Dogs Against Drugs

[Sherlock]

I am sure the DaD handler will be happy to hear that at least one person on the forum approves of the work he does, Sudden Stop.

[The Man]

Taking your like in youtr hands on this forum, sherlock. No reason why you should be ashamde of what you do though, no matter what anyone says or has said on thsi forum in the past. No relation to "officer Dibble" then? He's been awfy quiet of late, was he no a polis too? Or WAS he?

[Sherlock]

No relation, and if he is a "polis" then he has not broadcast it to the rest of us. Sorry I don't know if he was a cop or not, although he certainly gave that impression from what I have read.

 

And, no, I am not ashamed of what I do. Never have been, never will be.

[NewMagnie]

I'm getting confused.

 

I take it the full time police dog handler and the DaD dog handler are two seperate people?

[Njugle]

If Officer Dibble did come back then we could get a good cop/bad cop routine going eh?

 

http://www.carstickers.com/prodimages/407.gif

But i'm sure the forum users would rather do without that kind of malarky.

[Sherlock]

New Magnie,

Yes they are two separate people, one is a police officer employed by Northern Constabulary, the other is a Special Constable, funded by Dogs against Drugs.

 

Njugle,

Who's the good cop, who's the bad?

[Njugle]

Who indeed, Sherlock, my good Man?

[Marjolein]

They take it in turns to be good cop/bad cop... keep people on their toes!

[NewMagnie]

New Magnie,

Yes they are two separate people, one is a police officer employed by Northern Constabulary, the other is a Special Constable, funded by Dogs against Drugs.quote]

 

Thanks

 

So the putative quantity of drugs entering shetland is sufficient to justify the employment of a full time officer and the offices of a dedicated 'charity'? Phew.

 

I seem to remember that in the early days of DaD - HM a senior local officer within HM customs and excise reckoned that their services were somewhat superfluous. Now, my memory and my record keeping are both pretty poor and my capacity for maintaining reasoned and cogent argument for or against a point are, therefore, somewhat compromised. Can anyone else remember this?

 

If I'm right - either the C&E were horribly wrong or the the drugs imports have escalated beyond all recognition. I'm not sure I could commit myself wholeheartedly to either argument.

 

Additionally, I recollect that the DaD handler had no official status with either the law enforcement or customs agencies initially and that, any good intent notwithstanding, I'd be inclined to define them as something between well meaning amateurs and vigilantes which is why I've never really been a fan of the whole outfit.

 

If the Northern Constabulary feel the need for this facility on the other hand, I'm less uncomfortable. A capacity that springs from a well defined need within operational parameters and not driven by emotional knee jerk responses - as long as that's how it was arrived at - is fine. I'm less sure that DaD can demonstrate such a dispassionate approach which is why their adoption into the law enforcement community causes me unease.

[Sherlock]

NewMagnie,

 

I'll direct you to my earlier comments re the Police dog handler, in that he is as likely to take your complaint of assault or vandalism as he is to deploy his sniffer dog. It also seems reasonable to me to have two persons trained too do the same job, as - with the best will in the world - you cannot always expect just one officer to be available for duty, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

 

I'll also direct you to my comment about Shetland Arae Command having a resource available locally that otherwise would have to be requested and abstracted - if available - from the mainland.

 

As for the DaD officer, he is a Special Constable, which means he has been accepted as such by Northern, gets training like other Specials and is therefore perfectly acceptable to Northern. If Northern didn't want him, I am sure his position would have disppeared by now. As for objectivity or being dispassionate, he is not a supported drawn from the ranks of some rabid zealots, he is a suitably qualified person with a large degree of background experience who applied for and got the post.

 

I am not prepared to comment on the C&E issue other than to say I cannot see how it is relevant now, as he works with us, and not them. He is therefore a resource which we can draw upon, so from their point of view may be viewed as being "somewhat superfluous". It does not change the fact that we now have a valuable resource which is cost effective and beneficial to drugs enquiries and investigations in Shetland Area Command which were somewhat weaker prior to his appointment.

 

As a disclaimer, I am adding that this is my own opinion and NOT that of Northern Constabulary and Shetland Area Command. However I would be surprised if it was far from the mark, given that it is a viewpoint driven by logic and practicality.

 

If you still have an issue with DaD funding a dedicated drugs dog handler, perhaps it would be best approached via direct contact with them, or through a public campaign to stop what you appear to think (forgive me if I am wrong) is a waste of charity money? If your support is there, I am sure you will be successful and the DaD handler will disappear, as will the education he delivers to Shetland schools.

[Fjool]

I am 100% behind educating our children about the problems of drug use. If DaD is providing factual and honest information on the subject then I am in full support and applaud this approach. I am sure that many other parents will be keen to support this too, but I do not for an instant believe that this removes the need for us to educate ourselves on the subject so that we can talk to our children honestly about it.

