Manchester Dogs Home

[Bea Smith]

(-re the policeman I know who said he would not have run the dog over)

Can we get him on here..would be useful to learn more form him on such matters?

 

If he did refuse to act as ordered he should face disciplinary action and appropriate action taken against him where warranted after a full and investigation..or no action at all

 

I think you know that it would be very foolish and unwise for a private remark like that to be put down on the internet, and possibly traceable - which cant happen through me as what I was told in confidence remains that way. You wouldn't want to get someone in trouble just for being an animal lover, even if they are a friend of mine - I hope not anyway.

 

He is quite aware of what would happen to someone who did not do as they were ordered by a senior, but of course it is hypothetical as he was not there and involved.

 

I find it interesting that nobody seems to be taking much notice of the time of the incident, and the volume of traffic around at 3am on the A55 - I hope any inquiry into this incident gives that some priority as I cant imagine many vehicles being around at that time in North Wales, even on what in the daytime might be quite a busy route. Perhaps you would like to tell us what you think about the time.

 

This is a very important aspect that must be considered, but certainly someone who made this decision to carry out this deed needs to explain their reasons fully and not just blurt out a pathetic 'safety comes first' lame and probably untrue statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd have got out the way and then reported the incident to the police and other authorities to decide what should be done when the facts are known and would have helped with any enquiries

[geosname]

 

murder a dog

 

Murder

noun

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I think you know that it would be very foolish and unwise for a private remark like that to be put down on the internet, and possibly traceable - which cant happen through me as what I was told in confidence remains that way. You wouldn't want to get someone in trouble just for being an animal lover, even if they are a friend of mine - I hope not anyway.

 

Why on earth would anyone even contemplate that i was trying to get anyone into trouble? He's an expert so would be good to know more.

 

You probably should not have mentioned it as you probably don't know many policemen so it would not be too difficult for someone to work out who it was should they be minded to do so. Did you ask him if it was Ok to post his thoughts on a forum?

 

 

He is quite aware of what would happen to someone who did not do as they were ordered by a senior, but of course it is hypothetical as he was not there and involved.

 

So IMO should not be commenting on it

 

I find it interesting that nobody seems to be taking much notice of the time of the incident, and the volume of traffic around at 3am on the A55 - I hope any inquiry into this incident gives that some priority as I cant imagine many vehicles being around at that time in North Wales, even on what in the daytime might be quite a busy route. Perhaps you would like to tell us what you think about the time.

 

I am sure any enquiry will take into account all the relevant facts..obvioulsy whomever is looking into this will have said little so far whilst they establish the facts

 

This is a very important aspect that must be considered, but certainly someone who made this decision to carry out this deed needs to explain their reasons fully and not just blurt out a pathetic 'safety comes first' lame and probably untrue stat

 

I am 100% confident that will not happen (the lame statement)

I see that one of the officers did approach the dog and was bitten. Firearms officers were involved but decided they could not get a safe shot

 

More info

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35648941

 

Time to wait and see what the enquiry finds

[cheshirevaliant]

Re.Bea Smith's post #28. I suspect if you hit a horse at high speed in a car, you are as likely to kill yourself as the horse.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Re.Bea Smith's post #28. I suspect if you hit a horse at high speed in a car, you are as likely to kill yourself as the horse.

 

Very true but I guess it's the principle..would they do the same if they were putting themselves at risk. Reading more info seems to me even if what they ended up doing turns out to be wrong the officers were quite brave in risking their own safety to rescue the dog before deciding on their final course of action...one got close enough between the traffic on the road to be bitten for example.

[Bea Smith]

 

Why on earth would anyone even contemplate that i was trying to get anyone into trouble?

 

oh please, ......

He's an expert so would be good to know more.

 

That reminds me I must buy some transparent paper tomorrow.

 

You probably should not have mentioned it as you probably don't know many policemen so it would not be too difficult for someone to work out who it was should they be minded to do so. Did you ask him if it was Ok to post his thoughts on a forum?

