...it being too much like hard work.
His wife Susan say she has "lost all faith in the police" after the response. But Northumbria Police insist "enquiries are ongoing" and say officers continue to liaise with those involved.No, only with the injured party, and then, only after being shamed into it by the bad publicity...
The attack itself left the 58-year-old electrical supervisor needing surgery to the fractures in his hand and forced to spend three weeks off work.
He immediately rang 999 to report the alleged crime, but had to end his call to rush to the hospital.
On Thursday July 11, an officer called him to take a statement and Raymond offered details of nearby locations of CCTV.Which met with a 'Meh! Too much like hard work!' response...
"He never came to the house, it was just over the phone, and he said 'we don't normally bother with dog-on-dog attacks' - I said, 'excuse me, it's not just a dog-on-dog attack'.
He said he didn't think they would have time to go looking for CCTV," he said.They always have time. Time is all they do have!
Raymond claims he was left feeling the police officer - who told him it would be hard to prove the incident had taken place but agreed that because of his injuries an investigation would take place - "did not seem to want to know".Then he's a lazy bastard who should be dismissed from the farce.
David Render's related comment in the Chronicle, nicely sums up the current 'faith in plod'. "I wouldn't be surprised if the dangerous dog was owned by a cops family", he writes.
ReplyDeleteI will not disagree with Mr Render but it should be pointed out that not all plod are liars, hypocrites and criminals. Some plod share none of the aforementioned vices and only manage to fail the public through bias (Bone Idle Arse Synndrome).
*Syndrome*
ReplyDeleteGood job the victim wasn't in a restaurant, Eh? Then he'd not only be ignored by the police, he'd be in the wrong for saying the (guide) dog shouldn't have been brought in!
ReplyDeleteFailing to control a dangerous dog and threatening behaviour and the Police, allegedly, are doing nothing. However, even if there is CCTV of the incident, unless the dog owner gave his name and address, which seems unlikely, the Police have then to identify him.
ReplyDeleteIf Dim Dave Cameron and Treason May had not decimated the Police, and local best officers were still around, identification could have been a lot easier.
I have no idea how long between the incident and the press being involved, but trying to identify and unknown male in a fairly large city can he difficult, and that is if the person lives in that city.
Notwithstanding the puerile comments and apparent negative attitude by the Officer, perhaps giving the Police some slack should be considered.
Anyway, when all Police applicants will require a degree before being accepted, things will only get better (not).
Penseivat
Julia please can I have next weeks lottery numbers? You have decided the officer is lazy and worthy of the sack from a short one-sided story in a local paper.
ReplyDeleteJaded
"David Render's related comment in the Chronicle, nicely sums up the current 'faith in plod'. "I wouldn't be surprised if the dangerous dog was owned by a cops family", he writes. "
ReplyDeleteNor would I.
"Good job the victim wasn't in a restaurant, Eh? Then he'd not only be ignored by the police, he'd be in the wrong for saying the (guide) dog shouldn't have been brought in!"
Are you quite well?
"If Dim Dave Cameron and Treason May had not decimated the Police..."
Funny how this 'decimated' service always finds enough staff for a Pride march though, isn't it?
"You have decided the officer is lazy and worthy of the sack from a short one-sided story in a local paper. "
Actually, on the basis of what he's (not) done...