Met at it again.

by Hairyloon 27th June 2011, 6:04 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Compostwoman 27th June 2011, 7:53 pm

Heard about it, earlier. Crying or Very sad

Absolutely DISGUSTING. Evil or Very Mad

by Lottie 27th June 2011, 8:09 pm

That just breaks my heart.. Crying or Very sad

by Hairyloon 27th June 2011, 10:14 pm

With a bit of luck they will be banned from keeping animals.

by Compostwoman 27th June 2011, 10:27 pm

Yeah, like the last Police dog handler was? so much for " lessons learned.." Rolling Eyes

by Jaded Green 27th June 2011, 10:47 pm

I couldn't believe it either.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to do it once is misfortune, twice looks like carelessness. But even once is unacceptable.

by Sparhawk 28th June 2011, 12:32 am

Compostwoman wrote:Yeah, like the last Police dog handler was? so much for " lessons learned.."

I think that was in the Nottinghamshire constabulary, no excuse... all dog handlers/owners... no... all animal "owners" should have a statutory duty of care, & should be persecuted/prosecuted if they fail to give them adequate protection...

by Wilhelm Von Rhomboid 28th June 2011, 8:24 am

Terrible yes, but why single out the police? More than a thousand cases a year of dogs left in hot cars, and it has happened to the police twice in three years. And the previous case the officer was prosecuted and got a six-month sentence and lost his job.

by Adrian 28th June 2011, 10:23 am

I read last night that the officer involved in the latest case tried to kill himself, since the death of these dogs, such is his sense of guilt.

by Compostwoman 28th June 2011, 8:03 pm

Wilhelm Von Rhomboid wrote:Terrible yes, but why single out the police? More than a thousand cases a year of dogs left in hot cars, and it has happened to the police twice in three years. And the previous case the officer was prosecuted and got a six-month sentence and lost his job.

According to a number of different media sources, the officer concerned was given a six-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £2,500 costs. He no longer works as a Police Dog handler but is still a serving officer.

by Wilhelm Von Rhomboid 28th June 2011, 10:12 pm

Compostwoman wrote:
Wilhelm Von Rhomboid wrote:Terrible yes, but why single out the police? More than a thousand cases a year of dogs left in hot cars, and it has happened to the police twice in three years. And the previous case the officer was prosecuted and got a six-month sentence and lost his job.

According to a number of different media sources, the officer concerned was given a six-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £2,500 costs. He no longer works as a Police Dog handler but is still a serving officer.

and your point is?

by Compostwoman 28th June 2011, 11:27 pm

Just correcting an inaccuracy in your post, that is all.

He got a six month conditional discharge sentence (you said a six month sentence...most people would read that as custodial, which it wasn't)

AND he didn't lose his job.

Which is odd because AFAIR, if you have a conviction, you can't be a police officer...but I must be wrong on that.

by Hairyloon 29th June 2011, 1:43 am

Wilhelm Von Rhomboid wrote:Terrible yes, but why single out the police?

Because they are supposed to set an example.
Because they are supposed to be properly trained.
Because it costs a lot to train a police dog.

by Wilhelm Von Rhomboid 29th June 2011, 8:08 am

Hairyloon wrote:
Wilhelm Von Rhomboid wrote:Terrible yes, but why single out the police?
Because they are supposed to set an example.
Because they are supposed to be properly trained.
Because it costs a lot to train a police dog.

Ah, okay. It's the cost that's the problem and the training. I thought for a moment it was the dogs.

by Compostwoman 29th June 2011, 9:14 am

No, you missed out " because they are supposed to set an example"

Which, apart from the death of dogs and how dreadful it is, is rather the point,

Dogs die in hot cars, it is a criminal offence ( as well as a dreadful way to behave to an animal)

and people who let them die get arrested and prosecuted. The Police are the ones who do the arresting.

by Wilhelm Von Rhomboid 29th June 2011, 9:33 am

And I daresay the officer responsible for the death of these dogs will be arrested and prosecuted.

Out of interest, where does the notion come from that the police are supposed to set a good example? The stated purpose of the British police force is: "The purpose of the police se rvice is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen’s peace; to protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement."

by Sparhawk 29th June 2011, 9:41 am

According to reports I have read, it has happened to this Officer before...

by Hairyloon 29th June 2011, 10:08 am

Wilhelm Von Rhomboid wrote:Out of interest, where does the notion come from that the police are supposed to set a good example? The stated purpose of the British police force is: "The purpose of the police service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen’s peace; to protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement."

Best way to do that is by setting a good example.
Frankly, I don't see how they are supposed to start upholding the law if they are flouting it themselves.

by Lottie 29th June 2011, 2:51 pm

Sparhawk wrote:According to reports I have read, it has happened to this Officer before...

Yup, I heard that too, Spar, on Jeremy Vine yesterday... who said it was the second time this officer has let this happen. I am surprised that he was allowed to work with animals after the first incident if this is the case.

Billy, to my mind, the police are there to enforce the law, as such I presume they will stick to the laws they're supposed to enforce. I have no idea what's in the booklet and I don't really care, truth be told, as a lay person with a lay person/general public understanding, I do hope that the police ( who would throw the book at anyone else) get it right. Isn't that what they're paid for?

by Wilhelm Von Rhomboid 29th June 2011, 4:50 pm

Yes, and I have not seen it suggested that the officer in question will be let off scot free. I fully agree it was a criminally negligent thing to do and a tragedy that the dogs died in such a horrible way. But, as i said originally, thousands of people let their dogs die in the same way every year, presumably from all walks of life. I daresay just as many hairdressers, doctors, foresters, landscape gardeners and greengrocers are guilty of the same negligence, so the title 'The Met are at it again' seems misleading to me. I find it unlikely in the extreme that the officer deliberately allowed the dogs to die, believing himself to be above the law.

by Compostwoman 29th June 2011, 5:13 pm

Frankly I don't really care about the officer's motives.

I expect a body who are charged with enforcing laws to be able to also follow them. Yes, I expect them to set an example -

And I expect someone who is a Dog handler AND a police officer to set even more of one by not leaving dogs in locked cars and, therefore to not break the law.

And as it was the Met last time(s?) around the title of this thread is quite correct IMO.

by Wilhelm Von Rhomboid 29th June 2011, 5:33 pm

Compostwoman wrote:

And as it was the Met last time(s?) around the title of this thread is quite correct IMO.

Oh, I must have been misinformed about the number of dogs that die every year in cars, when in fact the last occurrence was three years ago with that other police officer. My bad. You are clearly right. The Metropolitan police are clearly animal hating bastards following a deliberate policy of systematic canine extermination. Even though the previous incident was the Nottinghamshire constabulary, not the Met.

by Compostwoman 29th June 2011, 5:50 pm

OK, so another time it was not the Met...but even so, Billy, if you don't like this thread, why are you even reading it or commenting on it? it seems to be annoying you very much.

I seem to recall you saying that to other (former) members when they made similar sorts of comments about posts.

by Hairyloon 30th June 2011, 10:53 am

Compostwoman wrote:OK, so another time it was not the Met...but even so, Billy, if you don't like this thread, why are you even reading it or commenting on it? it seems to be annoying you very much.

I seem to recall you saying that to other (former) members when they made similar sorts of comments about posts.

What is the point of an internet forum if you can't have a bloody good row now and again?
Billy is making valid points... though I disagree about the title: it is not misleading, this is another example of the Met' disgracing the uniform. If you're that bothered, we can changfe the title easily enough.

Wilhelm Von Rhomboid wrote:I find it unlikely in the extreme that the
officer deliberately allowed the dogs to die, believing himself to be
above the law.

In any other job, somebody who had been so negligent would be immediately dismissed for gross misconduct.

by Compostwoman 30th June 2011, 11:36 am

Ah, maybe changing the title might make it clearer what you were on about?

And yes, bloody good rows are fine, but this seemed to be getting a bit grumpy reading...not on my side I hasten to add... Neutral

Any further developments on the original issue?

by Sponsored content

Met at it again.

Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.

Re: Met at it again.