http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-say-back.html

I think it is appalling that this dog isn't returned to her rightful owners.
If you buy stolen goods, knowingly or in good faith, it is your loss.
The only difference is whether you get prosecuted for handling stolen goods or not.
That's why people pay to have cars checked for outstanding HP etc, so they don't take a loss unknowingly buying something the seller doesn't actually own to sell.
It definately sounds like laziness on the part of the police.
It's not even a complicated case as the family have clear proof of ownership via paperwork and the microchip
. However I find it very odd that the little girl who so loves her dog is repeatedly quoted as asking when "it", (the dog) not "she" or "Millie", is coming back .
This is how one refers to a possession, not a supposedly loved family member.
Albeit even as a possession they are still entitled to have the dog back.

Could just be a misquote of what the child said, or simply that the little girl doesn't understand the difference between "it" and "she" yet.

Either way, this is disgraceful. All the people around who don't take the necessary precautions like getting their dogs microchipped, then you have this poor family who made the effort to get theirs done, and this happens.

I just hope whoever has the puppy sees the article and feels sorry enough to offer to give the puppy back. Though the longer it goes on, the harder it will be for the poor puppy to readjust

This makes no sense if your car is stolen and sold to another person if the car is found it is returned to you. Why when we are told repeatedly dogs are "things like cars etc" does the same rule not apply.

It does make a mockery of the reasons for micro-chipping a dog in the first place!! However I suppose that some owners don't bother to update microchip details with the microchip company, or fail to remain in touch with previous owners to get their permission to update chip details.

Whilst I feel very sorry for the original owners, especially as they spent a lot of money on the puppy, they only had the puppy for 3 weeks & it's now 6 months old, so the puppy's probably more used to its current home & owners & it may be worse for the puppy to now be returned to the original owners.

I don't believe Megan is still upset about the puppy, but doubtless the emotions are mixed up with the death of the dad, very sad.

I agree with wilhemina that the puppy won't remember the owners and may be happy in its new home, but that is not the reason the police have failed to return it to the owners. It raises concerns about what would happen in other cases where an adult animal was stolen which would of course remember its owners - presumably the police attitude would be the same, which is very concerning.

Why did they leave a tiny puppy on its own in the garden though, not a good idea for a variety of reasons

It seems this case is not unique and it has happened to adult dogs. So what rights do we have ? As I have said previously the police I thought viewed dogs a property no better than a car or TV so they do not launch a search like they would for child for instance. But now they are saying they are not like property and those rules do not apply.

It seems a microchip cannot help when it comes to stolen animals but they encourage us to indelibly mark our electrical items so they can be returned to us if they are found.

As per my previous post - Radio 2 is currently featuring yet another case, this time an 11 year old dog who was rehomed within a week of going missing - the new owners are refusing to give her back. (She was wearing ID but apparently lost the collar.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml