Revellers caught with drugs in town centre checks

Revellers caught with drugs in town centre checks

Passive drug alert dog Patch with handler PC Steve Duffy

Patch searching the pubs and bars in Old Town

First published in News
Last updated
by

PASSIVE drug alert dog Patch was out in force last night in the latest day of action under Operation Harness.

Patch and his handler, PC Steve Duffy, spent six hours searching the pubs and clubs in Old Town and the town centre for controlled narcotics, with Patch sniffing out nine people who were in possession or who had encountered drugs in the past week.


Two of these people proved to have controlled substances on them.


Insp Adrian Burt of Wiltshire Police, who lead the operation, was pleased that the numbers were relatively low.


He said: “This is less than we would expect, and footfall was lower on Friday than we thought but less indications is good news.”

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:28pm Sat 1 Mar 14

antiqueity says...

I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent)

Now how much did this "operation" cost?

~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"?

Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.
I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent) Now how much did this "operation" cost? ~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"? Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work. antiqueity
  • Score: 10

9:25pm Sat 1 Mar 14

catman says...

Oddly enough antiqueity, last time I checked, police officers worked shifts?
Therefor their duties for last night would have been for this operation, so cost wise it is irrelevant.
Patch sniffed out 9 people , 7 who didn't have drugs on them at the time, but possibly had been carrying drugs at some point for the dog to indicate towards them hopefully allowing them to worry if they planned on buying or using more drugs at a future time?
Lets face it, the police are damned if they do aren't they?
Oddly enough antiqueity, last time I checked, police officers worked shifts? Therefor their duties for last night would have been for this operation, so cost wise it is irrelevant. Patch sniffed out 9 people , 7 who didn't have drugs on them at the time, but possibly had been carrying drugs at some point for the dog to indicate towards them hopefully allowing them to worry if they planned on buying or using more drugs at a future time? Lets face it, the police are damned if they do aren't they? catman
  • Score: 9

9:28am Sun 2 Mar 14

LionelHutz says...

Maybe concentrate on catching criminals rather than people who choose to take drugs for recreational use and who are causing no harm to anyone but themselves.
Maybe concentrate on catching criminals rather than people who choose to take drugs for recreational use and who are causing no harm to anyone but themselves. LionelHutz
  • Score: 7

10:01am Sun 2 Mar 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

antiqueity wrote:
I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent)

Now how much did this "operation" cost?

~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"?

Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.
If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......!
[quote][p][bold]antiqueity[/bold] wrote: I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent) Now how much did this "operation" cost? ~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"? Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.[/p][/quote]If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......! LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: -6

1:29pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Wildwestener says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
antiqueity wrote:
I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent)

Now how much did this "operation" cost?

~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"?

Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.
If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......!
Or if they were decriminalised or legalised and regulated, it might actually cut crime by stopping the dealers having a market
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antiqueity[/bold] wrote: I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent) Now how much did this "operation" cost? ~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"? Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.[/p][/quote]If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......![/p][/quote]Or if they were decriminalised or legalised and regulated, it might actually cut crime by stopping the dealers having a market Wildwestener
  • Score: -1

1:31pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Gingerboy says...

I do question why the article hasn't mentioned the number of police officers involved. Another example of the Advertiser simply printing a press release without any investigate journalism perhaps?

As for the operation itself, I think the statistics quoted suggest that this method is a rather blunt tool, particularly when considering the manpower involved and the number of arrests made. Of the 9 people the dog 'sniffed out' only 2 were found to be in possession of drugs. Therefore 7 other people were subjected to a police search without having committed any offence. Instead of the police offering an apology to them, they justify this on the basis of a claim that they may have encountered drugs in the last week! Therefore the presumption, or implication, is that if the dogs sniffs you out, you must have been up to no good. Guilty until proven innocent?

This all seems rather flaky to me. It could easily be the case that the scent of drugs was the result of them having stood down wind of someone smoking weed at a bus stop or your coat hung in a night club cloak room next to that of a drug user. The innocent causes for a false positive are endless.