 

 

I think it's up to me to decide what I should mention, I seem to remember reading a post you made quoting something about Scotsmen you knew recently - did you ask all of them ?

 

With all due respect, you have no idea how many policemen or women I know, where they work, and anyone so petty to go to that much trouble is sad indeed - if they did I'd just deny anything was said to me, and you know that would be the end of it - unless someone felt like doing something about their privacy being invaded - who knows ?

 

. Despite having Osborne and Cameron we don't live in Nazi Germany yet and people can have opinions in private conversations. Again, though it is most inappropriate for you to ask, and you have quite a cheek to do so, I will answer your question and tell you that yes I have shown him what has been written on this thread, so yes it is ok - don't lose any sleep.

 

So IMO should not be commenting on it

 

And IMO I am entitled to comment on it if I wish, it seems to have disturbed you unduly for some reason.

 

I am sure any enquiry will take into account all the relevant facts..obvioulsy whomever is looking into this will have said little so far whilst they establish the facts

 

Quite so.

 

I am 100% confident that will not happen (the lame statement)

[/i]

I see that one of the officers did approach the dog and was bitten. Firearms officers were involved but decided they could not get a safe shot

 

More info

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35648941

 

Time to wait and see what the enquiry finds

 

Amazing - having just said they need to establish the facts, you blurt out your own distorted interpretation of them. You don't change Mr A, I'll give you that.

You seem to be trying to turn it into police v animal lovers, when that is not the case - it is more about whether these 2 actual policemen and possibly someone more senior who gave them an order did their duty as policemen properly and acted within the law and policy. You may well find that many policemen and women feel that this should have been handled differently and that they and their profession have been tarnished and let down by these particular officers, who may well face discipline.

[geosname]

Not everyone is so emotionally attached to animals, not all animals [cats, dogs etc] are considered pets. Although I agree animals should be killed as humanely as possible in the circumstances it doesnt make them human and terms like murder tend to simply stir ill feeling against the people who carry out the act when it should be directed at the act itself.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

oh please, ......

 

 

That reminds me I must buy some transparent paper tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

As so often your stance is based on incorrect speculation..as so often you've got nothing

 

 

I think it's up to me to decide what I should mention

 

 

Indeed it is and IMO you should not have mentioned this cos of the source and what he has said

 

 

, I seem to remember reading a post you made quoting something about Scotsmen you knew recently - did you ask all of them ?

 

 

Why would I..after all them being revealed as my source would not affect their careers..the whole point of why I believe you should not have revealed the info. that was told to you in confidence by an individual in a potentially difficult position given the opinion that he expressed Very different.

 

 

With all due respect, you have no idea how many policemen or women I know, where they work, and anyone so petty to go to that much trouble is sad indeed - if they did I'd just deny anything was said to me, and you know that would be the end of it - unless someone felt like doing something about their privacy being invaded - who knows ?

 

 

It's not necessarily petty when a serving officer is saying he would disobey a direct order

 

 

Deny it? It's here 'in writing' !!! But what you're saying is you'd lie to the police if they were investigatuing the officer involved..still you have form when it comes to lying on here so why not..remember Pharmagene?

 

 

. Despite having Osborne and Cameron we don't live in Nazi Germany yet and people can have opinions in private conversations.

 

 

Very true..people say important things in confidence and don't expect them to be passed on on internet forums either

 

 

Again, though it is most inappropriate for you to ask, and you have quite a cheek to do so, I will answer your question and tell you that yes I have shown him what has been written on this thread, so yes it is ok - don't lose any sleep.

 

 

I'm not..I didn't reveal anyhthing said to me in confidence

 

 

Can we have his inside knowledge on what the law and procedures say about this incident? That would be very useful..perhaps you could ask him about that? Not asking for an opinion..just fact

 

 

And IMO I am entitled to comment on it if I wish, it seems to have disturbed you unduly for some reason.

