Police dogs ‘should get pensions'
Police dogs should be given pensions in recognition of their service to the country, ministers have been told.
The Thin Blue Paw Foundation (TBPF), a charity for retired police dogs, said ministers had an 'ethical and moral obligation' to the animals which often cost more to care for in retirement because of injuries and health problems derived from their years in police service.
The charity said it has provided grants of £380,000 to owners since it was set up in August 2020, to cover vet bills and care for them after they retire.
It is estimated it costs as much as £250 more a month to look after former police dogs than other dogs.
Kieran Stanbridge, chairman of TBPF said: 'Police dogs give the best years of their lives to the job.
'They throw themselves into dangerous situations without a second thought, they show unwavering loyalty to their handler and their job, and they give so much to help fight crime and keep the public safe.
'During their careers they receive the very best care and support from the force they serve with but, as soon as they hang up their harness, they're on their own, and the responsibility for their often-expensive care falls to their ex-handler or new owner.
'We believe that the Home Office, who allocate funding to police forces nationally, have an ethical and moral obligation to these dogs and shouldn't turn their backs on them when it's time to pay them back for everything they've done.'
There are around 1,700 serving police dogs in the UK, according to the foundation, and roughly 100 retire each year.
The charity has launched a petition to push the Government for a ring-fenced budget to provide support for the owners of retired police dogs.
Conditions such as arthritis can mean bills of up to £2,400 per year for pain medication, the charity said, and because these are pre-existing medical complaints they would not be covered by pet insurance.
Mr Stanbridge said: 'Police dogs lead physically demanding lives and, when they retire – whether due to injury or age – they often have health problems as a result of their career, which can require expensive medication, therapy and management throughout their retirement.
'Taking on any dog is a responsibility, but taking on an older retired police dog with health problems is a huge commitment, particularly during the current cost-of-living crisis.
'We need to ensure that there is support in place for these heroic police dogs so that people aren't put off the idea of rehoming them when they retire and so that owners are never faced with the heartbreaking decision of having them put to sleep because they can't afford their treatment.'
Julie Roy, a Police Scotland dog handler, was faced with large vet bills caring for retired German shepherd Keach, who worked for West Midlands Police before moving north of the border.
Keach has arthritis in her spin and knee, and the Thin Blue Paw Foundation pays for her pain medication.
Ms Roy said: 'Vet bills are expensive and our dogs have worked hard in their working life, putting extra strain on the joints and the body.
'These dogs deserve to have ongoing support when they retire, so they can access the medication and treatment they need having served their communities for so long.'
Claire Bird, a fellow dog handler from West Sussex, adopted Fiji, a Belgian Malinois who worked for Surrey Police. She has required two operations, one for an infection of the uterus and a gastric procedure, and needs regular medication for allergies. So far the foundation has paid £10,000 for her care.
Ms Bird said: 'I've kept all of my working dogs when they retire and, as any dog owner knows, taking care of them is expensive. But I couldn't turn my back on them after everything they've given.
'I believe that there should be more support in place for these incredible heroes when they retire.
