Kawasaki 1400 GTR

Some of you may have already read about this ridiculous story but for those that haven't, have a laugh at this.  :whistling:


Police are under investigation for jokingly filling in a witness statement in the name of a force dog.
Officers became exasperated when prosecutors asked for an account of a crime from a 'PC Peach', not realising Peach was the name of a police dog.


So they completed the form as if it had been written by the alsatian, and signed it with a paw print.


The dog's statement read: 'I chase him. I bite him. Bad man. He tasty. Good boy. Good boy Peach.'


The form was pinned up at a West Midlands Police station last week for the amusement of colleagues, who are often at odds with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over the handling of cases.

Another officer took a photo of the statement and it found its way to a 'cop humour' page on Facebook on Friday.
The image was later deleted but the dog section of a different force, West Yorkshire, enjoyed it so much they posted the image on Twitter in a tweet that was shared more than 150 times.


The CPS, however, failed to see the funny side. Officials are believed to have complained to police that their mistake has been turned into a very public joke.

Well if that's not what the Police dog is trained to do then make him redundant and get another one.

I for one welcome the Police and there trained dogs but then again i am a law abiding person, and the dog statement is hugely funny, shows the Police in a good light i reckon, Bah Humbug to those who don't like a bit of humour.

Alan

It should have been obvious immediately to CPS that the statement wasn't any good as the dog signed in the wrong place!  :mfr_lol: On the other hand though its actually a good statement based on the standards of what I see where I work.

CPS, why do we bother ?

Quote from: trousersnake01 on February 19, 2013, 05:33:31 PM
CPS, why do we bother ?

I read an article only this week in the local paper where the CPS had prosecuted a waste oil collection merchant for allegedly stealing a bottle of used cooking oil, which the accused had been told he could take

the Judge apparently was infuriated that thousands of pounds of taxpayers money had been wasted bringing the matter to court....TRUE STORY  :shocked:

Steve thats given me the giggles...

Love how its written & the paw print at the end :mfr_lol: :mfr_lol:

CPS do my head in..
They wanted to prosecute me for an accident that wasn't my fault.. I was in a truck and a cyclist rode off the pavement in to the side of it.. I was stressed out for weeks before the trial..

Cyclist was a right prick in court.

Verdict: Not Guilty.   :grin:

I agree the CPS should have known this was a wind-up, conmmon sense should have prevailed. Having said that this is a case of wasting police time by the police, will they be cautioned i wonder, they should be, whats good for one is good for another.

I disagree. I very much doubt that the PCs in question would have done this is they had not already told the CPS several times that PC PEACH is a DOG!
I've no experience with the CPS but if they follow the usual Government body systems then they are a useless disorganised humourless shower of incompetent idiots, intermixed with a few normal humans who have lost the will to live but go along with the idiots just so they can collect a paycheque.
The problem with common sense,.... is that it is not very common at all.  :no:

Funny as  :censored: the way the PCs dealt with it.  :clap:

It's just a bit of fun at the end of the day to make you laugh at work after a hard days graft. The CPS do occasionally test your patience!  :2guns:

A good bit of humor made funnier by the response.

(http://www.sofrayt.com/survey/bonus/thumbs-up10.gif)

I hope they have enough time left over from the timewasting form filling to do some real policing.

I had my garage broken into 3 years ago, lost most of my tools and wrote 2 bikes off, initially the police were helpfull but having only 1 call to say they were looking into the matter, i had to do the chasing to get information. No one was caught etc and TBH i did not expect them too, but the level of communication was pathetic, but this thread annoys me for the simple reason they can waste time when it suits.

I can understand the police frustration at times, but we all choose our vocation in life in most cases knowing what we are letting ourselves in for, we just have to get a grip and get on with it, weather we have had a bad / hard day or not.

Reminds me very much of something that happened when I was in service.

We used to keep a 'pro-forma' statement on the computer which was adapted for each individual case.

The statement header referred to our specific qualifications, i.e. vehicle examiner under such and such an act, advanced/pursuit driver, accident investigator, family liaison officer etc.  Sometimes the qualifications could cover the first half of the sheet.  As such, once written and saved you just used it as a template and started to write your evidence after this pre-amble, rarely if ever checking it as you knew what it's contents were.

One of the Traffic lads, who was (and still is) VERY fond of his food, typed a statement for a fatal case.

He had a shed load of qualifications and experience, including vehilce and rail accident investigator, family liaison officer, 20 years in traffic, advanced class 1 car and motorcyclist, driver trainer etc, etc.

He did however make one fatal flaw whilst typing his statement - leaving his computer on/unattended whilst getting a pie ready for his grub.

He duly finished the statement, printed it off, signed it and placed it on the file he was preparing having proof read it's contents (other than the pre-amble which he 'knew' anyway)

The file went through supervision, collision investigation, their supervision, the inspector, CPS, prosecution first hearing at magistrates and on to senior prosecutors and finally to the prosecution barrister for trial.

At this point the officer was asked to re-check his statement as it's contents were not felt to be accurate.

It was at this stage that the qualifications were found to have been 'amended' and they read something along the lines of:

"I have been an officer in the ********* Traffic dept for XX years.  During this time I have qualified as an advanced pie eater, re-qualifying annually and maintaining my level. I am also qualified as a Pie eating instructor and Chip muncher..."

It went on in a similar vain!

It also became apparent that he had used this pro-forma for two or three months on several files.

 :mfr_lol: You see that's funny. So what did you have to do Chris, alter all your statements?  :whistling:

Cheeky Twat!

I won't disclose the individual, but he did get some stick over it!

I just assumed it must have been you as I know you had a fetish for pies.  :yes:

 :mfr_lol: :mfr_lol: :mfr_lol:

Quote from: Lonewolf on February 21, 2013, 12:24:23 AM
I just assumed it must have been you as I know you had a fetish for pies.  :yes:

TMI  :no: :mfr_lol: :mfr_lol:

Like it Winny  :laugh: :laugh: