# RSPCA - again! Daily Mail report



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Posted - in keeping with certain other threads relating to the wonderful caring charity!

Full marks to the reporting staff of The Daily Mail!

Why did the RSPCA shoot dead more than 40 sheep in a grisly dockside massacre? | Mail Online

Please sign the Petition below and circulate to anyone with a genuine interest in animals and livestock!

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807


----------



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

Nice to see these stats published 

*While the RSPCA now spends around £8.7million a year prosecuting headline-making court cases, many of its day-to-day operations are woefully underfunded. Its Preston branch, which costs £600 a day to run, claims to be weeks from bankruptcy.*
*Figures uncovered last week revealed that the RSPCA rehoused 10,000 fewer animals in 2011 than it did in 2009, and that it now kills 44 per cent of the animals it supposedly rescues — which amounts to a shocking 53,000 animals a year. Of that number, 3,400 are destroyed for 'non-medical reasons', such as lack of space in underfunded catteries.*
*These grim statistics coincide with falling membership figures. A decade ago, the RSPCA had about 35,000 members, whereas today the charity has just 25,000. (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, by contrast, boasts one million).* 


Will also be interesting to see this report released:

*Meanwhile, the Charities Commission has declared it the third most complained-about charity in Britain, behind the Jehovah's Witnesses and a non-profit organisation called The HFSH Charitable Trust, devoted to faith healers.*
*Against this backdrop, the events of September 12 offer an interesting snapshot of Gavin Grant's modern RSPCA. *
*The tragedy is detailed in an official report which currently sits on the desk of Farming Minister David Heath. Though completed in October, it remains secret owing to what DEFRA calls 'legal reasons'.*


...................

*The questions about the death of 46 sheep at Ramsgate on September 12 will not be cleared up until DEFRA's report is finally released. Sources at the ministry expect that to happen in a matter of weeks.*
*What will it say? One person who almost certainly knows is Farming Minister David Heath. By co-incidence, he recently declared that Grant's RSPCA 'needs to make a choice over whether they are a fringe campaign group or a responsible organisation working with us in partnership on animal welfare'.*


----------



## SnakeBreeder (Mar 11, 2007)

I've signed the partition : victory:


----------



## philipniceguy (Mar 31, 2008)

Signed also, it is the worst protection any animal can have the RSPCA :devil:. I have had many dealings with them over the years mostly due to frightened neighbours seeing large lizards in my bedroom window (inside huge vivs). They have been in and I'm yet to meet a RSPCA working who even knows what a "common nile monitor" is :lol2: let alone to "tell" if they care for correctly or not. I also had a few deals with them of were they have taken dogs of people without any legit reasons bla bla bla. forced entry (healthy dogs) taking the dogs without concent (again healthy dog) the list goes on and i'm pretty sure they break the law every single day of the week but yet goverment still allow them to carry on why??????

They are not about animal wellbeing anymore. I think them figures are well below the true amount of dogs,cats so on that get detroyed alot of which came from good, safe homes but the owners just could not afford to take on the RSPCA to get justice done.


----------



## TalulaTarantula (Jan 21, 2011)

Wow..really shocked at those figures, when i see the millions they spend on crap i cant help but think of that tv commercial saying they need to raise 1 million for the animals.

As far as im concerned i've never liked the RSPCA..they like to think they know what theyre doing but the havent got a clue especiialy when it comes to exotics and big animals.

A friend had the RSPCA called on her because apparntly her driving ponies were being abused, these ponies where better looked after than i am!
Yet when i reported a herd of neglected ponies near me they did nothing, i took it upon my self to feed and water these ponies in the end. They wouldnt of made it through the hotter months or the freezin cold ones if i hadnt of made sure they were fed and waterd. Bah sterds


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Forwarded the E-petition to the Daily Mail, they may be able to use it. :2thumb:


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

Yawn same old rubbish on here stop believing the lies and rubbish the Daily Fail prints the RSPCA do alot of amazing work and animal welfare is better in this country due to them go and worry about people not caring for there animals in the first place. :devil::devil::devil::devil:


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Reptile Steve said:


> Yawn same old rubbish on here stop believing the lies and rubbish the Daily Fail prints the RSPCA do alot of amazing work and animal welfare is better in this country due to them go and worry about people not caring for there animals in the first place. :devil::devil::devil::devil:



You have reptiles? Yes?
What will you do when the RSPCA lobbies enough and all reptile keeping us banned?
What would you do if the RSPCA come to your door asking to see your reps... Then proceed to issue demands about how they are kept or risk having your animals removed.
Please don't tell me you have nothin to worry about as yours are kept in good conditions, this means nothing to the the RSPCA! They have no idea about reptile keeping an thus make huge errors....
Snakes on aspen... Wrong
Snakes in rubs.... Wrong

The list goes on.