'They do so much for us while they're serving and yet when they retire, the Government and the police turn their backs on them.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
a day ago
- UPI
'Unite for Vets' rally in Washington, D.C., protest overhaul of VA
1 of 8 | Veterans, military families and demonstrators gather on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.,, to participate in a Unite for Veterans Rally to protest the Trump Administration's cuts to staffing and programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo June 6 (UPI) -- Several thousand veterans converged on the National Mall on Friday at a rally among 200 events nationwide against a proposed overhaul that includes staffing reduction and some services shifted. The Veterans Administration counters the new proposed budget is higher than last year, processing of claims have sped up and it's easier to get benefits. Veterans, military families and others participated in the Unite for Veterans, Unite for America Rally on the 81st anniversary of D-Day, which was the Allies' amphibious invasion of German-occupied France. The protests, which were organized by a union, took place at 16 state capitol buildings and more than 100 other places across 43 states. "We are coming together to defend the benefits, jobs and dignity that every generation of veterans has earned through sacrifice," Unite for Veterans said on its website. "Veteran jobs, healthcare, and essential VA services are under attack. We will not stand by." Speakers in Washington included Democrats with military backgrounds: Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, former Rep. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania and California Rep. Derek Tran. There were signs against President Donald Trump, VA Secretary Doug Collins and Elon Musk, the multi-billionaire who ran the Department of Government Efficiency. They said those leaders are betraying the country's promises to troops. "Are you tired of being thanked for our service in the public and stabbed in our back in private?" Army veteran Everett Kelly, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, asked the crowd. "For years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have campaigned on their support of veterans, but once they get into office, they cut our benefits, our services. They take every opportunity to privatize our health care." The Trump administration plans to cut 83,000 VA staffers and shift more money from the federal health care system to private-sector clinics. The administration's proposed budget for the VA, released on Friday, slashes spending for "medical services" by $12bn - or nearly 20% - an amount offset by a corresponding 50% boost in funding for veterans seeking healthcare in the private sector. The Department of Veterans Affairs employs approximately 482,000 people, including 500,000 workers at 170 hospitals and 1,200 local clinics in the nation's largest health care system. In all, there are 15.8 million veterans, which represents 6.1% of the civilian population 18 years and older. VA officials said the event was misguided. "Imagine how much better off veterans would be if VA's critics cared as much about fixing the department as they do about protecting its broken bureaucracy," VA press secretary Peter Kasperowicz said in a statement to UPI. "The Biden Administration's VA failed to address nearly all of the department's most serious problems, such as rising health care wait times, growing backlogs of veterans waiting for disability compensation and major issues with survivor benefits." Kasperowicz told UPI disability claims backlog is already down 25% since Trump took office on Jan. 20 after it increased 24% during the Biden administration. He said VA has opened 10 new healthcare clinics around the country, and Trump has proposed a 10% budget increase to $441.3 billion in fiscal year 2026. The administration's proposed budget for the VA reduces spending for "medical services" by $12 billion - or nearly 20% - which is offset by a 50% boost in funding for veterans seeking healthcare in the private sector. Kasperowicz said the "VA is accelerating the deployment of its integrated electronic health record system, after the program was nearly dormant for almost two years under the Biden Administration." The event was modeled after the Bonus Army protests of the 1930s, when veterans who served in World War I gathered in the nation's capital to demand extra pay denied after leaving the service. Irma Westmoreland, a registered nurse working at a VA hospital and the secretary-treasurer of National Nurses United, told the crowd in Washington: "It's important for every person to keep their job, from the engineering staff to the housekeeper to the dietary staff. When cuts are made, the nursing and medical staff will have to pick up all their work that needs to be done."
Vox
a day ago
- Vox
We're secretly winning the war on cancer
is a senior editorial director at Vox overseeing the climate teams and the Unexplainable and The Gray Area podcasts. He is also the editor of Vox's Future Perfect section and writes the Good News newsletter. He worked at Time magazine for 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia, a climate writer, and an international editor, and he wrote a book on existential risk. Thousands of people gather on the National Mall in Washington, DC, on September 26, 1998, to demand that the cause, the care, and the cure of cancer be made top research and healthcare priorities in the US. Paul J. Richards/AFP via Getty Images On November 4, 2003, a doctor gave Jon Gluck some of the worst news imaginable: He had cancer — one that later tests would reveal as multiple myeloma, a severe blood and bone marrow cancer. Jon was told he might have as little as 18 months to live. He was 38, a thriving magazine editor in New York with a 7-month-old daughter whose third birthday, he suddenly realized, he might never see. 'The moment after I was told I had cancer, I just said 'no, no, no,'' Jon told me in an interview just last week. 