Police have not questioned Doherty because lawyers said it is likely no crime was committed.Really? Section (3) of the Dangerous Dogs act says if the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there— . (a)it injures any person; or . (b)there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so, he is guilty of an offence.
Even the RSPCA agrees:
"It is an offence if your dog attacks an assistance dog but attacks on other animals including pet dogs are not. However, a court could prosecute if a person believes they would have been injured if they tried to stop a dog attacking their animal. "It's no surprise that huskies are prone to attacks on animals. nor that a druggie waste of oxygen isn't a responsible pet owner.
And now, it's no surprise anymore that the police are an utter waste of time and money.
4 comments:
What's your problem? It's not as though he burned a cardboard box...
'According to the metro Pete was due to be quizzed by the police on Thursday night but an expert believes a crime hasn’t been committed'
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/16/pete-dohertys-pet-huskies-accused-of-killing-neighbours-cat-in-savage-10-minute-attack-8146126/?ito=cbshare
Why did you come to the conclusion that Kent Police had spoken to an 'expert' and were NFA'ing the matter? By the way the news reports all seem to be the same cut and paste job with a few pictures added.
Retired
Mr Plod pursues the easy targets or anyone with the temerity to censure him.
This public 'service' is so shackled by its corrupt self-preservation, that nobody with lesser standing than that of cabinet minister can criticise it. Oh hang on...I think he may be further tormented by faecal odours from a jaded WC, or Mr Mitchell is trying to remove his gag to tell us something.
"What's your problem? It's not as though he burned a cardboard box..."
*chuckles* It's all gone quiet on that, hasn't it?
"Why did you come to the conclusion that Kent Police had spoken to an 'expert' and were NFA'ing the matter?"
Because it's what they ALWAYS do at first.
Then they reverse their decision if the media & social media heat gets too high. See Bungle the chow puppy for illustration.
"Mr Plod pursues the easy targets or anyone with the temerity to censure him. "
Or the politically correct issue du jour...
Post a Comment