Sadly that's just the exotics side of things.
They are as ridiculous with domestic animals too.
:-(


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

This is getting :censor:ing ridiculous. So you join up, and make just about every single post you have about/against the RSPCA. If the countries police actually upheld animal welfare legislation, then the RSPCA wouldn't need to spend money doing it for them, if the police prosecuted the hunters who BROKE THE LAW rather than the RSPCA then they wouldn't have to have spent all that money. 

Why complain that too many animals are being put down? Where the hell do you expect them to go? There is no room in shelters for them, there's hardly anyone adopting, because nobody can afford to! Hence why these animals are dumped or neglected in the first place. Where's your actual evidence rather than articles from the media? And at the end of the day, why do those sheep suddenly matter to you now just because they were killed by the RSPCA, they were going for slaughter, and would have been killed in the exact same manner just in a different place by different people.

Rather than moaning about the only solution we have why not try actually moaning about the problem? There are far too many animals in this country, far too few homes for them to go to and far too few people with the knowledge to care for them. On top of that there are far too few places in shelters when people get fed up of them or can't afford them. It costs 500,000 annually to run the small centre I used to work at, that didn't include staff wages! They may have a lot of money but if they suddenly didn't because they didn't fund raise, or have the good sense to save some what would they feed the animals? How would they pay the vet bills? You'd moan then too no doubt! If you don't like the way the system is then get off your backsides and do a better job rather than relying on others to pick up the pieces. You all go on about how the RSPCA have the same powers as you or I well go on then, lets see you do it better!

If there was this amount of hate spread around the forum about any other organisation...the FBH maybe?, persons or business it would have been dealt with by now, naming and shaming and all that lark. I'm in no way saying that the RSPCA are perfect but for god sake come on! This is getting ridiculous!


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Reptile Steve said:


> Yawn same old rubbish on here stop believing the lies and rubbish the Daily Fail prints the RSPCA do alot of amazing work and animal welfare is better in this country due to them go and worry about people not caring for there animals in the first place. :devil::devil::devil::devil:


Whilst we all agree that there is a need for an organisation which looks out for the welfare of animals, I feel it is you that needs to look at the evidence.
The daily mail is not the only source of information people have! Plenty of people on this very site have had dealings with them, either having worked for them or been victimised by them.
Search the forum for RSPCA and read what people are saying.

we need the RSPCA, we really do, but we need the RSPCA of 1874 not the political lobbysit Animal Rights group that we have today.


----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

ReptileSteve

Lest we forget - you work for them!

Animal Welfare in the UK is provided by charities such as Blue Cross, PDSA and Cats Protection - the RSPCA contribute very little to Animal Welfare, and what little Animal Welfare that is done in their name is done by local, self-funded groups - not by Horsham!

'Lies and rubbish' - isn't that what the RSPCA publicity machine pushes out to the Public and the Press! Or in the case of Andy Shipp (RSPCA Legal Dept & ex-SOU), it's a good definition of his statement to MPs of a Select Committee - and the lies are provable!


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

Rach1 said:


> You have reptiles? Yes?
> What will you do when the RSPCA lobbies enough and all reptile keeping us banned?
> What would you do if the RSPCA come to your door asking to see your reps... Then proceed to issue demands about how they are kept or risk having your animals removed.
> Please don't tell me you have nothin to worry about as yours are kept in good conditions, this means nothing to the the RSPCA! They have no idea about reptile keeping an thus make huge errors....
> ...


hahahaha again your talking rubbish i work for the RSPCA at there reptile rescue in Brighton we have some snakes on aspen and in rubs and i know alot about reptile keeping get your facts straight :devil::devil::devil::devil:


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Drayvan said:


> It costs 500,000 annually to run the small centre I used to work at, that didn't include staff wages!


Tell me, how much of this annual bill was footed by RSPCA HQ? And how much was footed by direct public donations to the shelter.