'This cannot be true.' Living in remission The fact that Jon is still here, talking to me in 2025, tells you that things didn't go the way the medical data would have predicted on that November morning. He has lived with his cancer, through waves of remission and recurrence, for more than 20 years, an experience he chronicles with grace and wit in his new book An Exercise in Uncertainty. That 7-month-old daughter is now in college. You could say Jon has beaten the odds, and he's well aware that chance played some role in his survival. ('Did you know that 'Glück' is German for 'luck'?' he writes in the book, noting his good fortune that a random spill on the ice is what sent him to the doctor in the first place, enabling them to catch his cancer early.) Cancer is still a terrible health threat, one that is responsible for 1 in 6 deaths around the world, killing nearly 10 million people a year globally and over 600,000 people a year in the US. But Jon's story and his survival demonstrate something that is too often missed: We've turned the tide in the war against cancer. The age-adjusted death rate in the US for cancer has declined by about a third since 1991, meaning people of a given age have about a third lower risk of dying from cancer than people of the same age more than three decades ago. That adds up to over 4 million fewer cancer deaths over that time period. Thanks to breakthroughs in treatments like autologous stem-cell harvesting and CAR-T therapy — breakthroughs Jon himself benefited from, often just in time — cancer isn't the death sentence it once was. Our World in Data Getting better all the time There's no doubt that just as the rise of smoking in the 20th century led to a major increase in cancer deaths, the equally sharp decline of tobacco use eventually led to a delayed decrease. Smoking is one of the most potent carcinogens in the world, and at the peak in the early 1960s, around 12 cigarettes were being sold per adult per day in the US. Take away the cigarettes and — after a delay of a couple of decades — lung cancer deaths drop in turn along with other non-cancer smoking-related deaths. But as Saloni Dattani wrote in a great piece earlier this year, even before the decline of smoking, death rates from non-lung cancers in the stomach and colon had begun to fall. Just as notably, death rates for childhood cancers — which for obvious reasons are not connected to smoking and tend to be caused by genetic mutations — have fallen significantly as well, declining sixfold since 1950. In the 1960s, for example, only around 10 percent of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia survived more than five years. Today it's more than 90 percent. And the five-year survival rate for all cancers has risen from 49 percent in the mid-1970s to 69 percent in 2019. We've made strikes against the toughest of cancers, like Jon's multiple myeloma. Around when Jon was diagnosed, the five-year survival rate was just 34 percent. Today it's as high as 62 percent, and more and more people like Jon are living for decades. 'There has been a revolution in cancer survival,' Jon told me. 'Some illnesses now have far more successful therapies than others, but the gains are real.' Three cancer revolutions The dramatic bend in the curve of cancer deaths didn't happen by accident — it's the compound interest of three revolutions. While anti-smoking policy has been the single biggest lifesaver, other interventions have helped reduce people's cancer risk. One of the biggest successes is the HPV vaccine. A study last year found that death rates of cervical cancer — which can be caused by HPV infections — in US women ages 20–39 had dropped 62 percent from 2012 to 2021, thanks largely to the spread of the vaccine. Other cancers have been linked to infections, and there is strong research indicating that vaccination can have positive effects on reducing cancer incidence. The next revolution is better and earlier screening. It's generally true that the earlier cancer is caught, the better the chances of survival, as Jon's own story shows. According to one study, incidences of late-stage colorectal cancer in Americans over 50 declined by a third between 2000 and 2010 in large part because rates of colonoscopies almost tripled in that same time period. And newer screening methods, often employing AI or using blood-based tests, could make preliminary screening simpler, less invasive and therefore more readily available. If 20th-century screening was about finding physical evidence of something wrong — the lump in the breast — 21st-century screening aims to find cancer before symptoms even arise. Most exciting of all are frontier developments in treating cancer, much of which can be tracked through Jon's own experience. From drugs like lenalidomide and bortezomib in the 2000s, which helped double median myeloma survival, to the spread of monoclonal antibodies, real breakthroughs in treatments have meaningfully extended people's lives — not just by months, but years. Perhaps the most promising development is CAR-T therapy, a form of immunotherapy. Rather than attempting to kill the cancer directly, immunotherapies turn a patient's own T-cells into guided missiles. In a recent study of 97 patients with multiple myeloma, many of whom were facing hospice care, a third of those who received CAR-T therapy had no detectable cancer five years later. It was the kind of result that doctors rarely see. 'CAR-T is mind-blowing — very science-fiction futuristic,' Jon told me. He underwent his own course of treatment with it in mid-2023 and writes that the experience, which put his cancer into a remission he's still in, left him feeling 'physically and metaphysically new.' A welcome uncertainty While there are still more battles to be won in the war on cancer, and there are certain areas — like the rising rates of gastrointestinal cancers among younger people — where the story isn't getting better, the future of cancer treatment is improving. For cancer patients like Jon, that can mean a new challenge — enduring the essential uncertainty that comes with living under a disease that's controllable but which could always come back. But it sure beats the alternative. 'I've come to trust so completely in my doctors and in these new developments,' he said. 'I try to remain cautiously optimistic that my future will be much like the last 20 years.' And that's more than he or anyone else could have hoped for nearly 22 years ago. A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!
Tom's Guide
2 days ago
- Tom's Guide
I swapped running for 'Jeffing' for a week — and now I'm hooked
Let me set the scene — I'm on the train in Berlin, heading to the start line of my third marathon, absolutely terrified. I'd set myself the goal of running sub-four hours, and I'd been training for months to make it happen. Sitting next to me, a German woman chats, trying to ease my worries. 'I'm going to be Jeffing,' she tells me. It wasn't till I was back home, marathon medal still on, having achieved my goal, that I thought back to this conversation. What on earth is Jeffing, and why hadn't I heard of it before? Six years and two marathons later, I tried it for the first time, and I'm hooked. Read on to find out more. Jeffing is a run, walk technique developed by US Olympian Jeff Galloway. In simple terms, you run for a bit, then you walk, allowing you to keep going for longer. 'By alternating running and walking from the start, runners stay strong, recover faster and finish feeling good,' says Galloway. Instead of setting out for a run, and continuing at the same pace, Jeffing involves running for between 10-60 seconds, then walking for 30 seconds, from the beginning of the workout. The intervals are flexible — if you're a more experienced runner, you might want to increase the running element, or decrease the amount of time spent walking. As long as there's some form of walking interval from the offset, you're Jeffing. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. I'll admit, like many runners, I've always been afraid to walk. I vividly remember working with a running coach who had to force me to stand still and recover between intervals on the track. I'll even try and jog through water stations on race day. I wasn't expecting to like this challenge, but read on to find out what happened when I tried Jeffing for a week. Of course, a week isn't long enough to see any performance gains, but I didn't feel as exhausted as I would if I'd run for seven days in a row. I'm currently 15 months postpartum, and normally run three times a week for around five miles. I'm not training for anything in particular, and instead, I use my runs to boost my mood and reduce stress. That said, as I rebuild my fitness, I've definitely felt it in my legs when I've pushed myself too hard, and not properly recovered, with a toddler who doesn't sleep. For this week, I swapped my morning walks with 30 minutes of Jeffing, and on the days my little boy went to nursery, I ran/walked for longer. By the end of the week, I'd clocked more miles than I'd normally have done, but I felt completely fine in my body. When done long term, one of the benefits of Jeffing is improved endurance, as the walk breaks allow you to keep running for longer. It can also help you reduce your likelihood of injuries, as the impact is slightly reduced. Running injuries like shin splints or knee pain are common and often caused by overuse. It sounds very poetic, but one of my favorite things about running is the fact that I get to escape. I put a podcast or an audiobook on, and I forget about work and the mountain of chores waiting for me when I get home. On the first couple of days of Jeffing, I found that I was constantly checking my watch, waiting for my 3-minute run interval to be over. I didn't feel like I could switch off, so instead, I decided to build the workout on my watch the night before. Programming the workout into the Garmin Connect app, my Garmin Forerunner 570 buzzed every time I needed to switch pace. This allowed me to get lost in my book again, without having to keep glancing at the screen. Of course, this isn't essential — you can use the stopwatch function on your smartphone, or an old-school stopwatch and run without any device, but if you have one of the best running watches, or best Apple Watches, I'd recommend building the workout beforehand and syncing it to your watch. By the end of the week, I was, once again, getting sick. My toddler is a walking petri dish of bugs since he started nursery, and my immune system hasn't quite caught up yet. I didn't expect to enjoy Jeffing so much. Sure, it's not the fastest I'd run, but it's the first time in a long time I've run every day for a week — and I came to enjoy the walking breaks. While I'd normally skip the run, I decided to continue Jeffing, but reducing the run interval to 60 seconds and walking for 30 seconds. While I'd never recommend running when you're ill (always listen to your body), I found I was able to keep going, and the movement and fresh air helped me feel more like myself. I didn't expect to enjoy Jeffing so much. Sure, it's not the fastest I'd run — I didn't set any PR's, but it's the first time in a long time I've run every day for a week, and I came to enjoy the walking breaks. If you're a beginner, this is a fantastic way to build up your running distances. If you're training for a marathon, Jeffing on your easy runs might be a great way to avoid overuse injuries that might keep you from the start line. Whatever your goal, grab a pair of the best running shoes and get Jeffing — you won't regret it.