The police use of stop and search powers needs to be used with careful consideration and while I can't claim to be an expert on the science of the accuracy of a dogs nose or the police officers interpretation of the dogs behaviour, I think the statistics here show that this isn't the most effective method. When you factor in the impact on the civil liberties of the people searched, the number of officers involved in the operation and the other issues that they could have been dealing with, this all seems to be an approach that would be difficult to justify doing or sustain.
I do question why the article hasn't mentioned the number of police officers involved. Another example of the Advertiser simply printing a press release without any investigate journalism perhaps? As for the operation itself, I think the statistics quoted suggest that this method is a rather blunt tool, particularly when considering the manpower involved and the number of arrests made. Of the 9 people the dog 'sniffed out' only 2 were found to be in possession of drugs. Therefore 7 other people were subjected to a police search without having committed any offence. Instead of the police offering an apology to them, they justify this on the basis of a claim that they may have encountered drugs in the last week! Therefore the presumption, or implication, is that if the dogs sniffs you out, you must have been up to no good. Guilty until proven innocent? This all seems rather flaky to me. It could easily be the case that the scent of drugs was the result of them having stood down wind of someone smoking weed at a bus stop or your coat hung in a night club cloak room next to that of a drug user. The innocent causes for a false positive are endless. The police use of stop and search powers needs to be used with careful consideration and while I can't claim to be an expert on the science of the accuracy of a dogs nose or the police officers interpretation of the dogs behaviour, I think the statistics here show that this isn't the most effective method. When you factor in the impact on the civil liberties of the people searched, the number of officers involved in the operation and the other issues that they could have been dealing with, this all seems to be an approach that would be difficult to justify doing or sustain. Gingerboy
  • Score: 8

5:47pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Davey Gravey says...

People will always take drugs. May as well legalize it and tax it like fags and booze. Takes drugs away from crooks so police could concentrate on other crime instead.
People will always take drugs. May as well legalize it and tax it like fags and booze. Takes drugs away from crooks so police could concentrate on other crime instead. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

8:17pm Sun 2 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

Wildwestener wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
antiqueity wrote:
I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent)

Now how much did this "operation" cost?

~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"?

Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.
If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......!
Or if they were decriminalised or legalised and regulated, it might actually cut crime by stopping the dealers having a market
So firstly then your stating that if you lose the war on a particular crime then is should be legalised? A lot would argue we lost the war on domestic violence so that goodness you dont make the laws. Secondly, just what do you think the drug dealers who are in a multi £billion industry are going to do, just pack up and go home? They will probably just make it cheaper and less safe than it is now and we all know muppets will still take it.
Agree with Lord Ash, if people had a bit more respect for the law and didnt treat it like some pick and mix that they choose which ones they like and which ones they dont, we wouldnt have the need for "crackdowns". But then the world is full of sad people who need to take mind altering drugs to "have a good time" and that will never change.
[quote][p][bold]Wildwestener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antiqueity[/bold] wrote: I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent) Now how much did this "operation" cost? ~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"? Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.[/p][/quote]If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......![/p][/quote]Or if they were decriminalised or legalised and regulated, it might actually cut crime by stopping the dealers having a market[/p][/quote]So firstly then your stating that if you lose the war on a particular crime then is should be legalised? A lot would argue we lost the war on domestic violence so that goodness you dont make the laws. Secondly, just what do you think the drug dealers who are in a multi £billion industry are going to do, just pack up and go home? They will probably just make it cheaper and less safe than it is now and we all know muppets will still take it. Agree with Lord Ash, if people had a bit more respect for the law and didnt treat it like some pick and mix that they choose which ones they like and which ones they dont, we wouldnt have the need for "crackdowns". But then the world is full of sad people who need to take mind altering drugs to "have a good time" and that will never change. house on the hill
  • Score: 2

11:56am Mon 3 Mar 14

benzss says...

house on the hill wrote:
Wildwestener wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
antiqueity wrote:
I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent)

Now how much did this "operation" cost?

~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"?

Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.
If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......!
Or if they were decriminalised or legalised and regulated, it might actually cut crime by stopping the dealers having a market
So firstly then your stating that if you lose the war on a particular crime then is should be legalised? A lot would argue we lost the war on domestic violence so that goodness you dont make the laws. Secondly, just what do you think the drug dealers who are in a multi £billion industry are going to do, just pack up and go home? They will probably just make it cheaper and less safe than it is now and we all know muppets will still take it.
Agree with Lord Ash, if people had a bit more respect for the law and didnt treat it like some pick and mix that they choose which ones they like and which ones they dont, we wouldnt have the need for "crackdowns". But then the world is full of sad people who need to take mind altering drugs to "have a good time" and that will never change.
Oh give over, will you? As I've said to you repeatedly in the last few weeks, if you cannot recognise that there's a difference between causing harm to another person and not causing harm to another person, then you shouldn't really be commenting on subjects clearly above your station.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wildwestener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antiqueity[/bold] wrote: I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent) Now how much did this "operation" cost? ~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"? Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.[/p][/quote]If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......![/p][/quote]Or if they were decriminalised or legalised and regulated, it might actually cut crime by stopping the dealers having a market[/p][/quote]So firstly then your stating that if you lose the war on a particular crime then is should be legalised? A lot would argue we lost the war on domestic violence so that goodness you dont make the laws. Secondly, just what do you think the drug dealers who are in a multi £billion industry are going to do, just pack up and go home? They will probably just make it cheaper and less safe than it is now and we all know muppets will still take it. Agree with Lord Ash, if people had a bit more respect for the law and didnt treat it like some pick and mix that they choose which ones they like and which ones they dont, we wouldnt have the need for "crackdowns". But then the world is full of sad people who need to take mind altering drugs to "have a good time" and that will never change.[/p][/quote]Oh give over, will you? As I've said to you repeatedly in the last few weeks, if you cannot recognise that there's a difference between causing harm to another person and not causing harm to another person, then you shouldn't really be commenting on subjects clearly above your station. benzss
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Mon 3 Mar 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

benzss wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Wildwestener wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
antiqueity wrote:
I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent)

Now how much did this "operation" cost?

~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"?

Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.
If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......!
Or if they were decriminalised or legalised and regulated, it might actually cut crime by stopping the dealers having a market
So firstly then your stating that if you lose the war on a particular crime then is should be legalised? A lot would argue we lost the war on domestic violence so that goodness you dont make the laws. Secondly, just what do you think the drug dealers who are in a multi £billion industry are going to do, just pack up and go home? They will probably just make it cheaper and less safe than it is now and we all know muppets will still take it.
Agree with Lord Ash, if people had a bit more respect for the law and didnt treat it like some pick and mix that they choose which ones they like and which ones they dont, we wouldnt have the need for "crackdowns". But then the world is full of sad people who need to take mind altering drugs to "have a good time" and that will never change.
Oh give over, will you? As I've said to you repeatedly in the last few weeks, if you cannot recognise that there's a difference between causing harm to another person and not causing harm to another person, then you shouldn't really be commenting on subjects clearly above your station.
A better example would have been speeding. Speeding in itself doesn't cause harm to anyone so by your principles we should abolish all laws relating to speeding. 150mph+ past a school anyone.....?

Just because something is legalised that doesn't mean it is also unregulated, a simple fact that you seem to be ignoring. Or are your seriously suggesting that any substance regardless should be made available.

Regulation costs money, so the drug dealers will still make substances cheaper than they could be made commercially available.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wildwestener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antiqueity[/bold] wrote: I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent) Now how much did this "operation" cost? ~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"? Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.[/p][/quote]If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......![/p][/quote]Or if they were decriminalised or legalised and regulated, it might actually cut crime by stopping the dealers having a market[/p][/quote]So firstly then your stating that if you lose the war on a particular crime then is should be legalised? A lot would argue we lost the war on domestic violence so that goodness you dont make the laws. Secondly, just what do you think the drug dealers who are in a multi £billion industry are going to do, just pack up and go home? They will probably just make it cheaper and less safe than it is now and we all know muppets will still take it. Agree with Lord Ash, if people had a bit more respect for the law and didnt treat it like some pick and mix that they choose which ones they like and which ones they dont, we wouldnt have the need for "crackdowns". But then the world is full of sad people who need to take mind altering drugs to "have a good time" and that will never change.[/p][/quote]Oh give over, will you? As I've said to you repeatedly in the last few weeks, if you cannot recognise that there's a difference between causing harm to another person and not causing harm to another person, then you shouldn't really be commenting on subjects clearly above your station.[/p][/quote]A better example would have been speeding. Speeding in itself doesn't cause harm to anyone so by your principles we should abolish all laws relating to speeding. 150mph+ past a school anyone.....? Just because something is legalised that doesn't mean it is also unregulated, a simple fact that you seem to be ignoring. Or are your seriously suggesting that any substance regardless should be made available. Regulation costs money, so the drug dealers will still make substances cheaper than they could be made commercially available. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: -3

1:29pm Mon 3 Mar 14

benzss says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
benzss wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Wildwestener wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
antiqueity wrote:
I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent)

Now how much did this "operation" cost?

~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"?

Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.
If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......!
Or if they were decriminalised or legalised and regulated, it might actually cut crime by stopping the dealers having a market
So firstly then your stating that if you lose the war on a particular crime then is should be legalised? A lot would argue we lost the war on domestic violence so that goodness you dont make the laws. Secondly, just what do you think the drug dealers who are in a multi £billion industry are going to do, just pack up and go home? They will probably just make it cheaper and less safe than it is now and we all know muppets will still take it.
Agree with Lord Ash, if people had a bit more respect for the law and didnt treat it like some pick and mix that they choose which ones they like and which ones they dont, we wouldnt have the need for "crackdowns". But then the world is full of sad people who need to take mind altering drugs to "have a good time" and that will never change.
Oh give over, will you? As I've said to you repeatedly in the last few weeks, if you cannot recognise that there's a difference between causing harm to another person and not causing harm to another person, then you shouldn't really be commenting on subjects clearly above your station.
A better example would have been speeding. Speeding in itself doesn't cause harm to anyone so by your principles we should abolish all laws relating to speeding. 150mph+ past a school anyone.....?

Just because something is legalised that doesn't mean it is also unregulated, a simple fact that you seem to be ignoring. Or are your seriously suggesting that any substance regardless should be made available.

Regulation costs money, so the drug dealers will still make substances cheaper than they could be made commercially available.
I... er, no, I didn't say any of that. I'd like to see all drugs legalised but not unregulated. I mean, that'd be a better situation than we have now (illegal and unregulated), but if you're going to go through the effort of legalising drugs in the face of puritanical reactionaries, why not set up a sensible regulatory framework?

The black market will never be completely removed. Everything has a black market. But legality ensures a certain level of safety and recourse at a similar price, so much of the black market will be swept away.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wildwestener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antiqueity[/bold] wrote: I saw the group of officers and the dog last night out in force, there were at-least 12 officers patrolling (looked like a street gang - albeit brightly florescent) Now how much did this "operation" cost? ~12 officers for 6 hours. Stopping and disrupting the lives of 7 people that hadn't broken the law for 2 "arrests"? Seems like a fine waste of money to me. Nice work.[/p][/quote]If people didn't take illegal substances then there would be no need to have the operation at all......![/p][/quote]Or if they were decriminalised or legalised and regulated, it might actually cut crime by stopping the dealers having a market[/p][/quote]So firstly then your stating that if you lose the war on a particular crime then is should be legalised? A lot would argue we lost the war on domestic violence so that goodness you dont make the laws. Secondly, just what do you think the drug dealers who are in a multi £billion industry are going to do, just pack up and go home? They will probably just make it cheaper and less safe than it is now and we all know muppets will still take it. Agree with Lord Ash, if people had a bit more respect for the law and didnt treat it like some pick and mix that they choose which ones they like and which ones they dont, we wouldnt have the need for "crackdowns". But then the world is full of sad people who need to take mind altering drugs to "have a good time" and that will never change.[/p][/quote]Oh give over, will you? As I've said to you repeatedly in the last few weeks, if you cannot recognise that there's a difference between causing harm to another person and not causing harm to another person, then you shouldn't really be commenting on subjects clearly above your station.[/p][/quote]A better example would have been speeding. Speeding in itself doesn't cause harm to anyone so by your principles we should abolish all laws relating to speeding. 150mph+ past a school anyone.....? Just because something is legalised that doesn't mean it is also unregulated, a simple fact that you seem to be ignoring. Or are your seriously suggesting that any substance regardless should be made available. Regulation costs money, so the drug dealers will still make substances cheaper than they could be made commercially available.[/p][/quote]I... er, no, I didn't say any of that. I'd like to see all drugs legalised but not unregulated. I mean, that'd be a better situation than we have now (illegal and unregulated), but if you're going to go through the effort of legalising drugs in the face of puritanical reactionaries, why not set up a sensible regulatory framework? The black market will never be completely removed. Everything has a black market. But legality ensures a certain level of safety and recourse at a similar price, so much of the black market will be swept away. benzss
  • Score: 1

2:44pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Gingerboy wrote:
I do question why the article hasn't mentioned the number of police officers involved. Another example of the Advertiser simply printing a press release without any investigate journalism perhaps?

As for the operation itself, I think the statistics quoted suggest that this method is a rather blunt tool, particularly when considering the manpower involved and the number of arrests made. Of the 9 people the dog 'sniffed out' only 2 were found to be in possession of drugs. Therefore 7 other people were subjected to a police search without having committed any offence. Instead of the police offering an apology to them, they justify this on the basis of a claim that they may have encountered drugs in the last week! Therefore the presumption, or implication, is that if the dogs sniffs you out, you must have been up to no good. Guilty until proven innocent?

