"aka Robbie" wrote in message
...
Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat wrote:

The pooch is back with its owners. There is now no
missing doggy.

If your car gets nicked but it is returned or you find it, the police
will
still want - in theory - to apprehend the culprit, I think you'll find.

And what's the first thing they will do.......take fingetprints from your
car. I couldn't see them trying to dust down a dog in order to get
fingerprints ;-)

Forensics ? Hair ? Fibres ? Who knows ? There's alot you *could* do if you
thought about it. Particles of fibre or sand or dirt or whatever under the
dog's nails, for example, might give a clue to where he'd been kept. Same
methods used for people who have been in similar circumstances I expect -
afterall, there is no practical reason why similar methods can't be used.
Just a priority based one, because it is "just a dog".


They cannot hold information on someone, who may have stolen
a dog, on the word of someone who has given them details, who
received those details from a friend of a friend. Especially when
there is no evidence.

They may however get a confession if they follow it up anyway. This
is how the majority of police work is done!

I'm not denying that, but they still need to confront said criminal with
some evidence as I doubt they would get a warrant to search for doggy dna.

Not sure you're really getting my drift on the "suggestion of guilt" method
used by the police here. :-)


I couldn't imagine them turning up and saying "we have been given some
information that you have been involved in the theft of a dog". With Mr
Crim
replying "Yeah it's true, it's a fair cop" ;-)

Why not ? Replace the word "dog" with "car" and add a few persuasive
comments to fish abit and make the crim think you've got something on him
even if you haven't. It is *just* what often happens in such cases.


They just have to be bothered or persuaded or in the mind to
actually *do* something about the crime in the first place.

They probably are bothered. But with the dog returned it would have the
lowest category of prioritisations. It would involve quote a lot of work
and
heaps of paperwork.....in addition to the heaps of paperwork they already
have to complete.

I agree, quite - but that wasn't what you said originally. Your reply to my
frustration about the whole lack of help from the plod was there was nowt to
be actually done rather than it wasn't a priority. I disagree - plenty could
be done but I do agree it isn't a priority, more's the pity. I'd quite like
to see more dog nappers caught (cos it does happen a fair bit - if you know
dog people, you'll know someone who has had this happen to them or knows
someone who has had it happen and it does cause a great deal of distress to
the dog and the owner) than say, for example, the prosecution of people who
do five miles over the speed limit on deserted roads in the middle of the
night when there is no one else at risk but themselves, if there is a risk
at all.


I can't wait until the police can get back to policing instead of having
to
document absolutely everything they do and the reasons why incase someone,
somewhere for some reason makes a silly complaint. Most of their time is
now
taken up with stupid paperwork....and Labour want to create more for them
(in addition to spending millions on getting black boxes in police cars to
check up on where they have been and what they have been doing, instead of
spending millions on increasing the force)!!!!!

Totally agreed.


achael