Tuesday - July 22, 2008

Don’t set dogs on criminals with allergies, police told.  latest example of “namby pamby” policing

Yeah, there’s a lot I can say but I’ll leave that up to the rest of ya.. Besides which, I have a tendency to curse a lot over stupid stuff like this.
Not as bad as what I say to my computer but that’s something else.

Police dog handlers will have to consider whether criminals have allergies or a fear of dogs before conducting searches in what has been described as the latest example of “namby pamby” policing.

By Gordon Rayner
Last Updated: 11:15PM BST 21 Jul 2008

Guidelines being drawn up by senior officers will tell dog handlers they should “avoid offending” people with phobias of animals when dogs are used in drug raids and other investigations.

The rules have been produced amid fears that suspects with medical conditions triggered by the presence of dogs, such as asthma, may file costly compensation claims against the police if they suffer an allergy or panic attack during a police raid.

Dog handlers have also been told to take “cultural sensitivities” into account, though reports that dogs would be required to wear specially-designed boots on their paws during searches of mosques and Muslim homes have been flatly denied.

The plans have been ridiculed in the respected force magazine Police Review, with one columnist citing it as the latest diktat from “the polite police”.

The anonymous sergeant writes: “The traditional shout of ‘stand still or I’ll set the dog on you’ will presumably have to become ‘excuse me, my police dog is quite hairy and might cause alarm as he sinks his fangs into his right thigh. Is that all right with you?’

“The whole point of police dogs is to frighten people rigid, at least those who have just committed a crime and would otherwise make a clean getaway. They should have considered the mental trauma and possible allergic reaction caused by 60lbs of foaming Alsatian clamping its teeth to their extremities before embarking on their criminal escapade.”

A serving dog handler, who asked not to be named, said: “I have never heard anything so ridiculous. What’s next? Sparing people custody because they have a fear of enclosed spaces?

“This is just another example of namby pamby policing laid down by people who haven’t been on the beat in years.”

PC Mike Dermody, a former dog handler with Greater Manchester Police, was among those dismissing the need for guidelines, saying: “I have never encountered an incident where we have offended someone. If there is a person with an allergy, we will put them in one room while we search the rest of the house.”

And PC David Heaps, a dog handling trainer at Derbyshire Constabulary, said dog handlers were already “mindful not to cause offence”.

The controversy arose after Peter Vaughan, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ adviser on dogs, said: “The draft guidelines outline a general principle that forces should consider what steps can be taken to avoid offending people during operations.

“This might include different categories of people such as those with a fear of dogs, for example or asthma sufferers who may be sensitive to dog hair.”

Mr Vaughan, deputy chief constable of South Wales Police, insisted, however, that “in all operations effective policing will take primacy”, meaning dog handlers would not have to take possible allergies into account when tackling violent criminals, for example.

http://tinyurl.com/5ek6ys

Posted by Drew458     on 07/22/2008 at 02:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Insanity • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner