, without evidence, that they might have committed an offense. You remember? The cyclist who collided with a pedestrian?
But this time the boot is on the other foot, it was OK not to even search meticulously a house which was very likely the last place the missing girl had been?
It was OK to let a convicted crack-dealing, machete wielding, sexually dubious jailbird wander off an hour before plod finally pulled its finger out, found a body and try to nick him?
I can honestly say that if I carried out my work duties in such appallingly slip-shod fashion, I would have been out the door long, long ago.
Dear Pense
Explanations are wasted on bigots and cretins. I suggest you spend less time here and more time pontificating to motorists on motorway hard shoulders. Do remember to lean casually into the driver's window.
Noggy (and Melv, how nice to hear from you),
The term I used was "reasonable cause" or "reasonable suspcion", I forget which (perhaps I wasn't being reasonable enough). However, events have overtaken us and the Met have apologised for human error in not finding the body soon enough. You (both) are correct in that the Police Force is not fit for purpose and will therefore be disbanded. It may take about 4 or 5 years but by then you will be receiving a sterling service from companies like G4S (of Olympic Games fame), as long as you have subscribed to their 'standard', 'de-luxe', or 'platinum' service. You may also agree that this bloke needs to be the first one to go!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-19164337.
Penseivat
Pense,
You see to imply that the utterly shit service that plod currently provides will be replaced by an equally shit service provided by some private company, if people like me don't stop whining about how shit the current bunch of wankers are.
What is your point?
That I will be made to pay for the tossers, forcibly?
I already am.
"Euthanase, surely?"
Heh! I missed that one. Clearly, their spellcheck did too.
"Any action by the Police would have been as a result of guidelines or instructions handed down to them by the law of the land or authorised bye-laws."
Penseivat, did you miss the bit where it clearly stated no such power existed?
"What is your point?
That I will be made to pay for the tossers, forcibly?
I already am."
It's hard to argue with that, isn't it?
Pense must not be denied his belief that the firing squad would not dare use live rounds on him anymore than the mathematical probality that their rifles would jam simultaneously in any event. I hope he and Jaded enjoyed Nog's mastery of plodspeak as much as I did.
Post a Comment