alex3659 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Please quote those sources. Having looked at the most recent story, there is no indication within to point to your theory. Maybe I am reading different stories to you, so it would be of a huge help. Self harm and throwing one's self from a moving vehicle are not the actions of a rational person. You wouldn't do that if you weren't having some sort of mental breakdown. The fact that the officer went absent from duty beforehand seems to indicate there was something amiss, and add the story about the injuries. It does appear it's more than a case of making it up. Besides, people don't sectioned for no reason. If you can be bothered read some of the links on here, the ones I read mentioned nothing about being absent from duty until nearly 90 minutes after the dogs were discovered. and also mention throwing himself from the car AFTER the dogs were discovered. No doubt everthing will be now reported to accomodate this reckless idiots behavior as said before to sweep everything under the carpet. Either way whoever allowed a previous dog killer abuser to do this again needs to answer for it as well as this person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullerboY Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 This officer was guilty of severe deriliction of duty towards his charges and failing in his duty of care not once but twice,after the first offence in which a dog died he was promoted to sergeant so some of the responsability lies with his superiors.Like crooksey said in real life most of these coppers wouldn't survive in the real world.This officer deserves the maximum penalty that can be imposed and never be allowed to keep an animal again.Whoever christened them Wooden tops wasn't far wrong.We are supposed to look up to these people Huh! I should cocoa!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Spot on totally agree, either way the police authorities are wrong for allowing this tv celeb come dog handler anywhere near a dog. Again, a bit over-the-top. So, how come the guy went awol? Disappearing in the middle of a shift is not normal. That in itself, without the death of the dogs, would have seen the officer face a severe disciplinary panel. So, why do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex3659 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Again, a bit over-the-top. So, how come the guy went awol? Disappearing in the middle of a shift is not normal. That in itself, without the death of the dogs, would have seen the officer face a severe disciplinary panel. So, why do it? Please keep up, he went AWOL after he found out what he had done, he panicked like a lot of people do when caught out. You are the one asking for links reports etc, please read the ones supplied on this thread. Why is it over the top to ask for reasons why this dog killer was allowed to be in charge of dogs again?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 If you can be bothered read some of the links on here, the ones I read mentioned nothing about being absent from duty and also mention throwing himself from the car AFTER the dogs were discovered. No doubt everthing will be now reported to accomodate this reckless idiots behavior as said before to sweep everything under the carpet. Either way whoever allowed a previous dog killer abuser to do this again needs to answer for it as well as this person. The latest story mentions the officer being reported as absent from duty. 'A police dog handler has been treated in hospital after going missing while on duty following the deaths of two of his dogs that were left in a car.' Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13939439 I have read a few stories on this so it would not be unreasonable for me to ask you to provide links to your sources. So, you are now saying the news reports will be in favour of the police. You telling me the police also have influence over the BBC? One thing I do agree on, serious questions need to be answered about how this happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex3659 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 The latest story mentions the officer being reported as absent from duty. 'A police dog handler has been treated in hospital after going missing while on duty following the deaths of two of his dogs that were left in a car.' Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13939439 I have read a few stories on this so it would not be unreasonable for me to ask you to provide links to your sources. So, you are now saying the news reports will be in favour of the police. You telling me the police also have influence over the BBC? One thing I do agree on, serious questions need to be answered about how this happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. "Following the death of his two dogs" is the clue, NOT before, running away from his crime just like any other lawbreaker. Not letting previous dog abuser killers to be in charge of police dogs would be a good first step or don't you even agree with that?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Again, a bit over-the-top. Very poor troll attempt. What's up, is he a family member or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Please keep up, he went AWOL after he found out what he had done, he panicked like a lot of people do when caught out. You are the one asking for links reports etc, please read the ones supplied on this thread. Why is it over the top to ask for reasons why this dog killer was allowed to be in charge of dogs again?. By saying 'he went awol after he found out what he had done', implies that he didn't know what he had done in the first place. You are making things up now. Did I say that. I am saying there is more to this than you wish to believe. "Following the death of his two dogs" is the clue, NOT before, running away from his crime just like any other lawbreaker. Not letting previous dog abuser killers to be in charge of police dogs would be a good first step or don't you even agree with that?. Wasn't the officer already away when fellow officer's broke into his car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 "Following the death of his two dogs" is the clue, NOT before, running away from his crime just like any other lawbreaker. Not letting previous dog abuser killers to be in charge of police dogs would be a good first step or don't you even agree with that?. Thats the trouble with our justice,people get away with murder(pardon the pun) but we let offenders re-offend instead of nailing them the 1st time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristow Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 A second "mistake". You'd have thought he might have remembered the previous time he caused a dog to die when he shut and locked the car doors this time. Yeah, you thought he might but he didnt, its not worth topping himself over. Its not as if he left a person in the car and killed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.