I agree on some points you make, the OP clearly has a vendetta against the RSPCA, of some sort. Though I agree with the sentiments of the petition, and so I'm happy to support that.

I also agree that we need the RSPCA. However, I do not agree with their methods and political agenda. an animal Welfare Charity should be just that. they should be assisting the police, not taking the place of them.

If the SSPCA can mangae to do things the right way, why can't the RSPCA?

I agree, the police forces should be putting more effort into legitimate prosecutions, but in reality (and this is more a genuine question) how often, in %, do the RSPCA actually utilise the police in their 'investigations'?
If it isn't 100% in cases ending in prosecution, then I don't believe they are doing the job properly.

Just my tuppence.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Sadly mate it isn't rubbish.
Take a wander over to the snakes section,
There are many threads on there with people in bits because their animals have been threatened with removal due to issues like I have stated.
One poor girl, created wonderful natural habitats for her snakes, spent a lot of time and money on them. Natural materials, logs, plants etc.
RSPCA roll up and tell her using RUBS is wrong.
She was in bits.

So I think before you come on here telling me this doesn't happen please read up first.
Also, would you be so kind as to explain to me why the RSPCA left several horses starving in a mud soaked field last year, with no food or water for months. They refused to attend despite many many compaints.

Several horses died as a result.

They only attended once papers got involved.
Several people from the village used their own money to pay for food and vets treatment.


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

duffey1 said:


> ReptileSteve
> 
> Lest we forget - you work for them!
> 
> ...


Not true they do alot for animal welfare as i know as i work for them and don't sit at home reading lies and rubbish and then put it on here stop your keyboard warrior rubbish and try and do some good for animals for a change.


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

Rach1 said:


> Sadly mate it isn't rubbish.
> Take a wander over to the snakes section,
> There are many threads on there with people in bits because their animals have been threatened with removal due to issues like I have stated.
> One poor girl, created wonderful natural habitats for her snakes, spent a lot of time and money on them. Natural materials, logs, plants etc.
> ...


Sadly yes it is why do you think everything you read is true?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Rather than turn this into yet another RSPCA bashing thread, which as enjoyable as it is, is ultimately unproductive….. perhaps we use this as an opportunity to make the point of what we would like to see the RSPCA be, i.e. what would you all change if you could?


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Tarron said:


> Tell me, how much of this annual bill was footed by RSPCA HQ? And how much was footed by direct public donations to the shelter.
> 
> I agree on some points you make, the OP clearly has a vendetta against the RSPCA, of some sort. Though I agree with the sentiments of the petition, and so I'm happy to support that.
> 
> ...


No idea on finances, but being in a little village in the middle of nowhere there weren't an awful lot of public donations, so I would imagine that the centre did receive financial help.

The SSPCA as far as I'm aware have more legal powers than the RSPCA, apart from that I couldn't say what the difference was apart from Scotland not being as populated, therefore less of a problem. Who knows. As for police involvement, a lot of times the police don't want to know when it comes to animals, when contacted by the public it's a simple case of 'thats for the RSPCA to deal with' maybe even the police assume them higher power than they actually have? It seems whats needed it for all parties involved to talk it out and decide whether they want animal welfare policed by an outsider organisation or whether they are going to involve themselves.



Rach1 said:


> Sadly mate it isn't rubbish.
> Take a wander over to the snakes section,
> There are many threads on there with people in bits because their animals have been threatened with removal due to issues like I have stated.
> One poor girl, created wonderful natural habitats for her snakes, spent a lot of time and money on them. Natural materials, logs, plants etc.
> ...


Thats probably why, the way the law stands, if someone takes responsibility for the animals, i.e feeding, medicating, then they accept ownership of the animal, legally that animal is now being cared for and cannot be removed by the RSPCA. It's a stupid law, it really is but as far as I'm aware thats how it is.


----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Chris,

If the RSPCA operated as the Charity they used to be I, for one, would have few problems.

If they followed the lead of the SSPCA, and processed any prosecutions through the properly constituted authority, the CPS, concentrated on Animal Welfare, and refrained from political activity, I might actually support them!


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Reptile Steve said:


> Sadly yes it is why do you think everything you read is true?


I dont.
The thread in question was started by the girl herself.
Asking for help....

Also, please can you use punctuation, (not a dig) but I struggled to make sense if that last post initially.

It wasnt a thread by some anti-RSPCA person.
It was a thread started by a young lass who was scared.
:-(


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Drayvan, I believe you're right, but why let it get to that stage?
Why let it get to the point where the animals are so I'll that people can't just stand back anymore.
It's a crazy law.


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> Rather than turn this into yet another RSPCA bashing thread, which as enjoyable as it is, is ultimately unproductive….. perhaps we use this as an opportunity to make the point of what we would like to see the RSPCA be, i.e. what would you all change if you could?


Fair point Chris,

As mentioned, I'd like to see them become more of an SSPCA type organisation than what they currently are.

As a charity, they should act in a similar vain as others, such as the NSPCC, whereby that act in accordance with the authorities. ie,

1. Phone call received by RSPCA, which would lead to an investigation

2. RSPCA attend the owner on a 'doorstep check'. They advise that a complaint has been made, how best to deal with any issues raised. At this point, it should be dealing with the person. do they have any personal issues which have led to an issue? Are they just unaware that it is an issue? Are they aware of the issue, but too deep and scared to find help?

3. Once any initial issues are solved/attended, the RSPCA should leave a 'report' with the owner, detailing who they can call for advice and help, be it a vet, CAB, local keepers of the species, hobby organisations.

4. a follow up inspection should be made a few weeks later, just to check everything is ok, including a call back to the original complainant(s). Please note, it will be up to the owner to INVITE the 'inspector' in, rather than the RSPCA demand to see an animal.

5. If further complaints are made, or the situation is still not resolved. The RSPCA should then meet with local enforcement officers from the council/police to attend a 'home inspection' where they will enter the premises and view the animals. a qualified vet should be in attendance, and someone who understands the real care requirements of the species in question.

6. A final warning should be issued to the owner. Any medical treatment should be adminstered and charged to the owner and a final inspection scheduled for a given time.

7. If no further progress has been made, the police should sieze the animals, to be handed over to the RSPCA until a court case is organised. All animals seized should be kept with suitably qualified or experienced keepers, and NO EUTHANISATION is to occur until the court and appeals have been concluded. all charges will be held until a judgement is made. If found guilty, the owner will pay the charges.

8. Of course, throughout the process, if serious health or safety issues are noted, the process should immediately jump to step 7, and decisions should be made by a qualified independent vet.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Rach1 said:


> Drayvan, I believe you're right, but why let it get to that stage?
> Why let it get to the point where the animals are so I'll that people can't just stand back anymore.
> It's a crazy law.


It depends how long ago it was, pre 2006/7 before the new animal welfare act, an animal actually had to be deemed to be suffering (and not in that condition for medical reasons) before anything could be done, and by that time it was usually too late for most animals. Post that law then something should have been done, the animal welfare laws and those enforcing them should be there to protect animals, not to bring about prosecutions when people ignore it. 

The problem is there's far too much for one organisation to do, illegal hunting, illegal importing, corners cut with livestock because farmers can't make ends meet, the overpopulation of companion animals and the new challenge of trying to stop that happening with 'exotics' too. Something needs to change yes, but constant moaning and petitions (sorry, but they hardly ever work, the RSPCA is an easy scapegoat for the government to get out of spending money on animal welfare enforcement) won't help.


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> Rather than turn this into yet another RSPCA bashing thread, which as enjoyable as it is, is ultimately unproductive….. perhaps we use this as an opportunity to make the point of what we would like to see the RSPCA be, i.e. what would you all change if you could?


1) Rather than sticking to guidelines then investigators should air some common sense.

2) Make the training course more accessible to all enabling a wider range of people with different experiences and backgrounds to become inspectors.

3) I would like to see the RSPCA perhaps helping out other charities and rescues with any food they do not use within a year.

4) Majority of cases to be looked at and not shoved under the carpet. 

5) Anyone caught phoning the RSPCA to get their own back on another person to be punished accordingly.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Tarron said:


> Fair point Chris,
> 
> As mentioned, I'd like to see them become more of an SSPCA type organisation than what they currently are.
> 
> ...


Can't really add much to that really :no1: THIS is how it should be. This is how it is supposed to be.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

possibly, the RSPCA needs to return to to its 'grass-roots' and stick to the welfare of 'pets'.
maybe it's trying to burn the candle at both ends so to speak, as its begun to dip its fingers in too many pies.
the RSPCA were (and i may be wrong) supposed to be about the welfare of domestic 'pets' and were there to offer help/advice. 
leave the lobbying about hunting, animal transport etc to other groups and spend the funds donated on advising and helping people in difficuties.


----------



## pirez (May 3, 2009)

*While the RSPCA now spends around £8.7million a year prosecuting headline-making court cases, many of its day-to-day operations are woefully underfunded. Its Preston branch, which costs £600 a day to run, claims to be weeks from bankruptcy.
Figures uncovered last week revealed that the RSPCA rehoused 10,000 fewer animals in 2011 than it did in 2009, and that it now kills 44 per cent of the animals it supposedly rescues — which amounts to a shocking 53,000 animals a year. Of that number, 3,400 are destroyed for 'non-medical reasons', such as lack of space in underfunded catteries.
These grim statistics coincide with falling membership figures. A decade ago, the RSPCA had about 35,000 members, whereas today the charity has just 25,000. (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, by contrast, boasts one million). *

Shocking.


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

pirez said:


> *While the RSPCA now spends around £8.7million a year prosecuting headline-making court cases, many of its day-to-day operations are woefully underfunded. Its Preston branch, which costs £600 a day to run, claims to be weeks from bankruptcy.
> Figures uncovered last week revealed that the RSPCA rehoused 10,000 fewer animals in 2011 than it did in 2009, and that it now kills 44 per cent of the animals it supposedly rescues — which amounts to a shocking 53,000 animals a year. Of that number, 3,400 are destroyed for 'non-medical reasons', such as lack of space in underfunded catteries.
> These grim statistics coincide with falling membership figures. A decade ago, the RSPCA had about 35,000 members, whereas today the charity has just 25,000. (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, by contrast, boasts one million). *
> 
> Shocking.


It doesnt say how many of those animals destroyed were due to being fighting dogs or due to the ridiculous DDA :/


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Ok, I am not a full anti-rspca person but when i see things like this...

A vet with a tender heart and the saving of a skeletal, helpless horse called Hope | Mail Online











The RSPCA confirmed yesterday that officers had visited the field ‘repeatedly’ over the past two years but had never found evidence to support suggestions a crime had been committed. Last week one horse was said to have been ‘lean’, but others all had food and water and were in good health.

an RSPCA officer who inspected the animal said she was not in a desperate enough condition to warrant being taken away. Meanwhile, it would take six people four hours to wash the mud from her coat and coax her to stand unaided.

and this article is just staggering..
Our once great RSPCA is being destroyed by a militant tendency - Telegraph


----------



## bbav (Oct 17, 2007)

Drayvan said:


> why do those sheep suddenly matter to you now just because they were killed by the RSPCA, they were going for slaughter, and would have been killed in the exact same manner just in a different place by different people.


 Edited Quote only because this is the part i wanted to comment on.

I have worked in a slaughter house so know about how a proper fully trained slaughterman uses a bolt gun,The pictures the RSPCA took for there protest placards shows massive amounts of blood.
A properly used bolt gun leaves *very* little blood so they were either killed incorrectly (IE hitting at the side of the head or not holding the gun correctly so grazing the skull and having to do it again) due to poor training.
Or done intentionally for a more impacting image.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

this also worries me...

Because of its care of animals, the RSPCA is treated in a special way. Its inspectors wear uniforms, though they have no legal powers. Chief constables encourage its prosecution work. And – a little known fact – if the RSPCA brings a case and loses it, the costs of the defendants are usually borne by the taxpayer. So the RSPCA can prosecute almost without thinking.

this is from the above linked telegraph article...


the Charities commison has called the head of the RSPCA in to explain how their funds are being used following the prosecution of the huntsman last month.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

Drayvan said:


> This is getting :censor:ing ridiculous. So you join up, and make just about every single post you have about/against the RSPCA. If the countries police actually upheld animal welfare legislation, then the RSPCA wouldn't need to spend money doing it for them, if the police prosecuted the hunters who BROKE THE LAW rather than the RSPCA then they wouldn't have to have spent all that money.


the above is my big issue with this whole thing. fox hunting is illegal, whether the countryside alliance like it or not. they are not above the law and should be prosecuted accordingly.

im not a fan of the RSPCA, i think many changes are required and i have personally not had a good experience of them through multiple dealings (i havnt been reported before anyone gets excited, my dealings with them are mostly in trying to get them to do something when animals were suffering). so i am the first to say they are far from perfect.