 

 

You miss the entire point (surprisingly)..IMO he (the policeman) should not be commenting on it other than maybe giving out facts related to it..not you was my point

 

 

Amazing - having just said they need to establish the facts, you blurt out your own distorted interpretation of them. You don't change Mr A, I'll give you that.

 

 

Eh? My 'interpretation' was a regurgitation of what I read here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-35650395

 

 

Where did I distort and interpret? As it says in the article:

 

 

"North Wales Police said firearms officers were sent to the scene, but there was concern they would not be able to get a safe shot."

 

 

"Ch Insp Darren Wareing, of the roads policing unit, said police had not taken the decision to kill the dog lightly and it came after an officer was bitten while trying to bring the animal under control."

 

 

Once again you make stuff up and without it you have nothing and obviously you didn't think it necessary to get the facts right before making comment..quelle surprise

 

 

You seem to be trying to turn it into police v animal lovers,

 

 

Totally wrong again..as usual incorrect speculation...what are you on about?

 

 

when that is not the case - it is more about whether these 2 actual policemen and possibly someone more senior who gave them an order did their duty as policemen properly and acted within the law and policy.

 

 

Absolutely..it;'s you that has referred to it as murder without knowing the facts. you who posted that they will 'hopefully lose their jobs and fat pensions ', you who has already decided that 'money and greed' was put before a life and so on

 

 

 

 

You may well find that many policemen and women feel that this should have been handled differently and that they and their profession have been tarnished and let down by these particular officers, who may well face discipline

 

 

You may well find that many policemen and women do not feel that this should have been handled differently etc etc..who knows at this point

 

 

Tried to have a proper debate with you but you again resort to incorrect speculation about me and post on the basis of it being correct...one can only try so much

 

 

You don't change Mr S, I'll give you that.

[davidatpreston]

Returning to the original theme, I was very pleased to see this article ;-

 

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2016-02-16/new-manchester-dogs-home-will-have-modern-glass-kennels-and-each-dog-will-have-their-own-bed/

 

And I did go off-topic myself to report earlier in the thread that the lovable Asda had removed food bank and pet donation facilities, great news is that after a big campaign that attracted thousands of signatures, plus a lot of disquiet from their own staff according to the article. they have done a U-turn and will again allow the boxes back.

 

A small but satisfying victory that shows that Walmarts greed values cannot be imposed on the British people without cost -

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/26/asda-backs-down-over-food-bank-ban

 

To paraphrase Churchill - 'we will fight them at the checkouts...'

[davidatpreston]

Off topic again, but as I was quoting news stories, this one was rather 'interesting' to say the least =

 

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2016-02-26/drug-dealing-brothers-jailed-after-mocking-judge-who-let-them-off/

[Bea Smith]

As so often your stance is based on incorrect speculation..as so often you've got nothing

 

 

I don't know what this 'got nothing' phrase is supposed to mean. You didn't like it that I quoted a friend who works 'in the job' and have made not just a meal but a banquet to feed the 5000 out of it, God only knows your motive but you sure as hell have one - even if it is simply to try to annoy and cause trouble.

 

 

Indeed it is and IMO you should not have mentioned this cos of the source and what he has said

 

It isn't up to you to decide what should or shouldn't be said, posted or repeated. As far as this matter is concerned, you are nothing, have no power, influence or ability to do anything, you don't matter or count.

 

 

Why would I..after all them being revealed as my source would not affect their careers..the whole point of why I believe you should not have revealed the info. that was told to you in confidence by an individual in a potentially difficult position given the opinion that he expressed Very different.

 

Anything anyone says to me is 'in confidence' unless stated otherwise at the time. A clear sad attempt to drive a wedge in, but the person concerned has seen your posts now and has no problem at all with my posts.

 

It's not necessarily petty when a serving officer is saying he would disobey a direct order

 

You know that for a fact do you ? I was told to pass on the word 'heresay' to you, and that it may help you understand things better.

 

Deny it? It's here 'in writing' !!! But what you're saying is you'd lie to the police if they were investigatuing the officer involved..still you have form when it comes to lying on here so why not..remember Pharmagene?