This all seems rather flaky to me. It could easily be the case that the scent of drugs was the result of them having stood down wind of someone smoking weed at a bus stop or your coat hung in a night club cloak room next to that of a drug user. The innocent causes for a false positive are endless.

The police use of stop and search powers needs to be used with careful consideration and while I can't claim to be an expert on the science of the accuracy of a dogs nose or the police officers interpretation of the dogs behaviour, I think the statistics here show that this isn't the most effective method. When you factor in the impact on the civil liberties of the people searched, the number of officers involved in the operation and the other issues that they could have been dealing with, this all seems to be an approach that would be difficult to justify doing or sustain.
Blunt tool policing is only a problem to the general public ala stop and search. The millions in settlements paid to people incorrectly stopped and searched costs the country every year.
People that break the law will continue to do so no matter what.

I am glad the police are out in the street at night even if it is only a deterrent to violence. Dont care why police out at the weekend just that they are....this is not asking for a nanny state just some police back on the street.
[quote][p][bold]Gingerboy[/bold] wrote: I do question why the article hasn't mentioned the number of police officers involved. Another example of the Advertiser simply printing a press release without any investigate journalism perhaps? As for the operation itself, I think the statistics quoted suggest that this method is a rather blunt tool, particularly when considering the manpower involved and the number of arrests made. Of the 9 people the dog 'sniffed out' only 2 were found to be in possession of drugs. Therefore 7 other people were subjected to a police search without having committed any offence. Instead of the police offering an apology to them, they justify this on the basis of a claim that they may have encountered drugs in the last week! Therefore the presumption, or implication, is that if the dogs sniffs you out, you must have been up to no good. Guilty until proven innocent? This all seems rather flaky to me. It could easily be the case that the scent of drugs was the result of them having stood down wind of someone smoking weed at a bus stop or your coat hung in a night club cloak room next to that of a drug user. The innocent causes for a false positive are endless. The police use of stop and search powers needs to be used with careful consideration and while I can't claim to be an expert on the science of the accuracy of a dogs nose or the police officers interpretation of the dogs behaviour, I think the statistics here show that this isn't the most effective method. When you factor in the impact on the civil liberties of the people searched, the number of officers involved in the operation and the other issues that they could have been dealing with, this all seems to be an approach that would be difficult to justify doing or sustain.[/p][/quote]Blunt tool policing is only a problem to the general public ala stop and search. The millions in settlements paid to people incorrectly stopped and searched costs the country every year. People that break the law will continue to do so no matter what. I am glad the police are out in the street at night even if it is only a deterrent to violence. Dont care why police out at the weekend just that they are....this is not asking for a nanny state just some police back on the street. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -2

11:41am Wed 5 Mar 14

antiqueity says...

catman wrote:
Oddly enough antiqueity, last time I checked, police officers worked shifts?
Therefor their duties for last night would have been for this operation, so cost wise it is irrelevant.
Patch sniffed out 9 people , 7 who didn't have drugs on them at the time, but possibly had been carrying drugs at some point for the dog to indicate towards them hopefully allowing them to worry if they planned on buying or using more drugs at a future time?
Lets face it, the police are damned if they do aren't they?
Your semantics are irrelevant.

Stopping people that-could-have-come
-into-"contact"-with
-drugs-in-the-last-7
-days

"allowing them to worry" - what are you, crazy?

You think people who take drugs are scared of the law? You think they will ever be scared of the law?

This was not an efficient use of our money.
[quote][p][bold]catman[/bold] wrote: Oddly enough antiqueity, last time I checked, police officers worked shifts? Therefor their duties for last night would have been for this operation, so cost wise it is irrelevant. Patch sniffed out 9 people , 7 who didn't have drugs on them at the time, but possibly had been carrying drugs at some point for the dog to indicate towards them hopefully allowing them to worry if they planned on buying or using more drugs at a future time? Lets face it, the police are damned if they do aren't they?[/p][/quote]Your semantics are irrelevant. Stopping people that-could-have-come -into-"contact"-with -drugs-in-the-last-7 -days "allowing them to worry" - what are you, crazy? You think people who take drugs are scared of the law? You think they will ever be scared of the law? This was not an efficient use of our money. antiqueity
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree