Listening to BBC Radio 4's "PM" programme while driving home this evening, I heard that one listener had complained about the BBC giving more airtime to the news of two police dogs killed as a result of being shut in a police car on one of the hottest days of the year than to two British servicemen killed in action in Afghanistan.
The complainant thought that the soldiers' death deserved more attention than the dogs that were roasted alive in a car as a result of a police dog handler's negligence.
Why, I ask? How can the listener justify the argument that the soldiers' death was more deserving of airtime than that of the dogs?
I would argue the opposite. First, the soldiers had voluntarily chosen to join the armed forces. They were trained killers and they were in Afghanistan to kill. They were in a foreign country, not in their own country, not defending their homeland. They were there to kill and they were killed. Those who live by the word shall die by the sword. They must have known that when they joined the army. Or did they enlist to visit exotic places, meet strange people and kill them?
The police dogs, on the other hand, had no choice. Their human handlers had a duty of care towards them. The dogs trusted their handlers but were betrayed. They died painfully, cruelly and needlessly.
Consequently, of course the news of the dogs' death deserved more airtime. It was not a tragedy or fair game. It was murder.