 

I would guess the previous comment applies here too, any comments made by me on here are just reported anecdotes and nothing more, As for Pharmagene, that was a lie by you and people who read that thread can see that clearly, as you found that name later and it wasn't the same company I posted about, just a subsidiary or former name.

 

 

Very true..people say important things in confidence and don't expect them to be passed on on internet forums either

 

 

Nice try to provoke a problem - my fiends are loyal to me and vice versa, and as I said before, the person concerned has no problem with me but I won't post his opinion of your posts or attempts to stir things.

 

 

Can we have his inside knowledge on what the law and procedures say about this incident? That would be very useful..perhaps you could ask him about that? Not asking for an opinion..just fact

 

Well, I decided to ask for you as I had a good idea of the reply, which went along the lines of having better things to do than engage with some anonymous nobody and that if you want facts on the law get them yourself, besides which the incident is being investigated so any attempt to get someone to talk about the facts is at best stupid, at worst ill-intentioned. I would not have been that polite myself but I think that answers you.

 

Now that's far more of an answer than you deserve, you only got that because I am in a good mood about tonights match, and it would be nice if this thread got back to the subject of animal welfare.

 

 

You miss the entire point (surprisingly)..IMO he (the policeman) should not be commenting on it other than maybe giving out facts related to it..not you was my point

 

It really isn't up to you to make rules about who should comment on what. Policemen and women must not comment on cases they are involved in personally, but although you seem to fail to understand it, they are allowed to have opinions and make comments to their friends. End of.

 

 

Eh? My 'interpretation' was a regurgitation

 

Yes, most of your posts are.

 

 

 

Absolutely..it;'s you that has referred to it as murder without knowing the facts. you who posted that they will 'hopefully lose their jobs and fat pensions ', you who has already decided that 'money and greed' was put before a life and so on

 

It's my own opinion, you don't have to agree and I really don't care whether you do or not.

 

 

 

 

 

You may well find that many policemen and women do not feel that this should have been handled differently etc etc..who knows at this point

 

 

Tried to have a proper debate with you but you again resort to incorrect speculation about me and post on the basis of it being correct...one can only try so much

 

 

You don't change Mr S, I'll give you that.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I don't know what this 'got nothing' phrase is supposed to mean. You didn't like it that I quoted a friend who works 'in the job' and have made not just a meal but a banquet to feed the 5000 out of it, God only knows your motive but you sure as hell have one - even if it is simply to try to annoy and cause trouble.

 

 

You do know my motive cos I have told you here. You've got nothing cos the only basis for your criticism is stuff you've made up

 

 

It isn't up to you to decide what should or shouldn't be said, posted or repeated. As far as this matter is concerned, you are nothing, have no power, influence or ability to do anything, you don't matter or count.

 

 

I've made no claim that it is up to me; merely expressed my opinion. You're making stuff up again.

 

 

Anything anyone says to me is 'in confidence' unless stated otherwise at the time. A clear sad attempt to drive a wedge in, but the person concerned has seen your posts now and has no problem at all with my posts.

 

 

Incorrect speculation as to motive again..you see what i mean when I say you have nothing. I simply found it "unfortunate" that what he said to you, you chose to reveal on here before asking him if it was OK to do so (you obvioulsy did not have permission as you went back to ask him about it)..it's my opinion..get it

 

 

You know that for a fact do you ? I was told to pass on the word 'heresay' to you, and that it may help you understand things better.

 

 

 

 

It's 'hearsay' or did you mean heresy? A policeman would know the correct word. Anyway the point is you said that you would lie

 

 

I would guess the previous comment applies here too, any comments made by me on here are just reported anecdotes and nothing more, As for Pharmagene, that was a lie by you and people who read that thread can see that clearly, as you found that name later and it wasn't the same company I posted about, just a subsidiary or former name.

 

 

You said that you would deny it..that you would lie. Doesn't matter whether it's hearsay or whatever, you said that you would lie.

