Oh Dear How Sad Never Mind

I came across the article below and was angry but not surprised. This is the government that was going to be ‘Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime’. When a politician produces sound bites like that you just know that they mean ‘We’ll make the copper on the streets job even harder than it is already, and when something goes wrong, we’ll have a large number of people sit around a table with cups of tea and decide how to blame the police for doing their job’.

Read the article and see all the different groups that sat in judgement. What a collection of letters in their titles, you could get a great score in Scrabble. One thing they have in common is that they’ve for the most part never done anything more dangerous than stand in a queue in a supermarket. This grandly titled ‘Learning The Lessons Committee’ which of course is a ‘multi-agency committee’ (it would be wouldn’t it?). Although multi agency it is a tad light on operational Police Officers who actually have to do the job. When I say a tad light I mean none, not one. it wouldn’t do would it, to bring a dose of reality to the proceedings?

Lessons: Using Police Dogs Against Youngsters
12-Mar-09
A case in which two youngsters were injured by a police dog raises both good practice and lessons to be learned regarding using police dogs on juveniles…
The Learning the Lessons Committee is a multi-agency committee established to disseminate and promote learning across the police service. Its members are: ACPO, APA, Home Office, IPCC, HMIC and the NPIA. The Committee produces bulletins with articles containing lessons from investigations. One such article is published below:

Police received an anonymous call about the sound of breaking glass coming from playing fields and, suspecting a burglary, went to the scene with a police dog handler and his dog. They spotted four youngsters running towards the top of the field but because they were in hooded tops and jackets they could not tell how old they were. The Force did not have a policy about using dogs against juveniles.
The dog handler shouted that he had a police dog and would send it after them unless they stood still. The youngsters kept running and, as he was too far away to catch them on foot, he sent the dog after the nearest suspect. When the dog brought the suspect to the ground, he discovered the suspect was a girl. One of the other suspects was still moving, either running or waving his arms around and shouting. The dog ran at him and knocked him to the ground.
The dog’s actions injured both the girl, who was 15, and the boy, who was 12. She had a bruise on her arm and grazed her side and stomach; he had a cut to his upper lip and scratches on the back of his shoulder. The youngsters had not managed to get into the pavilion but three of them (including the two caught by the dog) were given a reprimand for criminal damage.
Good practice: After-care card, with suitable advice and contact information, carried by dog-handlers to be given to anyone who had received a dog-bite; copying all third-party dog bite reports to the Professional Standards Department for review and possible referral to the IPCC.
Key messages are to ensure the Force’s dog deployment policy gives guidance or instruction about deploying dogs against juveniles; integrate records held on dog-handlers to give a comprehensive picture of their performance.

Well readers what do you think? Why did it take all of these very highly paid people to sit round a table and discuss what any right thinking person could work out for themselves.

There was a crime in progress. It was either burglary or criminal damage to the pavilion.

A police dog handler attended. It may well be that had he not attended as promptly as he did then the criminal damage would have become burglary as they gained entry.

The dog handler located the offenders and challenged them. It was dark and they were wearing hoods. Their age and/or gender would not have been apparent to him.

They ignored the repeated challenge and decamped, as a result they were stopped by the dog, well boo hoo. So they were 15 and 12, old enough to be out in the dark and commit crime, old enough to shout abuse at police, old enough to cost you and me, the taxpayer, even more money. They were lucky to get away with such slight injuries, either it was a very young dog or the handler was very switched on and quickly called his dog off.

The point is that the offenders had choices. They had a choice not to either destroy property that wasn’t theirs or to try and steal. Having decided against that choice, when confronted by the dog and handler they then had the choice to run or be compliant. They chose to run. Everything has a consequence of action either good or bad. These people made bad decisions and showed lack of respect for their community so why are we discussing what the police should have done?

She was a girl! Yes, and your point is? Go into any city centre at night or even just stand outside a school and you’ll hear language, see yobbish behaviour and violence that you’d expect to see in the east end of London when the Krays were around.

He was 12. Once again his decision. If he wants to play the hard man the world can end in pain. Just what was the handler supposed to do? Perhaps run alongside them and on discovering it was a girl let her go? To the best of my knowledge the law applies to both genders. And as for the 12 year old boy there are some big lads of that age, I have had a 13 year old try to stab me and a 14 year old swing a scaffold pole at me with such force it broke my foot so you’ll forgive me if I don’t feel sorry for these little darlings.

Anyone who decides to take on a police dog is very stupid and the outcome will not be in doubt, sadly part of the outcome will be a collection of bleeding hearts blaming the police or victims.