Starmer Claims First Job Was On A Farm...
News3 mins ago
Police officer to face charges over death of two dogs
41 Answers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghams hire/8160753.stm I'm glad there is going to be a prosecution over this.I hope they give him the maximum sentence.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by daffy654. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't see how you can use the term bigot here rollo.I have already stated that his occupation has nothing to do with what I consider his punishment should be.ANYONE who mistreats an animal should face the maximum penalty possible...as should those who mistreat or harm human beings.
And no paraffin I have never owned a dog with a docked tail.....I only ever had 3 dogs in my life,two Westies(both had full tails) and a mongrel.
And no paraffin I have never owned a dog with a docked tail.....I only ever had 3 dogs in my life,two Westies(both had full tails) and a mongrel.
In sentencing, the worst cases where the "maximum" is given are to those offenders where the offences have aggravating factors.
For instance, if this person is convicted, he has long previous convictions for animal cruelty, it was a deliberate act because he enjoyed frying dogs, it was premeditated and pre planned and took place over a number of months, was committed on bail and he has shown no remorse yes a custodial sentence near the maximum - is almost certain.
On the other hand, if it was a mistake, where he popped into the nick to collect something, got say involved in helping to subdue a violent prisoner and it took longer than the 30 seconds he was intending to be. Plus he has no previous convictions and is probably hugely cut up about it (in my experience, police dog handlers are extremely close to their dogs) and as a result has lost his career. Plus he pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, well frankly a maximum prison sentence would a) be manifestly excessive and b) likely to be over turned on appeal.
Those are just examples - I make it clear that I have no knowledge of the facts.
Aggravating and mitigating factors must be taken into account in every offence - it is part of our sentencing provisions and long may it continue.
For instance, if this person is convicted, he has long previous convictions for animal cruelty, it was a deliberate act because he enjoyed frying dogs, it was premeditated and pre planned and took place over a number of months, was committed on bail and he has shown no remorse yes a custodial sentence near the maximum - is almost certain.
On the other hand, if it was a mistake, where he popped into the nick to collect something, got say involved in helping to subdue a violent prisoner and it took longer than the 30 seconds he was intending to be. Plus he has no previous convictions and is probably hugely cut up about it (in my experience, police dog handlers are extremely close to their dogs) and as a result has lost his career. Plus he pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, well frankly a maximum prison sentence would a) be manifestly excessive and b) likely to be over turned on appeal.
Those are just examples - I make it clear that I have no knowledge of the facts.
Aggravating and mitigating factors must be taken into account in every offence - it is part of our sentencing provisions and long may it continue.
I have stated my opinion clearly several times paraffin,just because Barmaid has posted the legal side of it does NOT change my OPINION.
You keep choosing to misunderstand what I have posted..I thought you of all people (after the George Galloway post debacle) would actually read the content of my posts instead of getting on your high horse.
I will state one last time-the man's profession HAS NO BEARING on MY opinion of what should happen to him.
I am not responsible for all the others who have gone on about how police officers get away with stuff !!!
You keep choosing to misunderstand what I have posted..I thought you of all people (after the George Galloway post debacle) would actually read the content of my posts instead of getting on your high horse.
I will state one last time-the man's profession HAS NO BEARING on MY opinion of what should happen to him.
I am not responsible for all the others who have gone on about how police officers get away with stuff !!!
Daffy, so according to you anybody who is convicted of mistreating an animal should automatically receive the maximum sentence, whether or not what they did was deliberate and having no regard to the circumstances under which the mistreatment occurred.
If that is your opinion then you are, of course, entitled to it. I just think your opinion is somewhat misguided.
If that is your opinion then you are, of course, entitled to it. I just think your opinion is somewhat misguided.
daffy:
I fully accept that you have an opinion and respect that. However, opinions do not equate to the Law of the land which is already on the statute books. Unless you campaign for it to be changed, it is what it is, no matter what our opinions are.
You've acknowledged Barmaid's references to the legalities involved. Have I not referred to those also in not one but each of my posts?
Opinions are to be respected, in most cases, but some of the same on this thread have bordered on hysteria. I've already pinpointed those.
I'll overlook your cheap dig at one of my posts and will finish by saying that my remark about the docking of dogs' tails was aimed at the breeder types who have said a few ridiculous things on this thread, not at you. I actually ran out of space on that particular answer because you may note that the last word was "I'm". The rest was not included, otherwise you would have understood it wasn't aimed at you.
And of course you're not responsible for the answers of others. I would never have made such an allegation.
I fully accept that you have an opinion and respect that. However, opinions do not equate to the Law of the land which is already on the statute books. Unless you campaign for it to be changed, it is what it is, no matter what our opinions are.
You've acknowledged Barmaid's references to the legalities involved. Have I not referred to those also in not one but each of my posts?
Opinions are to be respected, in most cases, but some of the same on this thread have bordered on hysteria. I've already pinpointed those.
I'll overlook your cheap dig at one of my posts and will finish by saying that my remark about the docking of dogs' tails was aimed at the breeder types who have said a few ridiculous things on this thread, not at you. I actually ran out of space on that particular answer because you may note that the last word was "I'm". The rest was not included, otherwise you would have understood it wasn't aimed at you.
And of course you're not responsible for the answers of others. I would never have made such an allegation.
We are fortunate to live in a country where the "Rule of Law" prevails, paraffin but I believe we should voice our views, however irrational they seem.
I will grant that in this case a "whitewash" is highly unlikely but the police must attract the closest scrutiny and many people have expressed unease about whether they always do.
I will grant that in this case a "whitewash" is highly unlikely but the police must attract the closest scrutiny and many people have expressed unease about whether they always do.
Completely agree Seadogg - we are all entitled to an opinion, however outrageous it might seem to others, that is fundamental in our society. But Paraffin did not just voice an opinion - he stated one of the factors underpinning our legal system - "The fact is that the law should be applied fairly and without prejudice". That is something with which I wholeheartedly agree. The law SHOULD be impartial and indeed it is.
A number of posts on here implied that the fact that the alleged perpetrator was a police officer meant that there would be unfairness and prejudice and he may well be treated favourably. I do not believe that to be the case. In any event, the police and CPS will have NOTHING to do with this prosecution - it will be undertaken by the RSPCA who are entirely independent of the state. So as you say, Seadogg, a whitewash is unlikely (and trust me, when the RSPCA get their teeth into you, they will prosecute robustly and without favour).
A number of posts on here implied that the fact that the alleged perpetrator was a police officer meant that there would be unfairness and prejudice and he may well be treated favourably. I do not believe that to be the case. In any event, the police and CPS will have NOTHING to do with this prosecution - it will be undertaken by the RSPCA who are entirely independent of the state. So as you say, Seadogg, a whitewash is unlikely (and trust me, when the RSPCA get their teeth into you, they will prosecute robustly and without favour).
seadogg:
Point taken. I cannot disagree and I have first hand experience of what you mean by "the police must attract the closest scrutiny", believe me.
I've had it happen to me on the flimsiest of complaints, although I'm fully aware of the seriousness of this particular matter.
But I also happen to know that there will be no cover up or whitewash. Sadly, though, there are still apparently a sizeable proportion of people who cling to these outdated concepts of how Police Forces are conducted.
In my experience, any Officer who stepped out of line was most certainly not exonerated, just the opposite, a Force nowadays will bend over backwards to show Joe Public just how caring and sharing it is.
The only time you'll have a closing of ranks is when a Force knows that one of "its own" is innocent. A lot of people, some undoubtedly bearing grudges for whatever reason, only want to find a negative story like this as a means of venting their spleen.
Point taken. I cannot disagree and I have first hand experience of what you mean by "the police must attract the closest scrutiny", believe me.
I've had it happen to me on the flimsiest of complaints, although I'm fully aware of the seriousness of this particular matter.
But I also happen to know that there will be no cover up or whitewash. Sadly, though, there are still apparently a sizeable proportion of people who cling to these outdated concepts of how Police Forces are conducted.
In my experience, any Officer who stepped out of line was most certainly not exonerated, just the opposite, a Force nowadays will bend over backwards to show Joe Public just how caring and sharing it is.
The only time you'll have a closing of ranks is when a Force knows that one of "its own" is innocent. A lot of people, some undoubtedly bearing grudges for whatever reason, only want to find a negative story like this as a means of venting their spleen.
He will be prosecuted, but it's highly improbable that he will do time. At most he will receive a fine of a few hundred pounds. The greatest implication of his actions will be the impact on his job.
The RSPCA takes many cases of intentional cruelty to court, and unfortunately the courts rarely give out much more than a relatively small fine. But usually it's still worth it for the hope of a ban on keeping other animals. In this particular case, that would be unlikely due to the 'accidental' nature of the incident.
The RSPCA takes many cases of intentional cruelty to court, and unfortunately the courts rarely give out much more than a relatively small fine. But usually it's still worth it for the hope of a ban on keeping other animals. In this particular case, that would be unlikely due to the 'accidental' nature of the incident.
-- answer removed --
ahmskunnirt, the RSPCA are indeed independent, as they receive no government money and all funds are raised by donation from the public.
They often work closely with the police force, for obvious reasons, such as when the police have helped them to gain entry to a property or have alerted them to an animal welfare issue.
They often work closely with the police force, for obvious reasons, such as when the police have helped them to gain entry to a property or have alerted them to an animal welfare issue.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Is Labour Prosecuting A Class War?
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Inflation Increases By 35% - Minister...
News10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.