BRING ALFIE HOME campaign

[rowan666]

Is anybody following this on fb? It seems a desperately sad situation but I can't help think that there's more to this story. If the police have admitted that they made a mistake then surely they have the power to return alfie to his rightful owner as technically the new owners would be in receipt of stolen goods? (assuming dogs are classed as property?) Why have the new owners not come forward to prove he is safe and well if they are aware of the campaign to find him?

 

[{97702}]

I wasn’t aware of this campaign but I had a quick look - it sounds a difficult situation, but technically it seems nothing has been done wrong? Harsh as it is, the microchip was scanned, the person registered as the owner was contacted and instructed the police to re-home the dog and that is what they have done.

Morally it may be a different story of course!

 

[rowan666]

I wasn’t aware of this campaign but I had a quick look - it sounds a difficult situation, but technically it seems nothing has been done wrong? Harsh as it is, the microchip was scanned, the person registered as the owner was contacted and instructed the police to re-home the dog and that is what they have done.

Morally it may be a different story of course!

But apparently the chip isn't proof of ownership and the dog was supposed to be returned home to the mans partner after accompanying the owner to the hospital 🤷‍♀️ I think the thing that doesn't add up for me is LCDH (which is local to me and has the most awful reputation) are claiming that they rehomed the dog within 24 hours of receiving it. How can they rehome a dog so quickly without doing any charecter assessment or home checks and why was is stated that the dog had been abused and owner was dead when he simply there to be kept untill owner returned from hospital (this is a service the offer for the council and they have other dogs in same circumstances there for sometimes months at a time) the owner was out of hospital the next day and expected his dog to be home waiting so it seems the police (by their own public admission) are initially at fault, obviously there were wires crossed somewhere down the line but why can't the police rectify the mistake they made?

 

[{97702}]

I also wondered whether they felt the dog had a better home wherever it has gone? I have no knowledge of the people involved, but when someone asks the police to assist with taking them to hospital it suggests they aren’t in a good place personally. It is pure speculation, which is bad of me, but did the police/the home feel the owner was not in a position to look after the dog properly?

 

[ester]

yeah it really doesn't add up the speed at which it all happened. I don't understand why they contacted the ex registered with the microchip given that they know who/where he had come from and why the ex gave permission or why the presumed she could grant said permission for rehoming (I wonder what story she was told).

If they thought he wasn't capable of looking after the dog currently surely that should have been subject to discussion or evidence of neglect? And is a moot point when he has a partner anyway?

 

[{97702}]

As with all these cases, I reckon there is an awful lot more to this story than we are being told ☹️

 

[Ambers Echo]

It does not really add up in lots of different ways. Sadly the not-adding-up could be in either direction: I know from the inside that public media campaigns (eg get X home from care/ fund Y's treatment) can hide the reality that X is 300 miles away because the people yelling about it are a serious threat to her or Y has refused sensible tx options and is not a candidate for whatever treatment is wanted. I know that these campaigns are one-sided at best and totally dishonest at worst and public sector services have no ability to respond due to confidentiality.

And also I know of horrific abuses of power by police and health care services. Cock ups and cover ups. So in this case, who knows?

 

[Bellaboo18]

But apparently the chip isn't proof of ownership and the dog was supposed to be returned home to the mans partner after accompanying the owner to the hospital 🤷‍♀️ I think the thing that doesn't add up for me is LCDH (which is local to me and has the most awful reputation) are claiming that they rehomed the dog within 24 hours of receiving it. How can they rehome a dog so quickly without doing any charecter assessment or home checks and why was is stated that the dog had been abused and owner was dead when he simply there to be kept untill owner returned from hospital (this is a service the offer for the council and they have other dogs in same circumstances there for sometimes months at a time) the owner was out of hospital the next day and expected his dog to be home waiting so it seems the police (by their own public admission) are initially at fault, obviously there were wires crossed somewhere down the line but why can't the police rectify the mistake they made?

The microchip is proof of ownership.

 

[blackcob]

The microchip is proof of ownership.

No they aren’t - at least not in isolation.

 

[Bellaboo18]

No they aren’t - at least not in isolation.

I'm afraid you're wrong, this trumped everything else when I managed a rehoming centre.

 

[splashgirl45]

if the microchip isnt proof of ownership, what is the point of them. i thought it was to identify the owners especially in cases of dog fighting etc.....

 

[CorvusCorax]

For me, a chip proves the dog's identity, like a chassis number on a car. If people want to be proven as the registered owner of the animal, they should take care to change the chip details as soon as the dog comes into their ownership....like we do with cars.

 

[ester]

why is it any different to passports and horses?
If it is proof of ownership please post the relevant legislation that states this.

 

[rowan666]

Why was the chip even checked when the dog was there only as a social care placement? He shouldn't have even been there for that, he was supposed to be returned home.

Maybe it was felt by police/LCDH that the dog would be better off in a new home as they didn't see owner as being fit to care for the dog but can they legally just decided to do that on the spot without any investigations or talks to the owner??

Nothing on either side of the story seem to add up. I worry given the reputation of LCDH that they are trying to cover something up as it doesn't seem right that an ageing, nervous (according to LCDH) collie would be rehomed in less than 24 hours of arriving there, had said dog have been a cute little lapdog or puppy then yes maybe but even then surely they need a few days to fully assess character and then a few more days before home check was completed?

If the dog has genuinely been homed and is safe and well, why is there no proof? The new owners could easily give pics to LCDH to post to prove dog is alive and well if they don't want to give the dog up and want to avoid being hounded but there is just no evidence atall to suggest the dog is actually alive, healthy and happy

It's just such a sad story, I was looking at a mastiff type bitch they had on their website last week and now the advert has just gone, it doesn't say adopted like they usually say for a few weeks, I now feel awfully guilty for not just going to get her

 

[CorvusCorax]

Maybe there's a reason that both sides of the story don't seem to add up and that's maybe why we should stop speculating and why the armchair lawyers and cops should stop broadcasting their theories on social media and let the relevant parties sort things out through the correct channels instead there may be all manner of things happening behind the scenes that we don't know about and none of us can truly helpfully add to the debate.

 

[Dobiegirl]

Last week i posted on here for help to re-home this beautiful girl Tia ❤. We were overwhelmed with the support and donations we recieved. Today, my friend and her family were all ready and excited to collect Tia from Leigh cats and dogs home only to be told that she had already been sold! To say they are all upset is an understatement!! I myself have rang the home to get more information as the family are heartbroken. I was told that they were given the wrong information on when to collect her and then they apologised!! Unfortunately there is nothing we can do now to get any more information on Tia. That place is a farce!! They care about the money, not the animals. I am totally disgusted!! The family are upset but have vowed to rescue another dog in need. For anyone who donated, i will contact you to return funds or we could donate to the fee of another dog? Its your money so its up to you ❤. I am so sorry about this. I am praying that Tia has gone to a good home 🙏 or if anyone knows who adopted her, can we have an update on how she is please?

Not connected to this case but just using this as an example of LCDH, their reputation is appalling, Ive heard horrendous things about them how dogs after being rehomed are returned as they had bitten and the dogs are then put up for rehoming again with no assessment or history passed on to new owners. I seem to remember there was even a petition to try and close them down.