Another useless sniffer dog...

Heroin was found woven into handmade rugs that arrived from Peshawar in PakistanHeroin with a street value of about £5m was found woven into handmade rugs from Pakistan which had arrived at Manchester Airport.
Two men, aged 35 and 51, were arrested after 110lb (50kg) of the Class A drug was found in the consignment that arrived from Peshawar via Abu Dhabi.
A Border Force sniffer dog alerted officers to the drugs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-27777201

Sniffer dogs are rubbish eh dodge?

Never claimed sniffer dogs were all rubbish, just that Eddie as seen was not very well trained according to British standards, man alive you are so desperate it s hilarious, even more so because you know I have you by your teeny tiny balls

Eddie was highly trained both here and with the FBI in The USA.


You talk shit.


Exposed.

That is hearsay and again:



Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.

The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.

The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.

"There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states.

"Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve."

The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an inquiry".

"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concluded.

The review uses a kidnap investigation to highlight how dogs have tied up valuable police time.

The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.

The use of victim recovery, or cadaver dogs, has proved to be controversial in a number of high-profile cases in recent years.

A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal.

But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.

Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.

The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.

"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.

"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."

The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.


http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work

You also need to elaborate what kind of sniffer dogs, as seen the ones looking for dead bodies need far better training as reported, I never claimed they were all rubbish, thus another misleading post by Matti, proving he is the village idiot

The example given.....



The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.





So again shows the Dog did its job correctly.


It was trained to detect the scent of death.


It found the scent of death on a piece of furniture where the previous owner had died on it.




That is a success.

Tommy Monk wrote:
The example given.....



The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.





So again shows the Dog did its job correctly.


It was trained to detect the scent of death.


It found the scent of death on a piece of furniture where the previous owner had died on it.




That is a success.

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


That is not doing the job correctly trying to locate a missing girl they presumed dead, in fact she turned up alive and thank fuck they did not go along with the dogs, what it shows is picking up the scent of death, can come from anything because of transference, which again the point you miss without forensic evidence is useless. As seen the death odour can be transferred to any people the point you also miss and of all people in the Maddi case many are likely candidates (forensics themselves) to have had such odors transferred to them, hence why forensic evidence is needed and there was none to match their alerts to Maddie


That really proves again what an idiot you are, when success to you is now pointing to an old death not related to the case?

Wow


The report shows why far more training is required, it also shows that Eddie failed to turn up anything in both cases, including the Maddie case and why she is still classed as missing, the point you never answeer

A sniffer dog trained to detect death detects death on a piece of furniture somebody previously died on ages before.



That is a successful detection.




It is not up to The Dog to decide who it was that died. Just that somebody dead was on it.



In Portugal, nobody had ever died in The apartment or in The hire car.

A detection which did not benefit the case, that is not a success.

Showing an proving why such use of animals in such cases can be very flawed, even more so when no forensic evidence backs them up.

All I can say is wow if you think that is a success to the case

You do not have to die in an apartment to have have odour transfer onto people and their clothes or into the flat itself.

There is no alerts to the car that indicate death odour either, Kelly and Eddie both alerted to the keycard, that of Blood, which turned out to be someone alive, this is why Keely is used to corroborate when it is blood and only she alerted to the boot, thus there is no such evidence what so ever to point to a death alert to the car, proving even more what an idiot you are of even understand how the dogs work.

Thus again even if we are to believe you that Eddie alerted to death odours in the apartment, which there is no forensic evidence to back and how the dog missed the items picked multiple times, thus diminishing the credibility to the dogs claim, that you have failed to counter transference?
Many people had been to an throw from the apartment, forensics, Police, the Mcanns themselves who all come into contact not only with dead bodies, but others that do also, thus and why forensic evidence is needed to prove where the death scent is coming from and no such forensic evidence has proven there was a death scent or that it as you claim belongs to Maddie, hence why your claim to the dogs is so weak, it is pathetic  

Hence why on all counts the Dogs were not taken as credible evidence in the case, the point you keep missing

A dog was brought in that was trained in detecting death.



It found death on a piece of furniture that someone had previously died on.




That is a successful detection by the dog.

Tommy Monk wrote:A dog was brought in that was trained in detecting death.



It found death on a piece of furniture that someone had previously died on.




That is a successful detection by the dog.

That was not Eddie in thatcase, and what benefit was this to the case?

Did it hinder the case?

Did this alert cost the case money and time lost looking up false leads?

Take your time

Was the Dog accurate in its detection of death?



Take your time you mug.....

The dog alerted to the scent of death years old and detected death, so was this of any benefit to the case?

what benefit was this to the case?

Did it hinder the case?

Did this alert cost the case money and time lost looking up false leads?

Take your time

The Dog detected death.


It did what it was supposed to do.



And from a death scent that was left years ago.



To me that is a top result.



Successful detection.


Top marks.

Tommy Monk wrote:The Dog detected death.


It did what it was supposed to do.



And from a death scent that was left years ago.



To me that is a top result.



Successful detection.


Top marks.

 
 
 
That did not answer my questions, yet I prove I always answer yours and you avoid mine.
 
You failed again
 
Did they help find the girl by scenting this death?
 
No
 
Did they benefit the case?
 
No
 
Did it hinder the case?
 
Yes
 
Did this alert cost the case money and time lost looking up false leads?
 
Yes
 
Was the use of these dogs thus successful in this investigation?
 
No

The Dog indicated successfully.


And yes it probably did benefit the case as It would have been upgraded from missing person case to suspected murder case and given extra priority, and azura resources and detectives.




Fact remains, dog Was brought in to detect death and detected death on an old sofa romeodd died on years before.



Just shows how strong and lingering that smell of death is.

They did not benefit the case, the Police were left on a wild goose chase that had nothing to do with the missing girl, they thus lost manpower and money.
Seriously how desparate are you, even the Police and the report state what a waste on time in this case the dogs were, even more so when the girl was found alive, thus eplain to me how how the dogs helped find her alive?
 
They didn't in fact it made the Police look into false leads, you do realise what a false lead is, or do you need me to dumb it down to your level to understand?
So stop being a complete idiot

Dog Was brought in to detect death.


It did Its job as It detected death.



That was a successful find.



As someone had died on That sofa however long before.


Leaving the scent of death that the dog was trained to detect.

Sniffer dogs are easy to get past and get a lot of false positives.

Ones in Customs/boarders are Better as they are in controlled environments but using on the street pretty pointless.

We have dogs with police in train stations sometimes just sniffing commuters passing through, you would be surprised how many people are stopped after indicated for drugs and are found. Others admitting recent contact with drugs although none on them.




These sniffer dogs are not used because they are shit, and are remarkably useful and accurate.

Tommy Monk wrote:We have dogs with police in train stations sometimes just sniffing commuters passing through, you would be surprised how many people are stopped after indicated for drugs and are found. Others admitting recent contact with drugs although none on them.

These sniffer dogs are not used because they are shit, and are remarkably useful and accurate.

We have them here too, I have been pulled up twice for nothing. waste of time and resources they have like a dozen police at the station for the dog and at least 80% of people Don't have anything on them. they could be doing something more useful and no one is going to carry large quantities on the train  

If A Radar Gun Falsely pulled up so many people that weren't speeding it would be decommissioned   
Face it anything that is Wrong 80% of time is useless   

The dogs arent wrong 80% of the time though.
Also Eddie and Keela werent being used on the street, but in a crime scene.
Eddie trained to detect cadaver,detected cadaver.
Keela trained to detect human blood, detected human blood.

Both dogs did what they were trained to do and all the waffling and irrelevant rambling wont alter that basic fact.

Nems wrote:The dogs arent wrong 80% of the time though.
Also Eddie and Keela werent being used on the street, but in a crime scene.
Eddie trained to detect cadaver,detected cadaver.
Keela trained to detect human blood, detected human blood.

Both dogs did what they were trained to do and all the waffling and irrelevant rambling wont alter that basic fact.

Eddie was trained to detect, body fluids, blood and cadaver, Keely is on blood, hence why the two can corroborate blood together at an alert at the same area.
So you still have a major issue with what Eddie alerts to when she is trained on 3 and again we do not know how well because we only have Grimes word they have done 200 cases well, that is hearsay.
The report clearly even states about this very point that there is little evidence to back how well trained dogs in the UK are and their success rates
The problem you also have is she actually ignored many of the items, she later went onto alert, that is a major problem because it will be argued why Eddie did not alert the first time, let alone second and so on. The other problem you have is the time lapsed and the people coming and going within the apartment and of all people like to have transference of cadaver, we are talking about doctors, Police, forensics and all the people they come into contactwith . This is why even Grimes states the dogs evidence is irrelevant without forensic evidence to back it up.

So the point is you have no facts, all you know is Eddie ignored items then later barked at them, with no forensic evidence to corroborate what she barked at that is very inconclusive to claim she smelled cadaver, let alone even if she did, that it has to be Maddie, because as seen, there is no evidence to back that, and because of transference

That is why the dogs evidence in this case and Jersey were taken as unreliable to the cases at hand.

You cannot ignore these major points

Nems wrote:The dogs arent wrong 80% of the time though.
Also Eddie and Keela werent being used on the street, but in a crime scene.
Eddie trained to detect cadaver,detected cadaver.
Keela trained to detect human blood, detected human blood.

Both dogs did what they were trained to do and all the waffling and irrelevant rambling wont alter that basic fact.

Crime seen dogs are debatable probably between custom dogs and the train station ones.

actually they are probably wrong even more

you see they don't count it as wrong if you admit you had drugs on you at some point even if it was like a week or 2 ago    and if you don't say that they search you harder, if you say and you seem pretty confident they are really pretty half assed (the 2nd time  )

Plus they really aren't that good I've gone past them a dozen or more times with stuff    Music festivals and the like, and anyone that was planning on dealing (Not me   ) would be more prepared than i was (considering it was only what is defined as personal quantities it is a fine and warning  ::resmahauth:: ) They really aren't that scary, one strategy is you just get someone that has smoked pot to walk past the dog first, the dog stops them and the guy with the drugs walks past while they are busy  

  ONE salient fact that police forces obviously prefer to ignore is that some 80%+ of lost and missing persons who are found or recovered are inevitably found by non-police resources, with some 60-70% actually located by "amateur" volunteer rescue groups, and the remaining difference of 15-20% made up of findings by family groups/friends and workmates/neighbours, non-police groups like firies and ambo's, private investigators/'locators', and other non-police sources...

DOWN here in NSW, when it comes to finding people in bushland/wilderness/mountain & coastal settings, the highest success rates are found among the Bushwalking Clubs rescue groups, ahead of the SES, RFS and Police Rescue Squads (though it should be pointed out here that Aussie, Kiwi, Cannuck and Yank specialist Rescue squads are usually highly competent ~ the main problem being a shortage of numbers rather than skills ~ a model that the British and Euro' police forces should consider looking at..).    

IN urban settings the more successful groups tend to be the State Emergency Services, and their breakaway cousin Volunteer Rescue Association, both of which have over 90% volunteer membership; again both having overall success rates ahead of the Police, and the regular full-time Fire brigades..

SAR rescue dogs are maintained by specialist Police and military units over here. Because the Dog Squad is located down near Sydney, sometimes search dogs have been brought in from the much closer RAAF and Army bases.  THE success or not of these dogs work generally comes down to how the police in control of the scene analyse and utilise those results; rather than any failures on any dog's part..  ::-3::

If no body is found, how can anyone possibly say whether the dogs were right or wrong.

Spindleshanks wrote:If no body is found, how can anyone possibly say whether the dogs were right or wrong.

Agreed, but again at present the evidence is inconclusive, with also no forensic evidence to point to Maddie being killed in the apartment.
My point is on people poorly claiming she was killed in the apartment based off this weak evidence, which as seen holds little credibility.

Whole thing a waste of time and money except for giving lots of police officers and others a free holiday. If any thing is found I will apologise profusely.

Don't think they're on holiday out there nicko.


Veya, you got stopped by dog in train station but didn't have anything on you, but be honest, had you been in contact with something before that but just got nothing on you...???




This thread is about dogs in general, and as seen in op, remarkably useful and accurate in The drug find in rugs from Pakistan.



And in case dodge put up, dog Was correct again in detecting death on old sofa that someone had previously died on months/years before.


Also Eddie was primarily a cadaver dog,trained extensively both in UK and USA by FBI using real human body parts.


He indicated in places where no blood or bodily fluids were discovered. That means he was indicating death.

Dear me again Eddie specialized in 3 things, how good she was, nobody can back with any corroborating evidence and from the evidence we do see, it shows complacency, due to the fact she never alerted to things she later alerted to, in fact she played, chewed, sniffed them, passed many times, not making any alert, to do so only later. We know Keely can corroborator any blood alerts, because both are trained in this, but only forensic evidence can back her other alerts, of which we do not know if it is cadaver or body fluids, and of the alerts and tests done on samples, all turned out to come from live people. The one in the boot only came from Keely so is not a cadaver alert.

Thus Matti is going off the dogs in the other missing case alerted to cadaver, though it had nothing to do with the case and was only verified with evidence, in other words, if they had not know of the evidence, the same conclusion would have been met, The fact is as seen the digs alerted to something long dead, which as of no use to the case and cost time and money to the investigation, when in the end the girl was found alive.

So as seen we know the report shows us that there is a major training issue with these types of dogs in this country where again many have little evidence to back claims, this is even in the report:



Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report. The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News. "There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states."Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve.


It then goes onto to state about Eddie thus in conjunction with the report:


A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal. But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.


Thus the report does not back any claim the dog has ben trained well, has done 200 cases and they are successful, what is does is rightly point out in both cases no evidence backs any of the alerts, which again even Grimes states and any cadaver dog expert will tell you that such alerts are meaningless without evidence to back them up.


Again, not only this, again if people bothered to read, Grimes states himself that the dogs make mistakes and that there is difficulty of transference of cadaver, where again with the evidence so far from the flat points to living humans, so again this cannot be ruled out if we take a view the dog did pick up cadaver scent. The biggest point to date and rightly stated is that by Spindleshanks in that no body has been found, and thus no conclusion can be made that the dogs were correct, even more so when no forensic evidence points as this being the case.

So Matti, stop being ridiculous, you can repeat your same nonsense again and again, with failing to answer my points, but it shows you have no argument here, just what you believe, which is why the :Police view different to you and rightly so

Tommy Monk wrote:Don't think they're on holiday out there nicko.


Veya, you got stopped by dog in train station but didn't have anything on you, but be honest, had you been in contact with something before that but just got nothing on you...???




This thread is about dogs in general, and as seen in op, remarkably useful and accurate in The drug find in rugs from Pakistan.



And in case dodge put up, dog Was correct again in detecting death on old sofa that someone had previously died on months/years before.


Also Eddie was primarily a cadaver dog,trained extensively both in UK and USA by FBI using real human body parts.


He indicated in places where no blood or bodily fluids were discovered. That means he was indicating death.

but that's the point everyone that ever has anything on them know you have to say "yes i have come in contact" so they don't search as hard, thus the stats are useless, and same deal as the speed camera if a speed camera was saying I was speeding when I am not it would be decommissioned, the dog said i had drugs and i didn't.
Oddly when I got pulled up the first time they said the dog specifically indicated the bag which is weird because it was new (about 2 weeks) and i just take it work so As far a I know it had never been around drugs    ... I did buy it from a hippy chick at a arts and craft market thought   

I did say in customs (so imported good etc) they work better because of the controlled environment.

In General they are good but there is a lot of issues with false positives as the dog doesn't 100% understand what is being asked of it.

More dodge bullshit.


Eddie was primarily used Bruce cadaver dog. Trained extensively here in UK and in USA by FBI using real dead human parts.



You quote Grimes as fact when it suits your argument but then dismiss what he parw as hearsay when it doesn't.


You can't have it both ways dodge.


Either Grimes is honest and reliable and what he says is fact, And to be believed, or it isn't.


Which is it?

If you insist on posting up walls of waffle and bullshit, just repeating then you will be going on ignore.


And veya, don't ae a bellend, people don't admit contact so they are not searched as hard unless they are worried about something being found.


They admit contact because they have had contact.



Simple as that.



And now you are saying the Dog Was right in detecting the bag from hippy girl? Likely had been in contacj with something?

Didge wrote:Dear me again Eddie specialized in 3 things, how good she was, nobody can back with any corroborating evidence and from the evidence we do see, it shows complacency, due to the fact she never alerted to things she later alerted to, in fact she played, chewed, sniffed them, passed many times, not making any alert, to do so only later. We know Keely can corroborator any blood alerts, because both are trained in this, but only forensic evidence can back her other alerts, of which we do not know if it is cadaver or body fluids, and of the alerts and tests done on samples, all turned out to come from live people. The one in the boot only came from Keely so is not a cadaver alert.

Thus Matti is going off the dogs in the other missing case alerted to cadaver, though it had nothing to do with the case and was only verified with evidence, in other words, if they had not know of the evidence, the same conclusion would have been met, The fact is as seen the digs alerted to something long dead, which as of no use to the case and cost time and money to the investigation, when in the end the girl was found alive.

So as seen we know the report shows us that there is a major training issue with these types of dogs in this country where again many have little evidence to back claims, this is even in the report:



Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report. The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News. "There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states."Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve.


It then goes onto to state about Eddie thus in conjunction with the report:


A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal. But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.


Thus the report does not back any claim the dog has ben trained well, has done 200 cases and they are successful, what is does is rightly point out in both cases no evidence backs any of the alerts, which again even Grimes states and any cadaver dog expert will tell you that such alerts are meaningless without evidence to back them up.


Again, not only this, again if people bothered to read, Grimes states himself that the dogs make mistakes and that there is difficulty of transference of cadaver, where again with the evidence so far from the flat points to living humans, so again this cannot be ruled out if we take a view the dog did pick up cadaver scent. The biggest point to date and rightly stated is that by Spindleshanks in that no body has been found, and thus no conclusion can be made that the dogs were correct, even more so when no forensic evidence points as this being the case.

So Matti, stop being ridiculous, you can repeat your same nonsense again and again, with failing to answer my points, but it shows you have no argument here, just what you believe, which is why the :Police view different to you and rightly so

I have all the evidence above whichyou cannot refute, even the report does not back your claim to Eddie in fact it highlights how such dogs are in need of better training and no matter how many times you repeat the same crap, and refuse to address my points as you always do, I will keep posting this until you and will continue to do so each time when online as it has become such a bore how you constantly try to weasel your way out of points all the time

Yes I do quote Grimes, to show even he admits to the problems, which that is backed by other experts to prove to you that you ar talking out of your arse, his claims to the Dogs abilities as seen are clearly not backed by the report in fact state he opposite

The biggest thing and proven here is you have read one book and not looked at anything impartially and it shows badly so that you have not and why you get many things wrong

So answer the points, stop deflecting and will look in later

Bye

You are going on ignore.

Tommy Monk wrote:More dodge bullshit.


Eddie was primarily used Bruce cadaver dog. Trained extensively here in UK and in USA by FBI using real dead human parts.



You quote Grimes as fact when it suits your argument but then dismiss what he parw as hearsay when it doesn't.


You can't have it both ways dodge.


Either Grimes is honest and reliable and what he says is fact, And to be believed, or it isn't.


Which is it?

If you insist on posting up walls of waffle and bullshit, just repeating then you will be going on ignore.


And veya, don't ae a bellend, people don't admit contact so they are not searched as hard unless they are worried about something being found.


They admit contact because they have had contact.



Simple as that.



And now you are saying the Dog Was right in detecting the bag from hippy girl? Likely had been in contacj with something?

yeah but if you buy something at what are essentially shops (they are all registered businesses the market is open every weekend) you would not think that is good enough reason (unless she was using it to transport pounds, which I doubt as it was a table of new bags) being around some one that may have had drugs is pretty weak reason for a public stop and search   and they ask RECENT contact by which they define as 2 weeks, here at least. pretty pointless asking 'contact' as the answer is yes for everyone. you don't know who you sit next to on a train  


And it takes them time to search, it is quicker and you are less likely to miss your train, shit is not like in the movies    and pot is Extremely common in Australia with multiple legal loop holes for users to stay out of trouble, and relative to other dealers they are pretty easy on the sellers too. other drugs will get you in big trouble though.    we actually have a pretty good approach here, it is not like the USA etc where ALL drugs are treated or taught as the same, which means that some of the most vocally against harder drugs like Meth and Heroin are pot smokers  ::D::  particularly ones with jobs   

Big difference between The bag being possibly directly contaminated by being in direct contact with smoke or touch by sweat containing drug residue and just sitting next to someone on train briefly.



This is not a debate about different drugs or whether they should be criminalised or decriminalised or legal even.



This is about the effectiveness of sniffer dogs.



But what we can conclude is that the dogs in train stations are either indicating people with drugs or who have been in fairly recent contact with drugs, either through personal use or close contact with another person who has used or handled.



So again very good detection rate and effective.

In the case of Tia Sharp, 80 police Officers had searched that house, with normal tracking dogs and still didn't find her body.
Then they bought in a cadaver dog who signalled towards the loft, and they chose to ignore its signals at first because a police officer had poked his head through the loft hatch and not seen anything.

Lesson learned, if a dog signals its not lying.

Another very interesting point Harves!

Tommy Monk wrote:Big difference between The bag being possibly directly contaminated by being in direct contact with smoke or touch by sweat containing drug residue and just sitting next to someone on train briefly.



This is not a debate about different drugs or whether they should be criminalised or decriminalised or legal even.



This is about the effectiveness of sniffer dogs.



But what we can conclude is that the dogs in train stations are either indicating people with drugs or who have been in fairly recent contact with drugs, either through personal use or close contact with another person who has used or handled.



So again very good detection rate and effective.

No It was wrong, It failed 100% of the time in my experience (of 2   )
having an object that may have been around drugs IS NOT A CRIME... Again if another piece of equipment did that, it would be decommissioned. the Dogs are not effective enough to meet the Minimum standards of justifiable evidence TOO many false positives makes it ineffective. it is no good saying ohh look it found something when it suggest there is something a lot and most of the time there is nothing    that is Failing, if an electronic or other piece of equipment or method got that many false positives it would be deemed ineffective and not used. because it says yes but that doesn't mean that it is there at all as it.


and my Train trip is 45 mins on the express train so not exactly brief. If I had something in my pocket the person sitting next to me would be in as much contact as what people are getting pulled up for now.   

Asked for honesty veya.



You say you got indicated by a drug dog twice.




Is there any reason why this dog may have detected the scent of drugs on you?




Used? Handled? Been around anyone or anywhere where drugs were used or handled?




You've already said your new hippy bag was indicated and suspect.....



So.....?

Tommy Monk wrote:Asked for honesty veya.



You say you got indicated by a drug dog twice.




Is there any reason why this dog may have detected the scent of drugs on you?




Used? Handled? Been around anyone or anywhere where drugs were used or handled?




You've already said your new hippy bag was indicated and suspect.....



So.....?

Not the bag was just a bag, just the woman at the stall was hippy looking (again NOT a good enough reason for someone to be pulled over)

Used? Handled? Been around anyone or anywhere where drugs were used or handled?

that is everyone from the area I Live in, you can't live in Blacktown and Honestly say there has never been contact.

It could have had reason BUT not good enough a reason, proven by the fact I had nothing. I also Drive a fast Car, A police officer Doesn't Pull me over because I "could have been speeding".   

Sniffer dog detected drugs, but was wrong just because you only in contact with drugs but didn't have any on you????





So by that logic, a dog detects death but wrong because didn't detect the actual dead body but only the person who had killed someone and disposed of body.????




Madness.

well if the dog doesn't find the corpse it didn't find anything,
You don't know that you could not take it to any couch and it would say something died there... unless England is actually far more like the USSR than I imagined that is NOT an acceptable way to run a legal justice system.

And you just said it. the Dog said I had Drugs I didn't. It was wrong. anything else is irrelevant it was WRONG. If a piece of equipment is WRONG then it is NOT effective at detection end of story Detection means Finding some that is THERE, not may have been there at some point it has to be THERE or it is not detection, it is just harassing a currently innocent civilian.
It does not meet the minimum requirement of evidence, the burden of proof is Supposed to be on the Police and prosecution.

this is actually the second topic that YOU have been arguing for a USSR style totalitarian communist solution, while I 'the Lefty' have been supporting the Free Democratic Capitalist society       

veya_victaous wrote:well if the dog doesn't find the corpse it didn't find anything,
You don't know that you could not take it to any couch and it would say something died there... unless England is actually far more like the USSR than I imagined that is NOT an acceptable way to run a legal justice system.

And you just said it. the Dog said I had Drugs I didn't. It was wrong. anything else is irrelevant it was WRONG. If a piece of equipment is WRONG then it is NOT effective at detection end of story Detection means Finding some that is THERE, not may have been there at some point it has to be THERE or it is not detection, it is just harassing a currently innocent civilian.
It does not meet the minimum requirement of evidence, the burden of proof is Supposed to be on the Police and prosecution.

this is actually the second topic that YOU have been arguing for a USSR style totalitarian communist solution, while I 'the Lefty'  have been supporting the Free Democratic Capitalist society        

Shows you how little the left really has in common with totalitarianism

These dogs aren't trained to indicate at any and every couch.



They are extensively trained to indicate at particular smells and scents, and brought in to particular locations to do so.


Only the reliable ones are used out in real investigations.


There was a case posted on other thread where a prosecution happened for murder when no body was found and sniffer dog evidence was used.


Another recent high profile case was the missing girl in Wales, April Jones, if I remember correctly, they never found her body either.



And now you are splitting hairs on why you were stopped.



You were stopped because The dog indicated scent of drugs.



Did you have a scent of drugs on you?




And just a side issue, these random dog searches were started in this country under labour.


They also increased the state and wanted ever increasing state control, and snooping, plus the massive proll out of cameras everywhere watching our every move. We are the most watched population in The world because of it.


Their mantra was 'if you're got nothing to hide, You have nothing to fear'....


They wanted to pass law giving them access to all our communications too.

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:Dear me again Eddie specialized in 3 things, how good she was, nobody can back with any corroborating evidence and from the evidence we do see, it shows complacency, due to the fact she never alerted to things she later alerted to, in fact she played, chewed, sniffed them, passed many times, not making any alert, to do so only later. We know Keely can corroborator any blood alerts, because both are trained in this, but only forensic evidence can back her other alerts, of which we do not know if it is cadaver or body fluids, and of the alerts and tests done on samples, all turned out to come from live people. The one in the boot only came from Keely so is not a cadaver alert.

Thus Matti is going off the dogs in the other missing case alerted to cadaver, though it had nothing to do with the case and was only verified with evidence, in other words, if they had not know of the evidence, the same conclusion would have been met, The fact is as seen the digs alerted to something long dead, which as of no use to the case and cost time and money to the investigation, when in the end the girl was found alive.

So as seen we know the report shows us that there is a major training issue with these types of dogs in this country where again many have little evidence to back claims, this is even in the report:



Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report. The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News. "There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states."Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve.


It then goes onto to state about Eddie thus in conjunction with the report:


A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal. But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.


Thus the report does not back any claim the dog has ben trained well, has done 200 cases and they are successful, what is does is rightly point out in both cases no evidence backs any of the alerts, which again even Grimes states and any cadaver dog expert will tell you that such alerts are meaningless without evidence to back them up.


Again, not only this, again if people bothered to read, Grimes states himself that the dogs make mistakes and that there is difficulty of transference of cadaver, where again with the evidence so far from the flat points to living humans, so again this cannot be ruled out if we take a view the dog did pick up cadaver scent. The biggest point to date and rightly stated is that by Spindleshanks in that no body has been found, and thus no conclusion can be made that the dogs were correct, even more so when no forensic evidence points as this being the case.

So Matti, stop being ridiculous, you can repeat your same nonsense again and again, with failing to answer my points, but it shows you have no argument here, just what you believe, which is why the :Police view different to you and rightly so

I have all the evidence above whichyou cannot refute, even the report does not back your claim to Eddie in fact it highlights how such dogs are in need of better training and no matter how many times you repeat the same crap, and refuse to address my points as you always do, I will keep posting this until you and will continue to do so each time when online as it has become such a bore how you constantly try to weasel your way out of points all the time

Yes I do quote Grimes, to show even he admits to the problems, which that is backed by other experts to prove to you that you ar talking out of your arse, his claims to the Dogs abilities as seen are clearly not backed by the report in fact state he opposite

The biggest thing and proven here is you have read one book and not looked at anything impartially and it shows badly so that you have not and why you get many things wrong

So answer the points, stop deflecting and will look in later

Bye

????

Answered so Piss off with your wall of waffle.


You quote Grimes out of context as fact when it suits you but then dismiss other things he said as rubbish.



You can't have it both ways dodge.



Grimes also says that Eddie had been involved in 200 cases with a 100% success rate.




Eddie was one of the most highly trained and best and most respected sniffer dogs in The world.

Not answered, avoided at every turn, now I suggest you go and wash your mouth out and try again or is this another British value that you have, a potty mouth?

The report states very clearly there is no way to back any of the claims made about sniffer dogs back when Grimes claims Eddie had done 200


Here let me help you understand the English Language:


hearsay


[*]information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
[/list]

Eddie was highly trained both here in UK and in USA by FBI using real human body parts.




He was an expert in his field.



Your post of Waffle and conjecture changes nothing.