Remember the outrage ..poor innocent dogs

Remember the outrage ..poor innocent dogs

Author
Discussion

Earthdweller

Original Poster:

16,031 posts

141 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
Back in 23 there was a huge outrage when police marksmen shot dead two dogs on a canal towpath in East London

There were calls for the offices involved not just to be sacked but also charged with the "murder" of the animals

Now 18! Months later the IOPC has published its findings of the investigation into the officers

To be met with absolute silence, I wonder why ?
https://x.com/policeconduct/status/187773218789568...

IOPC investigation clears police officers over shooting of two dogs in East London


bitchstewie

58,927 posts

225 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
Excellent that the officers have been cleared.

It's on the BBC London page and in the Telegraph and Evening Standard.

From what I can remember at the time I didn't think there was too much "outrage" in the reporting I thought it was more the local "they murdered those poor dogs" types more than anything.

TwigtheWonderkid

46,301 posts

165 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
Ridiculous investigation. You could see from the original video that the officers were well within their rights.

irc

8,907 posts

151 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
Would it have hurt them too much rather than say "found no wrongdoing" say "we found the officers acted correctly"?

Mr Penguin

3,456 posts

54 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
irc said:
Would it have hurt them too much rather than say "found no wrongdoing" say "we found the officers acted correctly"?
What if they did find that the officers acted correctly?

irc

8,907 posts

151 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
Website version here.

https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/iopc-investi...

A year and a half to clear them!

Murph7355

40,287 posts

271 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
Mr Penguin said:
irc said:
Would it have hurt them too much rather than say "found no wrongdoing" say "we found the officers acted correctly"?
What if they did find that the officers acted correctly?
The point being made, I think, is that using a positive is better than a double negative.

It's a subtle difference, but meaningful. "You did well"..."You didn't do badly". A clear affirmative rather than a double negative.

bitchstewie

58,927 posts

225 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
irc said:
Would it have hurt them too much rather than say "found no wrongdoing" say "we found the officers acted correctly"?
Is the role of the IOPC to determine if the officers acted correctly or is their role to look for wrongdoing?

As much as I take the point isn't it just about what their remit is?

119

12,184 posts

51 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
So they shot the womans dog as well as the aggressive one?


Mr Penguin

3,456 posts

54 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
Mr Penguin said:
irc said:
Would it have hurt them too much rather than say "found no wrongdoing" say "we found the officers acted correctly"?
What if they did find that the officers acted correctly?
The point being made, I think, is that using a positive is better than a double negative.

It's a subtle difference, but meaningful. "You did well"..."You didn't do badly". A clear affirmative rather than a double negative.
I misread it, I thought he was saying he wanted them to use "found no wrongdoing". Sorry irc.

eldar

23,974 posts

211 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
Mr Penguin said:
irc said:
Would it have hurt them too much rather than say "found no wrongdoing" say "we found the officers acted correctly"?
What if they did find that the officers acted correctly?
I've heard you haven't had sex with dead goats in the past week. Well done.

mac96

5,139 posts

158 months

Saturday 11th January
quotequote all
Trouble with ' found no wrongdoing' is that is so open to the response ' you didn't look hard enough'.

So it not only fails to make it clear that the action was correct, it also invites suspicion of a cover up.

Weasel words.