 

I recall from my school days that the general tone was "Drugs are very bad. They make you into an addict and you will sell your TV to get your fix. Avoid them or you will die." As the children grow up, they realise that this line is pretty much bull-poop with respect to most drugs. One or two are this addictive, and one of the most addictive is completely legal. The lines are blurred. How is a child supposed to tell the difference between the truth, a well-meaning exaggeration and an outright lie?

 

I sincerely hope that the information which DaD is providing is a bit more realistic and helpful than the 'Just say No!' policies of yester-year. How are parents supposed to be taken seriously about heroin or crack, when gross ignorances and double-standards exist?

 

NewMagnie raises several concerns which I share; particularly the worry that DaD is an emotional response, designed to keep drugs out of Shetland at whatever the cost.

 

I am not convinced that such a thing is realistic. Indeed, if the rumour that DaD is exacerbating the supply of harder drugs such as heroin is true, it may be proving counter-productive. By following the 'at any cost' route, we are setting ourselves up for increasingly draconian measures to persue something which, personally, I believe is unattainable.

 

Recreational drugs have and will always be used by some of the population. Not all, but some. Any drug policy must appreciate this simple fact.

 

Making it harder to obtain a drug is but one step, but it quite clearly doesn't remove the problem in its entirety. As long as people still want to use them, drugs will be brought into Shetland by whatever means.

 

I don't believe throwing people into prison for choosing to put a particular substance into their body is an effective counter-measure. Teaching them why this is a bad choice is much better, but it is only useful if the advice given is rational and based in fact. It must be honest and trustworthy.

 

While our double-standards exist with regard to alcohol and tobacco we have absolutely no chance of providing this information without appearing to be a bunch of hypocrites. This is my big argument with DaD: prohibition is approaching the problem from the ass-end.

[JustMe]

NewMagnie wrote

If I'm right - either the C&E were horribly wrong or the the drugs imports have escalated beyond all recognition. I'm not sure I could commit myself wholeheartedly to either argument.

 

Maybe Shetland is just not of much interest to Customs & Excise because there are few drugs entering the UK through our ports. Is it not mainly the police who fight distribution of drugs within the UK?.

 

As for the little doggie I suspect that the chance of being sniffed reduces the number of people risking carrying drugs in public places which long term may help to prevent more young people becoming addicted. Not a bad thing then.

[The Man]

Fjool,

if its the law and prohibition against drugs thats your issue, than your isseu isnt realy with dogs against drugs at all, its with the goivernment and the laws that they have passed alldgedly on behalf ofg their constiteuents. As longs as its illegal you will have outfits such as these campaining against it, same as thr groups who campain against battering partnetrs and driving drunk. Change the governmenet or the law and they will still campain but they wont be able to stop and have a dog sniff you (no for drugs anyways! ) If you think theres a support for yoiur stance why no do somethign about it?

 

Till then you canna blame these folk for campainiing against soemthing they were taught and beleive to be evil and bad for them and their bairns, can you?

[Ghostrider]

Fjool,

if its the law and prohibition against drugs thats your issue, than your isseu isnt realy with dogs against drugs at all, its with the goivernment and the laws that they have passed alldgedly on behalf ofg their constiteuents. As longs as its illegal you will have outfits such as these campaining against it, same as thr groups who campain against battering partnetrs and driving drunk. Change the governmenet or the law and they will still campain but they wont be able to stop and have a dog sniff you (no for drugs anyways! ) If you think theres a support for yoiur stance why no do somethign about it?

 

Till then you canna blame these folk for campainiing against soemthing they were taught and beleive to be evil and bad for them and their bairns, can you?

 

The sincerity and goodwill with which successive Governments back and have backed the prohibition laws is very open to debate in some people's minds in the first place, some of the more cynical see it as more of a wise move to win votes. That aside, campaigning behind laws is one thing, but DaD has gone at least one giant step further than campaigning, what they are doing is sailing far too close to the wind in my book to a small, probably well meaning, but definitely amateur, and questionably well informed section of the general pubic taking the law in to their own hands. They fall just short of being vigilantes in my book.

 

It might just be tolerable to put up with if the entire funding for this pantomime was from within the group, but as already has been pointed out, they've already been begging bowl in hand to the public purse and sweet talked (or maybe they just took a cue from their Edinburgh and London elders and betters and saw the next ballot box), those holding it in to parting with a not inconsiderable sum, an exercise which I will be surprised, if it is not repeated again in the future. The public purse is as much my money as it is the money of the 22,000+ or whatever it is on that's huddled on this rock now, and I have no problem putting on public record I object in the strongest possible terms to my cut being spent on what I see as sheer nonsense.

