security guard arrested at olympic site

This was always on the cards. When G4S took over the Olympic contract they shit on the existing search dog provider who was doing a great job, professionally and at a really good rate. They replaced those handlers bu advertising for handlers with their own dogs, vehicle, insurance etc at a crappy rate and employed them directly. Where did G4S think they would get the kit for CT? I notice there is no mention of G4S. Like always they will wash their hands and leave the handler in the shit.
 
Looks like police has nothing else to do then showing their force on security guards..They should deal with terror cells there...too stupid!
 
can't see how it's the fault of the police when they are doing their job, and with regards to terrorism, the woman had explosives on her ffs.... or allegedly did i'd not like to actually speculate here, if that isn't an act of terrorism then i'd like to know what is. Police can't do anything these days without being ripped apart and criticised
 
IT looks like some of the training explosive remained in the vehicle so where does this relate to the police showing too much force on security guards fidelis.
Bad skills on behalf of dog handler

jacquie
 
Police quoted a very small sample had been found.
Its quite possible that this woman was bragging down the local pub that she needs to have explosives for her to carry out here job and someone thought they would report this.
A bit like the travelling one man drug show who did the presentations in the military so we all knew what the shit looked like and what consequences there were.
If indeed it's not the case-then by all means string her up by her feet and stone her to death. Form an orderly line for packets of gravel, I'll see you there.
 
ooh gravel will take ages to do her in you cruel cruel man. Whatever the case, silly mistake if it was one and one, i am sure will not do her career any good in any case
 
annie said:
can't see how it's the fault of the police when they are doing their job, and with regards to terrorism, the woman had explosives on her ffs.... or allegedly did i'd not like to actually speculate here, if that isn't an act of terrorism then i'd like to know what is. Police can't do anything these days without being ripped apart and criticised
Click to expand...

Agreed, its not the fault of the police. She and the other handler were bubbled. A licence to possess explosives is an expensive thing to hold. The G4S handlers are paid shit money and expected to have their own kit. You cannot carry out CT with a dog without the scents. She is certainly not the only one. There are many many people in this country purpoting to be "bomb dog handlers". A tiny fraction (and I mean only the legitimate companies) hold a licence to possess explosives sample for training. A proper licencing system for search dogs and handlers is way overdue. Government regulation would give the discipline value, get rid of the charlatans and prevent this happening again. I don't think that terrorism copmes into it. She would have been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act as a matter of course due to the discovery of explosives.
 
co19 said:
Fidelis, I am absolutely mistified by your last comment.
Click to expand...
Buddy we know that dog handlers have some small pieces of explosives and drugs for training the dogs and this is a fact.I can bet this lady didn't have kilo or two..
And why i said it this way?Just remember all those bombs in UK just a couple of years ago.Why they didn't discovered it then??It was much more than a few grains.They're just showing the force at the wrong place.With good intel work they could discovered those bombs before they were planted.That was my point.
 
A little bit of common sense on both sides would have saved a lot of drama !

Plod having discovered the application, should have given her a mild rebuke, off the record.

The dog handler, being aware, hopefully, of the security around the venue, shouldn't have had anything in the vehicle that would trigger an alert !
 
Visioneer said:
A little bit of common sense on both sides would have saved a lot of drama !

Plod having discovered the application, should have given her a mild rebuke, off the record.

The dog handler, being aware, hopefully, of the security around the venue, shouldn't have had anything in the vehicle that would trigger an alert !
Click to expand...

I agree.

The problem is that in order to carry out proper continuation training on the dog, it has to have finds and the only way to do that is with real kit. As I said before, the expense and trouble of having an explo licence is too much for these handlers. They are being paid shit money by G4S and she probably got a bit of kit from a mate with a licence. The mate is the one that is going to be in big doo doo if she blabs. In the real world, there are ways and means to get kit. I am not saying she is right, in fact quite the opposite. However, the amount would have been tiny, not enouigh to blow the head of a mosquito. Having said that, the possession of explosives without a licence IS a serious offence whether or not I or anyone else on here understand her reasons. At the very least she will lose her SIA licence
 
police are damned if they do and damned if they don't, they can't win either way, they arrest her theyre over the top they don't then they don't take it seriously enough. You know i swear i'd hate to be a policeman these days i really would
 
annie said:
police are damned if they do and damned if they don't, they can't win either way, they arrest her theyre over the top they don't then they don't take it seriously enough. You know i swear i'd hate to be a policeman these days i really would
Click to expand...

I don't think that the police were over the top at all. They were just doing their job. She had explosives, she wasn't licenced, she broke the law, end of. She could have done it another way by having wraps or soaks, her bad.
 
Back
Top