# RSPCA Bullyboy tactics - again!



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Daily Mail report:-

Police, RSPCA and firemen turn up mob-handed to seize vet, 70, over claim he was cruel to his dogs | Mail Online

How much has this little publicity seeking exercise by the Animal Al-Queda cost the taxpayer? 

Makes you wonder about the Magistrates who issue Search Warrants? I thought that there were supposed to be strict guidelines regarding proof before Search Warrants are issued?

MJD


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

I don't even need to read the article there shocking about time they were replaced by a better charitee


----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Jay,

This one is worse than usual!

West Mercia Police
1 Sergeant, 2 Constables, 2 PCSOs, 2 Police cars, 1 Police van
Shropshire Fire Brigade 
1 Appliance, 6 Fireman
+ RSPCA

Vs
1 70 year old retired Vet + 2 elderly dogs - 1 of which the RSPCA killed!

The retired vet was arrested, handcuffed, put in a police van barefoot and held for 24 hours in a Police cell!

Congratulations to West Mercia Police - you have now officially taken West Mercia Police into a 'timewarp' - back to the days of the Stasi in East Gemany!

If anyone lives in Shropshire - your taxes are being well-spent? 

Questions have already been raised on the Website Whatdotheyknow - the responses will be interesting!

MJD


----------



## maxcherry (Jan 9, 2009)

I just saw the state of that dog and read the article.

I would have done more than shine a flash light in his face:devil::censor:


----------



## lisadew24 (Jul 31, 2010)

I can't believe someone who use to be a vet left his dog in that state, it looked like the dog couldn't even walk out the house on its own it had to be carried


----------



## mitsi (Feb 1, 2012)

the dog had to be put down, he was being treated for a spinal injury, so its not like the bloke had just left him to suffer, but I do agree as a former vet he should have known that it was best for the dog to be pts.

I think what has really upset people here is the mob handed way it was done.


----------



## lisadew24 (Jul 31, 2010)

The dog was also nearly bald, I personally think he got what he deserved if they did that with more people with suspected of animal/child cruelty they might actually catch more people. My only discust is he was not charged


----------



## akuma 天 (Apr 15, 2008)

I have no objection to the RSPCA being a tad more heavy handed, our country has a shockingly disgusting history of animal abuse and much of that can be put down to limp wristed laws, a lack of any type of meaningful authority and punishments that are beyond a joke.

I have some issues with the story as printed in The Daily Fail



> They took away 12-year-old Puppy


12 year old puppy?



> ‘I was put barefoot in the back of a police van and told I was being arrested. I was in a cell at a police station for 24 hours.


Also if this is true this is an offence on the part of the police, where appropriate suspect must be permitted to be suitably dressed during an arrest, dragging someone from there home bare foot is a huge no no.

From time to time the police and RSPCA will get things wrong, sometimes more spectacular and shocking than others, but on the other hand I am glad that some type of authority is starting to show it doesn't mess about more in this county and that you should take their visits more seriously.


----------



## lisadew24 (Jul 31, 2010)

The way I read it the dog was called puppy because the daily mail write on the photo where they carry it away puppy the sheepdog


----------



## sammy1969 (Jul 21, 2007)

I'm sorry as much as i agree that we do need harsher laws where animal and child cruelty are concerned I cannot agree with the way RSPCA go about this business I have been on the recieving end of them a few times every time unfounded in the accusations made against me and have had them treat me as if i know nothing when i have been able to tell them more about the animals they have come to inspect than they know themselves. I cannot personally comment on this issue but i do feel the way they went into this mans home is jsut a little over the top to say the least. What we really need is a force like they have in the USA where policeofficers are trained to deal specifically with animal issues and cruelty and have the same rights as police to arrest and charge those truly guilty of cruelty instead of a charity that acts as if it is a law unto themelves and alot of the time persecute inocent ppl who are treating their pets in the right and proper manner
I apologise if this sounds a bit like a rant against the RSPCA it isnt as such but i just find them very much guilty of being guilty of treating innocent ppl a guilty and guilty ppl a innocent


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

So he was "dragged away bare footed" yet is clearly wearing shoes in the photo of him at the back of the van!

Just becauase he was a vet doesnt mean that he was still giving the right treatment. He was retired so could not prescribe any medication. If there was a spinal injury how excatly was he managing to treat this himself at home? Veterinary knowledge, practice, and procedures willl have changed considerably since he last practiced.

In addition, it is clear that he was contacted several times by the RSPCA, who had had several complaints about his dogs. I would suggest that he failed to act on any improvement or requests leading to a warrant.

It is common practice on RFUK to jump on the "lets slate the RSPCA" bandwagon whenever one of these stories appear, but with a little effort you can quickly see that the story is not quite as it has been portrayed!


----------



## bampoisongirl (Mar 28, 2008)

ian14 said:


> *So he was "dragged away bare footed" yet is clearly wearing shoes in the photo of him at the back of the van!*
> 
> Just becauase he was a vet doesnt mean that he was still giving the right treatment. He was retired so could not prescribe any medication. If there was a spinal injury how excatly was he managing to treat this himself at home? Veterinary knowledge, practice, and procedures willl have changed considerably since he last practiced.
> 
> ...


 
Errr what? look again, he's got one sock on and the other is barefoot...

Also, are you surprised people hate the RSPCA? There's always something with them...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ife-haven-RSPCA--sell-bulldozed-built-on.html


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

ian14 said:


> In addition, it is clear that he was contacted several times by the RSPCA, who had had several complaints about his dogs. I would suggest that he failed to act on any improvement or requests leading to a warrant.
> 
> It is common practice on RFUK to jump on the "lets slate the RSPCA" bandwagon whenever one of these stories appear, but with a little effort you can quickly see that the story is not quite as it has been portrayed!


Irrespective of the complaints, you must agree that it didn't need all those official people to deal with it??

And sorry, most stories are exactly as they have been portrayed and there are loads more that never reach the newspapers and no-one finds out unless they are specifically involved!


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

feorag said:


> Irrespective of the complaints, you must agree that it didn't need all those official people to deal with it??
> 
> And sorry, most stories are exactly as they have been portrayed and there are loads more that never reach the newspapers and no-one finds out unless they are specifically involved!


The reality is that we don't know the full story only the story portrayed by the Mail. I am a little bemused as to why the fire service were there, however this would not have been without reason.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

The fundamental problem with the RSPCA is it is an organisation that is totally unaccountable to anyone (including the police); they operate above the law and without with complete contempt and disrespect for human welfare. It prides itself on its bully boy tactics prising this quality in its employees (so called inspectors) above anything thing else, and especially interest in or knowledge of animals.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Absolutely agree!!! :bash:


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

ian14 said:


> The reality is that we don't know the full story only the story portrayed by the Mail. I am a little bemused as to why the fire service were there, however this would not have been without reason.


More stuff on the RSPCA - via the Alternative Vet and Radio 4. At least questions are now being asked... Alternative vet says "The RSPCA is a force acting beyond any controls, checks and balances. There is no ombudsman. There is no external constraint.

BBC Radio 4 aired a programme last week. Here it is on 'Listen Again'.

Is this a legitimate use of charitable money?" 


BBC Radio 4 - Face the Facts, The RSPCA - A law unto itself?


----------



## EffyDaydream (Jan 29, 2012)

Couldn't they have knocked on the door... :whistling2:


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Another interesting article.

Archbishop of Canterbury refuses to become patron of RSPCA after charity faces accusation it has lost its way | Mail Online


----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Feorag,

The Times had it on the front page! Also in the Telegraph!

Earlier in the week, The Daily Mail carried an article on illegal access of the Police National Computer by the RSPCA. The RSPCA pay a fee to the Police (per Association of Chief Police Officers) - refer to the Whatdotheyknow website! Police forces alleged that the RSPCA could only access the PNC - but have been proved to have been mistaken in their comments (being less polite, they lied!)

I find the fact that Justin Welby, as Archbishop of Canterbury, is critical of the RSPCA, and pointing to the fact that the 'business', sorry, I mean 'charity' was founded by a C of E clergyman interesting.

Too much to hope that Caroline Lucas will 'change her spots'!

MJD


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

What is truly amazing, and most welcomed I might add, is the sustained criticism the RSPCA are receiving today in the media, it is not only welcomed but crucial if the RSPCA is going to survival as an organisation. We need the RSPCA, or at least we need an organisation that would do the work the RSPCA _should_ be doing, rather than what it is currently _does do_ which is prioritise political campaigning and advocating Animal Rights and discarding anything which delivers practical hands on benefit for Animal Welfare.

Twenty years ago it was almost inconceivable the RSPCA would be criticised in the media, very, very little negative coverage was ever seen in the media and if a story did appear, as in the BBC Newsnight piece against them in which I was involved, they would respond savagely demanding the reports be sacked, as indeed they often were! Today there is hardly a day goes by without some negative story appearing in the media somewhere. This will be demoralising to the RSPCA who fundamentally believe they are above reproach, they believe they can do no wrong and the end justifies the means.

I think the RSPCA now have less than a decade to change their ways and become the organisation that is needed, or rather then demanded by the public. The public support of the RSPCA diminishes by the day, membership is dropping, donations are dropping and even their support by government is waning, they are in a steep downward spiral and they need to take stock before it’s too late. 

Interesting times lay ahead, the clock is ticking………..!!


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

I so agree with this Chris. It's time they had to answer to a higher authority for their poor decisions.

It won't come soon enough for me - and the animals who suffer because they don't do what their original remit was - PREVENT!!!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

There is know doubt things are unravelling for them and quickly, just this month there have been some very damming publications that have appeared. For me the most astonishing is the claim by the new chief executive Gavin Grant: RSPCA 'not driven by politics', says chief Personally I think this is the most disingenuous (dishonest) statement ever made by a chief executive of the RSPCA, it simply beggars belief and epitomes the arrogance of the RSPCA today. It is clear and unarguable (with any degree of integrity), that the RSPCA priorities political campaigning above everything else, part from prosecution. 

And on the issue of prosecutions after decades of denying they use prosecutions for political objectives and as importantly fund razing at least they have stopped denying this is the case: RSPCA accused of using criminal prosecutions to increase revenue

And finally the cat is out of the bag over how the RSPCA prosecute or rather how they abuse the judicial system to achieve their political and financial objectives: Vet claims RSPCA called him 'arch-enemy'

There are more revelations in the pipeline as well, so as I said before interesting times ahead…….!!


----------



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

I recently spoke to an ex inspector who had left after a change in policy.

The inspectors where/are to be appraised based on the number of prosecutions that they deliver rather than how many animals they improve the welfare of.

This means that inspectors are judged to be doing well if they get prosecutions.


The upshot of this is that inspectors that witness minor cruelty have an incentive to _leave the case until it reaches a level at which a prosecution may be successful_ rather than the expectation of the 'prevention' part of the name which expects inspectors to intervene and advise how to improve conditions in order to prevent further suffering of that animal.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

bothrops said:


> I recently spoke to an ex inspector who had left after a change in policy.
> 
> The inspectors where/are to be appraised based on the number of prosecutions that they deliver rather than how many animals they improve the welfare of.
> 
> ...


Very interesting, but comes as absolutely no surprise. The RSPCA has become more and more militant and less and less interested in animal welfare as time goes on, what would be very interesting to know (I have asked but have always been rebuffed) is what is the average age of an RSPCA inspector today compared to say thirty years ago?

I actually asked if they could give an average age for the Inspectorate each decade, going back to 1950, i.e. what was the average age of an inspector in 1950, 1960, 1970 and so on, I would wager it would be very, very revelling…….!!


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

bothrops said:


> The upshot of this is that inspectors that witness minor cruelty have an incentive to _leave the case until it reaches a level at which a prosecution may be successful_ rather than the expectation of the 'prevention' part of the name which expects inspectors to intervene and advise how to improve conditions in order to prevent further suffering of that animal.


This is exactly my point - their original remit when formed way back when was to PREVENT and they just aren't doing that.

I've witnessed first hand situations exactly like that where animals that were dying were taken away, but those that weren't were left until they were dying.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

feorag said:


> This is exactly my point - their original remit when formed way back when was to PREVENT and they just aren't doing that.
> 
> I've witnessed first hand situations exactly like that where animals that were dying were taken away, but those that weren't were left until they were dying.


Weather the ‘P’ stands for Persecution or Profit is an arguable point, but clearly it does not stand for Prevention, or certainly not prevention of cruelty, prevention of responsible keeping may be another alternative……!!


----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Chris,

One problem is that the RSPCA blatantly use prosecutions as a means of 'attracting' donations - but in doing so, they breach the basic tenets laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the CPS seem unable to understand why they themselves exist! A primary aspect which is ignored by both the RSPCA is 'is a prosecution in the public interest'. A case brought by the RSPCA against an 80 year old birdkeeper suffering from cancer was most certainly not in 'the public interest'.

A full investigation of the RSPCA and suspension of private prosecutions is long overdue!

The RSPCA access the Police National Computer - under an agreement with The Association of Chief Police Officers - and it would appear that this is, in fact, illegal! The problem has been passed to The Information Commissioners Office.

The RSPCA also have unlawfully obtained Search Warrants - and by doing so, render any prosecution void ab-initio. However various Police Forces and Magistrates refuse to provide copies of Applications for Search Warrants - which is a very questionable course of action. In effect, conspiring to pervert the course of justice. 

One thing which every person can do is to write to their Member of Parliament raising their concerns regarding the actions of the RSPCA. According to certain MPs & MEPs with whom I am in contact, this course of action does work!

MJD


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

duffey1 said:


> Chris,
> 
> One problem is that the RSPCA blatantly use prosecutions as a means of 'attracting' donations - but in doing so, they breach the basic tenets laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the CPS seem unable to understand why they themselves exist! A primary aspect which is ignored by both the RSPCA is 'is a prosecution in the public interest'. A case brought by the RSPCA against an 80 year old birdkeeper suffering from cancer was most certainly not in 'the public interest'.
> 
> ...


I fully agree that there is an urgent need for a judicial review of how the RSPCA operate in terms of prosecutions. Now the cat is out of the bag so to speak in they use prosecutions to raise funds, even Gavin Grant has now conceded this, this raises the very serious concern are RSPCA prosecutions safe?

The answer to that question is an emphatic NO – in my view all RSPCA prosecutions are unsafe, not necessarily wrong, but unsafe as they are not independently scrutinised. I recently had the opportunity to put a question to one of the senior prosecution officers of the RSPCA at a meeting in Parliament. He said in his presentation that the RSPCA comply with the Code of Practice for Crown Prosecutors!

So I asked him this question: “one of the three prerequisites to be a Crown Prosecutors is impartiality, this is a mandatory requirement. As the RSPCA may campaign actively against an activity, they will also be enforcing legislation pertaining to that activity and ultimately prosecute for a breach of the law pertaining to that activity; would you please explain to me how you can claim to act impartially?” – He could not answer the question…….!!

It is time, in fact it is long overdue that that the RSPCA are forced to work through an independent prosecuting authority such as the CPS. What possible objection could they have to working with an independent body reviewing cases _before_ going to court? It works perfectly well in Scotland, so why are the RSPCA so terrified of justice being seen to be done here in England and Wales…….?


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Chris Newman said:


> It is time, in fact it is long overdue that that the RSPCA are forced to work through an independent prosecuting authority such as the CPS. What possible objection could they have to working with an independent body reviewing cases _before_ going to court? It works perfectly well in Scotland, so why are the RSPCA so terrified of justice being seen to be done here in England and Wales…….?


Good question!! :2thumb:


----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Chris/Feorag,

If the CPS, as the properly constituted authority, took over the prosecutions from the RSPCA, an estimated 75 - 80% of the prosecutions would be dropped because they fail to reach the strict criteria set by the CPS!

That, in turn, would generate less 'advertising revenue' for the RSPCA!

As we know, the RSPCA are scared of the fact that their, often illegal, acts might be made public.

Certain Police forces actively protect the RSPCA - Norfolk Police received 831 complaints (if my memory is correct) and investigated precisely NIL. Even a complaint of perjury by an RSPCA employee in a Court case was ignored by Norfolk's 'finest' - despite an independent witness, video evidence and Court transcript! When Police forces are that corrupt, one has to question every aspect of their actions!

I, personally, would have no problem if the RSPCA actually did the job they were set up to do! But 'prevention of cruelty' is not part of their current make-up! 

MJD


----------



## akuma 天 (Apr 15, 2008)

This story here is one of the reasons I support the RSPCA being more aggressive in there tactics and trying to get more people into court, its just a shame in this instance the courts sentence was a joke.

Cruel farmer shot woman's two dogs with a bolt gun leaving them to die slow and painful death after they escaped and were left with him 'for safekeeping' | Mail Online


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

akuma 天;11477733 said:


> This story here is one of the reasons I support the RSPCA being more aggressive in there tactics and trying to get more people into court, its just a shame in this instance the courts sentence was a joke.
> 
> Cruel farmer shot woman's two dogs with a bolt gun leaving them to die slow and painful death after they escaped and were left with him 'for safekeeping' | Mail Online


What is you position then on the RSPCA to use bolt guns to kill dogs?

RSPCA puts down 10 German Shepherds with bolt gun


----------



## mitsi (Feb 1, 2012)

akuma 天;11477733 said:


> This story here is one of the reasons I support the RSPCA being more aggressive in there tactics and trying to get more people into court, its just a shame in this instance the courts sentence was a joke.
> 
> Cruel farmer shot woman's two dogs with a bolt gun leaving them to die slow and painful death after they escaped and were left with him 'for safekeeping' | Mail Online


 
cases like this then yes but its a pity that they only do this with the more high profile cases that are likely to get in the news, any less so and they don't bother, just comes down to what they can make the most money on, and they will go with that. Problem is there are probably lots of smaller cases that either get nothing done about them, or the animals are taken totally incorrectly just to get more money in their pockets. I for one would never let them past my door and I have nothing to hide from anyone.


----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Akuma

Unsure why you posted!

The case reported in the Daily Mail was processed by the Police and the properly constituted authority, The Crown Prosecution Service - the RSPCA were not involved in any way!

And, as Chris Newman pointed out, the RSPCA are very willing to use bolt guns on dogs - and deer - and make a mess of the job, and get away without being prosecuted!

MJD


----------



## Uromastyxman (Jan 28, 2009)

I'm sure the RSPCA are a pain, however, the dog being carried out on a board looks like it is in a very sorry state.

People have to realise that if they mistreat animals in this way they may be dealt with. I see so many people attacking the RSPCA and I'm sure much of it is justified, however this guy was arrested and was carted off because he was cruel to his animals, there seems to be no doubt of that. And you can bet there was a story building up to the arrest. 

There may have been too any people there, however, he had animals, he was cruel to his animals, he was nicked, so what?

Would he have preferred a couple of pretty female police officers to make him a cup of tea and put a blanket around his shoulders?

The point is he did what he did, the number of officials at the scene is secondary. People should stop bleating on and start looking at ways of regulating animal owners being cruel, if there was less of that the RSPCA would have less prosecutions to make.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Uromastyxman said:


> I'm sure the RSPCA are a pain, however, the dog being carried out on a board looks like it is in a very sorry state.
> 
> People have to realise that if they mistreat animals in this way they may be dealt with. I see so many people attacking the RSPCA and I'm sure much of it is justified, however this guy was arrested and was carted off because he was cruel to his animals, there seems to be no doubt of that. And you can bet there was a story building up to the arrest.
> 
> ...


The point is, I would suggest, is that RSPCA use bolt guns to kill dogs as it is cheaper than using more expensive (and humane) drugs and that appears to be acceptable, but if someone else uses the same that is not ok! I am in no way defending his actions, merely pointing out the hypocrisy. Is not the irresponsible dog owner the real villain…….!!


----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Uromastyxman

I find it frightening how gullible people can be when they see a photo!

The camera can, and does lie! Especially when the photo is supplied by a 'charity' whose 'spin doctors make Tony Blair's 'spin doctors' look like novices!

In one court case brought by the RSPCA video footage, with soundtrack, showed birds clinging to the wire and the 'Expert Witness' smugly stating that, in his opinion 'the birds were wild caught because they showed no perching sense'. Unfortunately, for the RSPCA, there was cameraphone footage showing the Expert Witness removing the perching in the flight and chasing the birds onto the wire!

As further examples of how the gullible can be taken in by film/photos the following are from personal experience from working for a wildlife film producer :-
1. Basilisk shown running across the surface of a pool : planted studio set - with a sheet of glass just below the water surface!
2. Barheaded Geese in a flock flying over the Himalayas : 7 Barheads used, multiple images made and superimposed over footage of the Himalayas! The Barheads (hatched in Norfolk!) never left the UK!

Avian oriented 'oldies' may remember a BBC video made in the 60's/70's entitled Birds of the Sun God' - a video on Hummingbirds. The opening sequence of a Pygmy Hermit Hummingbird 'skimming' along the forest floor was a captive bird (owned, I think, by Rod Elgar) was filmed in a planted studio, and most of the film footage was shot in the upstairs room of a bird importer, Barry Riley) shop!

Any photo used by the RSPCA must be treated with scepticism and caution!

MJD


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

akuma 天;11477733 said:


> This story here is one of the reasons I support the RSPCA being more aggressive in there tactics and trying to get more people into court, its just a shame in this instance the courts sentence was a joke.
> 
> Cruel farmer shot woman's two dogs with a bolt gun leaving them to die slow and painful death after they escaped and were left with him 'for safekeeping' | Mail Online


From what I've read and heard abouot this case the RSPCA weren't involved at all.

The owner went to the police and the police brought the action.


----------

