can the police do this ?

lucylucky

lucylucky wrote: »

How did the grandson get on at the pound today?

He must still be there:cool:

fluffnutter

lucylucky wrote: »

He must still be there:cool:

Perhaps the police have seized him too.

biscit

Sausage_Roll wrote: »

Telling the OP that they shouldn't have done this or should have done that does not help, and in fact is just treating the OP like a child - he/she is an adult

I'm sorry, this is nonsense and patronising nonsense at that. Yes people do make mistakes. But it does not follow that our mistakes should not be commented on- that attitude is rude and patronising.

On the flip side- pointing out someone's error is polite and helpful. If it does not help the original person, it may help someone else. And also it often helps to reach a solution if the mistakes made are discussed, because the discussion may reveal details that are helpful in determining a solution.

Yes I agree people should be nice. I don't agree that anyone other than you hasn't been nice.

zenmaster

PhylPho - I think that is probably the best post I have ever seen on this board.

Arg

biscit wrote: »

I'm sorry, this is nonsense and patronising nonsense at that. Yes people do make mistakes. But it does not follow that our mistakes should not be commented on- that attitude is rude and patronising.

On the flip side- pointing out someone's error is polite and helpful. If it does not help the original person, it may help someone else. And also it often helps to reach a solution if the mistakes made are discussed, because the discussion may reveal details that are helpful in determining a solution.

Yes I agree people should be nice. I don't agree that anyone other than you hasn't been nice.

The op found it unhelpful another poster commented on it's unhelpfulness, I don't think you're being very helpful yourself.

Arg

PhylPho wrote: »

It's a question of the police standing accused of seizing personal property without lawful reason and then, having done so, lying to the operators of a "dog pound" as to how that property came to be in the temporary possession of the police rather than its owner.

That's a very, very serious charge. Theft. Deception. And harassment as part and parcel of it all. In 20 years experience (my wife and myself) of animal welfare / animal rescue, I have never heard of any instance where any police officers have behaved in any such fashion. Because, well, why should they? What do they get out of it? Certainly, not a conviction. Rather, a very high risk of being thrown out of the force themselves, and substantial civil damages being awarded to the victim of such conduct.

I think you have a fairy tale view of the police.
People have had their cars impounded under questionable circumstances and had to pay fees for storage.

PhylPho

Arg wrote: »

I think you have a fairy tale view of the police.
People have had their cars impounded under questionable circumstances and had to pay fees for storage.

I don't have any "fairy tale view" of the police. And I do know how they operate when they are in the presence of a property owner. And when they are not.

Vehicles impounded for obstruction or other traffic and/or suspected criminal offences when the owner is not present are one thing. Vehicles impounded for obstruction or other traffic or suspected criminal offences when the owner is present are another.

In the former, the police must inevitably wait until the vehicle owner or registered keeper turns up so the appropriate paperwork can be provided to her / him. Or until all approprtiate steps have been taken to identify her / him.

In the latter, the police provide the required paperwork there and then. If they don't, and the vehicle is removed without documented explanation of cause, then even a fool would know that her/his property has just been illegally seized, and can therefore seek due remedy.

In the incident reported on this thread, an individual's property is said to have been "impounded" in the presence of that individual.

Quite why you feel the need to bring into this thread some point or other about what the police do, or don't do, in regard to a vehicle whose owner is or is not present at the time of a police intervention, escapes me. I certainly fail to see how it helps the OP or anyone else concerned about what has been reported on here.

katerinasol

I want to know what happened to OP, I hope s/he didn't get upset by all the monitor machos and found out what happened!

Arg

PhylPho wrote: »

I don't have any "fairy tale view" of the police. And I do know how they operate when they are in the presence of a property owner. And when they are not.

Vehicles impounded for obstruction or other traffic and/or suspected criminal offences when the owner is not present are one thing. Vehicles impounded for obstruction or other traffic or suspected criminal offences when the owner is present are another.

In the former, the police must inevitably wait until the vehicle owner or registered keeper turns up so the appropriate paperwork can be provided to her / him. Or until all approprtiate steps have been taken to identify her / him.

In the latter, the police provide the required paperwork there and then. If they don't, and the vehicle is removed without documented explanation of cause, then even a fool would know that her/his property has just been illegally seized, and can therefore seek due remedy.

In the incident reported on this thread, an individual's property is said to have been "impounded" in the presence of that individual.

Quite why you feel the need to bring into this thread some point or other about what the police do, or don't do, in regard to a vehicle whose owner is or is not present at the time of a police intervention, escapes me. I certainly fail to see how it helps the OP or anyone else concerned about what has been reported on here.

I don't see why you felt the need to go on a long winded post about car impounding. If people can get mucked around over their cars I don't see how it wouldn't be the case with a dog assuming it's not a ruse.

barnabee

If this is 100% true then I suggest your Grandson contact a local paper to drum up support. Provided it is genuine and all of the facts are truthfully reported then public opinion will be on his side. This often results in donations from the public to put toward the fees.

Others courses of action are to formally write to the Police Chief Constable in his Force Area and to seek advice from a solicitor.

The police officers who would have dealt with this incident would have followed a series of procedures and guidelines - most forces follow something similar to this standard procedure. It is very long winded but there are some good flow charts and explanations on dog seizure when in a public place. There are also some examples of the forms that the officer has to complete and an example of a form that your grandson may have had the opportunity to sign.

I know many officers do not want to get involved in seizing dogs where it is avoidable - eg it is time consuming, the rules are complex, some police vehicles cannot be used to take them away, there is currently financial pressure on police as the costs of dog seizures in the UK is massive.

Sadly, I feel there is more to this than you are being told.