Share |

Friday 15 June 2012

Report complains about Police Dogs

Any guesses as to why a report might complain about the use of police dogs? Exposing dogs to unwarranted danger? Long working hours for dogs? Inadequate dog pension plans? Well, no, none of these. Apparently, it has something to do with allergies to dogs, or more correctly speaking, cultural ‘allergies’ to dogs. To borrow the words of the great Rolf Harris: ‘can you guess what it is yet?’ Why of course, it’s our old ‘friend’ Islam rearing its covered yet prominent head again, this time in the context of the policing of an anti-EDL demonstration in Leicester on 4 February this year!

An organisation calling itself Netpol – the Network for Police Monitoring – found the handling of policing in Leicester on the day in question unacceptable, for in its report into the operation it criticises the police for attempting to persuade young Muslims not to demonstrate against the EDL, and for using dogs to help hold them at bay (that last phrase not being found in the report). The key findings of the report are worth quoting, for they betray the innate bias of the compilers:
‘The report was launched at the Highfields Centre in Leicester on Monday 11th June by community youth worker and Netpol campaigner Saqib Deshmukh, who presented the findings to local activists, journalists and a representative of Leicestershire constabulary. Saqib has also helped to train community based legal observers in East London, as part of the initiative to monitor the policing of the Olympics by Netpol partner Newham Monitoring Project.
Key Findings:
• Police, working with Leicester council, put significant resources into a campaign aimed at persuading local people, particularly the youth, to stay away from counter demonstrations.
• The use of the Children Act, which allows police to take under-eighteen year olds to a ‘place of safety’, was unacceptably used as a ‘scare tactic’ to further dissuade young people from attending demonstrations
• Police maintained control over the movements of local people, making Leicester effectively a ‘no go zone’ for young Muslim men.
• Police used substantial force to control groups of Muslim youth, including the use of kettles, baton strikes and police dogs, leading to one young man sustaining dog bite injuries.
• Stop and searches were carried out under s60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, a police power that does not require suspicion of an individual. Although the number of such stop and searches was not high, all reported searchers were of people of Asian appearance. Powers to remove face coverings and scarfs also appear to have been disproportionately used against Muslim/Asian young people.
• The facilitation of the EDL appeared to take greater priority than the facilitation of counter demonstrations.’
The clear thrust of the report seems to be that the police in England should not be permitted to use English policing methods. Most peculiar. Do you find it reassuring that Saqib Deshmuq has some involvement with the forthcoming Olympics?

The observers involved in the data gathering exercise can hardly be adjudged to take an impartial position, given that they were drawn from TREC (The Race Equality Centre) and something called the Highfields Centre. The Highfields Centre, founded in 1974, hides behind an innocuous enough name, but take a look at its website and you see that it is linked to 44 groups, 15 of which are specifically Muslim, and a number of which cannot be classified owing to their existence only as acronyms. Some of the names of affiliated organisations will I am sure warm the cockles of your heart: Al-Islamia Institute; Ansaar; Bangladesh Youth and Cultural Shomiti; Brit Bangla Progressive Society; Federation of Muslim Org; Leicester Khalifa Highfields Cricket Club; Saracen Archery Club; Somali Development Services Ltd.

The findings of this Netpol report can thus be dismissed as tendentious special pleading on behalf of a section of the Leicester population that neither wishes to acknowledge English law nor wishes to see its implementation continue. The police operation worked well, and there appears to be nothing in this report to contradict this conclusion. However, although The Leicester Mercury referred to the report's findings, it also drew attention to the fact that both Leicester's Mayor Sir Peter Soulsby and the Chief Superintendent Rob Nixon who was in charge of the operation have defended the manner in which it was handled. 


  1. ..’Police maintained control over the movements of local people, making Leicester effectively a ‘no go zone’ for young Muslim men….

    Isn’t it ironic the same people complaining about their own movements being restricted wish to give themselves power to control the movements of others, especially members of the EDL.

    ….’Powers to remove face coverings and scarfs also appear to have been disproportionately used against Muslim/Asian young people’….

    Possibly true,by virtue of the fact that said group were ‘disproportionately ‘wearing said face coverings in the first place.

    1. Right on both counts. The report cannot be described as objective in any respect, and although the double standards employed by the report's authors are brazen, they are not unexpected.

  2. It's also ironic that Pakistani males form a large % of the idiots that engage in dog-fighting, certainly in the Midlands. There were so many arrested a few years ago in Alum Rock that they needed a double-fucking-decker bus to take the twats to court!!!

    Laurie -

    1. The phenomenon of dog-fighting is revolting, and it is strange, as you note, that a significant proportion of the individuals involved in this activity happen to be Pakistani males.

  3. As this report covers the deployment of Police dogs surely, in the interests of 'balance' the RSPCA should also have been invited to present a report on the treatment of the dogs.

    What a terrible stressful time those poor dogs were put through during this incident ! As we all know practising Muslims loathe dogs. The dogs will have been well aware of the hatred, loathing and fear enamating from the Muslims that were confronting the dogs. Yet throughout all this the dogs instead of being allowed to react as they wished to, as dogs would naturally react during such an incident, followed their police training impeccably and showed great restraint. The dogs deserve medals for their excellent behaviour.

    Ivan Winters
    Democratic Nationalists

    1. I don't think that the compilers of the report would be particularly bothered about animal welfare Ivan. I'm not sure if the police used horses on the occasion in question, but their mounts are sometimes subjected to some dreadful violence.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.