"The police officer told me there was nothing she could do because it was a dog on dog attack," she said.
Well, she was
lying to you. Pity you don't let us know her name.
"Even though the warden said they had never seen such horrific injuries and asked for photos, he later told me the case was closed."
I'd really like to know
his name too. Because I bet they crop up again.
A police spokesman said: "An investigation is ongoing and we are trying to identify the owner of the animal that bit the victim's dog. We will able to assess whether any offences have been committed under the Dangerous Dogs Act."
Loosely translated, this means: "Oh, damn! She went to the papers! OKm churn out some boilerplate stuff so it looks like we're doing something.."
A spokesman for the council said it was a police matter.
They must share the same PR staff,
3 comments:
Lied? Or just mistaken Julia? Perhaps police officers don't know every law off the top of their heads and aren't obsessed with dog attacks like you are.
Jaded.
PS I am prepared to be shouted down.......
No excuse Jaded, not when us lowly members of the public can't rely on ignorance as a defence. How can the law be upheld if the person doing it doesn't know the law? In my experience you get your details taken "just for my notes", and then you get a visit later after they have gone away to ask someone who knows what they are doing.
"Lied? Or just mistaken Julia? "
Well, if I'm 'mistaken' about something, I apologise and try to put it right. I see no evidence of this.
I also see this excuse for inaction cropping up a lot in these cases.
It's almost as if it's done to fob people off, eh?
"How can the law be upheld if the person doing it doesn't know the law?"
Simple. It can't. You'd think that'd be a concern to those whose job is upholding the law, wouldn't you?
Post a Comment