Hi again,

I am very pleased to report that my daughters dog was returned this
afternoon............. for a ransom.

When you have to pay someone to get back what they have stolen from you, it
is ......... sickening.

Best wishes,
Marina
E. Sx

"cross" wrote in message
...
Hi again,

I am very pleased to report that my daughters dog was returned this
afternoon............. for a ransom.

When you have to pay someone to get back what they have stolen from you,
it
is ......... sickening.

Might be sickening, but how much more sickening if she had refused and was
given back the body?
Nowadays sadly you cannot leave anything where some lowlife scum can take
it.
I would *love* to see someone trying to take one of my little dogs. Simply
because one of my *big* dogs, would take great exception to it and bite the
buggers.
Glad the little dog is back safe and well.

"cross" wrote in message
...
Hi again,

I am very pleased to report that my daughters dog was returned this
afternoon............. for a ransom.

When you have to pay someone to get back what they have stolen from you,
it
is ......... sickening.

I am very glad your daughter got her doggy back - had someone taken one of
mine (unlikely - they are two protection trained GSDs who would rip their
face off in a second) I would be clamouring for blood right about now and
probably getting out the bolt croppers and blow torch.

I hope the dognapper meets with a nasty and painful accident very soon (and
I mean that in all sincerity).


Rachael

"cross" wrote in message
...
Hi again,

I am very pleased to report that my daughters dog was returned this
afternoon............. for a ransom.

When you have to pay someone to get back what they have stolen from you,
it
is ......... sickening.

Best wishes,
Marina
E. Sx



one of my relatives paid 350 pounds to get his dog back from pykie scum in
Kent a few months ago

"GOOD GOLLY MISS mOLLY" wrote in message
...

Glad the little dog is back safe and well.

----------
It was a high point in an otherwise very sad day, my sister-in-law died
suddenly soon after.

Thanks again,
Marina

GOOD GOLLY MISS mOLLY wrote

Might be sickening, but how much more sickening if she had refused and
was
given back the body?

It's even worse when it is a person. One of my g/f's friends was kidnapped a
few weeks ago. She was shot and killed even though her parents paid the
ransom.

"cross" wrote in message
...
Hi again,

I am very pleased to report that my daughters dog was returned this
afternoon............. for a ransom.

When you have to pay someone to get back what they have stolen from
you, it
is ......... sickening.

Best wishes,
Marina
E. Sx

******
My dear Marina!.
I am a steady ole codger and my wife and I are sorry you were put to the
anxiety when your daughter's canine friend was hijacked. My wife and I
have had a few dogs in our time, all of them good faithful friends and
when certain times arrive, it's tough and the tears flow freely.
A daft old codger?. - Yeh! - sure am. But I'm sure you know what I am
feeling, and saying.
We are uplifted by the good news that your faithful tail-wagger is back
home again.
Forget the disgraceful money side!, your friend is back home.
How did the payment change hands without denouement?? They must surely
be professional crooks, damn them.
Nemmind, Eh!. Take comfort! ; you didn't let money talk and desert your
pal!.
Well done!'
Doug. and t'Missis.
******

"aka Robbie" wrote in message
...
GOOD GOLLY MISS mOLLY wrote

Might be sickening, but how much more sickening if she had refused and
was
given back the body?

It's even worse when it is a person. One of my g/f's friends was kidnapped
a
few weeks ago. She was shot and killed even though her parents paid the
ransom.
Was this on the news? I never saw it.

GOOD GOLLY MISS mOLLY wrote:

It's even worse when it is a person. One of my g/f's friends was
kidnapped a few weeks ago. She was shot and killed even
though her parents paid the ransom.

Was this on the news? I never saw it.

It wasn't on the news over here (though Reuters did make it available), but
it has shocked the whole of South Africa.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...78240 514B265
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_A...576859,00.html

"Doug." wrote in message
...

******
My dear Marina!.
I am a steady ole codger and my wife and I are sorry you were put to the
anxiety when your daughter's canine friend was hijacked. My wife and I
have had a few dogs in our time, all of them good faithful friends and
when certain times arrive, it's tough and the tears flow freely.
A daft old codger?. - Yeh! - sure am. But I'm sure you know what I am
feeling, and saying.
We are uplifted by the good news that your faithful tail-wagger is back
home again.
Forget the disgraceful money side!, your friend is back home.
How did the payment change hands without denouement?? They must surely
be professional crooks, damn them.
Nemmind, Eh!. Take comfort! ; you didn't let money talk and desert your
pal!.
Well done!'
Doug. and t'Missis.
******
Thanks Doug :-)

My daughter now knows where the dog was kept for a week, and by whom, via
friend of friend etc. and will give the information to the owner of the
next dog that is stolen. Perhaps then the police will act to stop this
crime that they say is not happening!

Very interesting also, the men who took Coda saw the CCTV camera on their
way out, and so dumped and burned the car.

Coda's saving grace seems to have been that he was very noisy, he howls when
he is on his own, and also having had a very unusually bad hair cut, so that
they didn't know what sort of dog he was. He was kept shut up in a stable
with a large bag of dog food slit open, and he had gained 2 kilos in weight.

Best wishes,
Marina

"cross" wrote in message
...



My daughter now knows where the dog was kept for a week, and by whom, via
friend of friend etc. and will give the information to the owner of the
next dog that is stolen. Perhaps then the police will act to stop this
crime that they say is not happening!

Aren't the police interested in the details of who took him already ? No ? -
Frickin' useless, I ask you - what are we paying our council tax for ??


Very interesting also, the men who took Coda saw the CCTV camera on their
way out, and so dumped and burned the car.

Coda's saving grace seems to have been that he was very noisy, he howls
when
he is on his own, and also having had a very unusually bad hair cut, so
that
they didn't know what sort of dog he was. He was kept shut up in a stable
with a large bag of dog food slit open, and he had gained 2 kilos in
weight.

So do you think that the whole idea from the outset was to nab him and then
offer him for ransom ? I hope he bit the buggers and it turned septic and
the limb fell off. I'd like to meet them with my two gsds - we'd put them
off interefering with people's loved companions for life !


Rachael (who's blood gets to boiling point every time I think about this)

Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat wrote:

Perhaps then the police will act to stop this
crime that they say is not happening!

Aren't the police interested in the details of who took him already ? No
? -
Frickin' useless, I ask you - what are we paying our council tax for ??

What could the police do? The pooch is back with its owners. There is now no
missing doggy. 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.

Not exactly conclusive proof and I don't think their information gathering
techniques would stand up too well in court.

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

Perhaps then the police will act to stop this
crime that they say is not happening!

Aren't the police interested in the details of who took him already ? No
? -
Frickin' useless, I ask you - what are we paying our council tax for ??

What could the police do?

Follow it up.

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.

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 !


Not exactly conclusive proof and I don't think their information gathering
techniques would stand up too well in court.

That doesn't usually bother them if the crime is admitted at the end of it.
My cousin is a policeman, btw, before people start shouting me down. I am
well aware of some of their techniques in getting one to admit to a crime
without actually having much to go on in the first place - a hunch or word
of mouth or whatever is a starting point if they are pretty sure that there
might be a chance the person did actually do it and persuading someone the
police are aware that one actually did it in order to get one to admit to it
is a common practice. It happens all the time, on more occassions than the
police would care to admit. If you want more on the subject you might want
to pop by the uk.legal groups where this approach is often under discussion.
They just have to be bothered or persuaded or in the mind to actually *do*
something about the crime in the first place.


Rachael

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 ;-)

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.

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" ;-)

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 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)!!!!!

"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