 

 

I reproduce your posts here re Pharmagene:

 

 

"Scum of the lowest kind" thread started 11/6/15 by you:

 

 

Post #112 "British company Pharmagene (now Asterand) uses human tissue exclusively, with the philosophy "a flood of new data on human genetics is making drug research in animals redundant. If you have information on human genes, what's the point in going back to animals?"

 

 

Post #129 "I have never mentioned anyone called Pharmagene, mr devious liar. "

 

 

It's there in black and white, people who read that thread can see that clearly

 

 

Nice try to provoke a problem - my fiends are loyal to me and vice versa, and as I said before, the person concerned has no problem with me but I won't post his opinion of your posts or attempts to stir things.

 

 

Speculatiing incorrectly at motive again. How on earth could I provoke a problem between you and your friends and why on earth would I want to?

 

 

Well, I decided to ask for you as I had a good idea of the reply, which went along the lines of having better things to do than engage with some anonymous nobody

 

 

I'm not asking him to engage with me..my last request was if you could ask him

 

 

and that if you want facts on the law get them yourself

 

 

Hey you brought him into this not me..he'd be a far better source but if he doesn't want to that's obviously up to him

 

 

, besides which the incident is being investigated so any attempt to get someone to talk about the facts

 

 

I'm not asking for facts about this incident but what the law says on such incidents..such as is it legal to kill a dog like this..something you raised earlier

 

is at best stupid, at worst ill-intentioned. I would not have been that polite myself but I think that answers you.

 

 

Not really but it's always been his choice whether to say anything or not and I can respect that

 

 

Now that's far more of an answer than you deserve, you only got that because I am in a good mood about tonights match, and it would be nice if this thread got back to the subject of animal welfare.

 

 

You made it personal not me..I was merely seeking to find out more info

 

It really isn't up to you to make rules about who should comment on what. Policemen and women must not comment on cases they are involved in personally, but although you seem to fail to understand it, they are allowed to have opinions and make comments to their friends. End of.

 

 

I'm not making any rules and not trying to..merely expressing an opinion.

 

 

Yes, most of your posts are.

 

 

That has no meaning

 

 

It's my own opinion, you don't have to agree and I really don't care whether you do or not.

 

 

Now you suddenly understand the concept of someone expressing an opinion and write a long answer to say you don't care!!! Priceless. So when I express an opinion I'm trying to tell people what to think but when you call what happened murder...it's just an opinion

 

 

You could not make it up

 

Bored with you now..again. Just too predictable for it to be enjoyable

 

Apologies to all but I hate hypocrisy and dishonesty and will now let this lie

[Bea Smith]

You do know my motive cos I have told you here. You've got nothing cos the only basis for your criticism is stuff you've made up blah blah waffle waffle argue bull bicker etc etc

 

 

The obvious thing to come out here was that you went on and on like a big baby because you couldn't get your own way and get someone's identity revealed. It's my opinion you were up to no good, you've tried similar tricks before and are itching to cause trouble for me.

 

This was shown by your pathetic and childish guesses on Guess the Crowd where people noticed you waited until I put my guess, then put your crowd guess one person less or one more for several weeks running to try and intimidate. Absolutely playground stuff from an emotional ******. Anyone who wants to check this can look at the GTC competitions just before Christmas, and Barry knows about it too, going to deny this ?

 

Your obsession in posting several more times even after I told you right from the start that my friend would not be dragged into an argument with you directly just shows your reaction at not getting your own way.

 

We'll see if you can keep your word and 'let it lie' which is what you posted.

 

And don't try be pathetic and superior just because I mis-spelt hearsay, its not a word I'm that familiar with and you have made several notable spelling mistakes yourself.

 

You may be used to other people you know being conned and tricked much more easily but not this time, I'm afraid.

 

Can't you find someone else to bother, there's plenty of people out there who will probably enjoy the attention but I find your obsessive trolling (like the Guess the Crowd thing) a bit distasteful and repulsive.