 

DaD is yet one more fudge, on a local level, just like the SSPCA and to a lesser degree the Lifeboat is nationally. Take the SSPCA, a charity, funded by (hopefully) well intentioned folks supplies all the leg work, the detective work, and the dirty work to detect illegal activities, but have no power to intervene or bring about a conviction, they have to hand it over to the boys in blue then. Of course the Police are going to play along, they've had 90% of their job done for them gratis, no hassles, no strain on their budget, yet when it gets to court, they get the conviction and the charity gets an honourable mention, it's a win, win, win situation for the Police, others are doing their job for them and they get credit. DaD is the same, it's no skin off their muckle sphincter to send out the man and his dog wherever and whenever, if it's a no result, it's not their kitty that covers it, and if it happens to pull something, they get the conviction.

 

If this dog and man are the worth some claim, let the Police justify both of them on their merits and make a bid for funding from within their own budget, lets keep it all above board and legit, keep the applications for public money coming through the right channels and so on. This as is smacks of a half baked idea that the Police saw they could benefit from, and a way to keep quiet a small but vocal bunch of people with an obsession to "do something" about this "evil".

[Sherlock]

Ghostrider,

 

I read your last with, I must confuse, a sense of bemusement.

 

"Vigilante" is an ugly and emotive word. How, sir, can a person wearing the uniform of a Police Constable (special or otherwise) who is trained to the same standard as regular Special Constables and to the same high national standards as regular Police dog handlers, with a dog similarly trained and assessed by national assessors on a regular basis AND acting within the parameters of the law in that capacity while corroborated by or corroborating a paid Police Constable/Officer POSSIBLY justify being classed as a "vigilante"? (Pause for intake of breath) I am merely curious to see how you defend a stance and argument over which you, clearly, feel strongly about. I do not attack your stance, merely question it. (I believe it would be pointless to do so, as I suspect we shall never see eye to eye on the matter. )

 

Once again you take issue with the Police and your fellow Shetlanders. To hear (or read) you talk, Dogs against Drugs are little more than spivs gulling the feckless Shetlanders through misdirection and misinformation into parting with their monies only to benefit the Police and not the community. Is this really how you see DaD, the Police and your fellow islanders? Can you not even begin to accept that - as has been previously stated on this same thread - DaD may just HAVE knowledgeable supporters who choose to support out of their own beliefs, rather than yours? You speak of your fellows and your own home in what I read (forgive me if I am wrong) as apparently disparaging terms ("huddled on this rock"?). I look forward to seeing you at the next Council meeting, lobbying your duly elected representative to put an end to DaD funding from the public purse and wish you well in doing so. If you have the support, and your supporters have the will, DaD's days are numbered.

 

As for your comments about the SSPCA, I know not from whence you have obtained your information, however Sir, it is my sad duty to inform you that I believe you to have been sorely misled and misinformed on this particular matter (and if on this matter, mayhap on others also?) You see, sir, we (the Police) do not have ANY such cases "handed over" to us by the SSPCA. THEY will take action against (and DO) any such perpetrators whom THEY detect and whom THEY report. Their officers even hold ranks and wear uniforms similar to our own, and many of their Inspectors have Police backgrounds for this very reason. Rarely, if ever, have I heard of any Police officers stepping in to report any such matters relating to animals, save those protected by legislation specifically designed to protect them (e.g. "eggers" and trappers of protected species, etc). Perhaps THIS is what you are thinking of, in which case clarification is vital in order to prevent confusion or misinterpretation of fact, do you not agree? Please feel free to enlighten me further, should I be mistaken, and provide specific instances from these self-same shores, as education is enlightenment and the resultant improvement in knowledge can only be beneficial for us all!

 

Your last paragraph, though, appears to accuse the Police of hijacking DaD and twisting it to their own nefarious ends, depriving the good folk of Shetland of both charitable contributions/donations and public funds. A monstrous crime and one which I am sure you have evidence of and can provide on the minute. Or can it be that this "small but vocal bunch of people with an obsession" and a "half baked idea" (again you apparently belittle or detract those who do not share your views) enjoy more support than, perhaps, the pro-drug stance, and have so benefited from the public's pockets as well as coffers? Should anything about the funding of DaD - from public funds or otherwise - be ANYTHING other than "above board and legit". I would expect any right minded person able to prove such a claim to make a complaint and see the matter investigated fully and to the letter of the law. Misappropriation of public funds is, after all, at the very least embezzlement! Has this REALLY gone on in this instance? Have there been shady backroom deals? Sir, I am alarmed at the idea and beg of you to provide proof of same as a responsible citizen.

 

More debate and further enquiry shall be our rallying cries! Let us find the answer together!