the police wildlife crimes unit are very good on issues like badger baiting and so on - which is obviously good news - but seem to shy away from doing anything about fox hunters who arrogantly flaunt the ban.

if the police started prosecuting hunters who broke the law, the i would see the RSPCA going after them as unnecessary. however, they seemingly wont and the RSPCA is the only organisation with the experience and clout to do it instead.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

miss_ferret said:


> the above is my big issue with this whole thing. fox hunting is illegal, whether the countryside alliance like it or not. they are not above the law and should be prosecuted accordingly.
> 
> im not a fan of the RSPCA, i think many changes are required and i have personally not had a good experience of them through multiple dealings (i havnt been reported before anyone gets excited, my dealings with them are mostly in trying to get them to do something when animals were suffering). so i am the first to say they are far from perfect.
> 
> ...


 
this is what i tried to say above...
the RSPCA need to go back to what they were good at...
and possibly a new section set up to deal with more, shall we say, political issues.

people could then decide where they wanted their donations to go... anti-hunting causes, investigations into illegal animal trades or helping donestic cases.

The rspca seem to have become far too much of a political charity...
which is kind of an oxymoron isnt it?


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

Rach1 said:


> this is what i tried to say above...
> the RSPCA need to go back to what they were good at...
> and possibly a new section set up to deal with more, shall we say, political issues.
> 
> ...


tbh i think what should happen is theoretically simple: the animal charity should help animals in need (end of) and the enforcers of the law should enforce it. its because these lines have had to become blurred that issues are arising.

despite the animal welfare act being law and as such enforceable by the police, you ring the police to report an animal welfare act violation and unless your very lucky they will just tell you to phone the RSPCA. same as the cases you see on here, usually of pet shops mistreating animals, if animals are being mistreated by anyone holding a PSL then its the councils job to do something about it, but as they very rarely will, people still say to phone the RSPCA as their is a chance they will.

so rather than shouting about the RSPCA doing the job of the police and trying to take away any further attempts to do so, why not focus on getting the police to enforce the law so they dont have to?

people cant have it both ways, it cant be 'i want them investigated and they shouldnt be allowed to prosecute cos its a waste of money' one minute and 'that animals being abused and nobody else will do anything so they should do something about it' the next.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

We do of course have the National Wildlife Crime Unit, a national police body that looks at wildlife crime; I would have thought fox hunting is a wildlife crime!


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> We do of course have the National Wildlife Crime Unit, a national police body that looks at wildlife crime; I would have thought fox hunting is a wildlife crime!


The law is very grey over fox hunting dos and donts. Its very hard to prove anything because often by the time they get there the hunt has moved on


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> We do of course have the National Wildlife Crime Unit, a national police body that looks at wildlife crime; I would have thought fox hunting is a wildlife crime!


it is, but despite hunts regularly flaunting the ban and evidence being caught on film in some cases, when have they ever actually prosecuted?

genuine question, not being arsey.


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

miss_ferret said:


> it is, but despite hunts regularly flaunting the ban and evidence being caught on film in some cases, when have they ever actually prosecuted?
> 
> genuine question, not being arsey.


The law is an incredibly grey area when it comes to video evidence being used in court.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

selina20 said:


> The law is very grey over fox hunting dos and donts. Its very hard to prove anything because often by the time they get there the hunt has moved on





selina20 said:


> The law is an incredibly grey area when it comes to video evidence being used in court.


then we may have identified another problem: the sheer amount of ambiguity in the laws regarding animal welfare and the proving of violations.

again, something i feel campaigning time would be better spent on.


edit: sorry selina, that looks a bit like im having a go, im not and i apologise if it comes across as such.


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

miss_ferret said:


> then we may have identified another problem: the sheer amount of ambiguity in the laws regarding animal welfare and the proving of violations.
> 
> again, something i feel campaigning time would be better spent on.
> 
> ...


Nope you made a very valid point there


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

i would also add to that that it may be worth their while re training staff to ensure that they are all fully aware of not only how to investigate reptiles etc but also on how to deal with people.
much of thier job is face to face work with the public and people who may be experiencing real difficulties...
the last thing they need is an 'inspector' marching in and reading them their rights LOL

its not that they get involved with say fighting hunting but when the preston branch is near closure due to lack of funds, and they spend over 300,00 on one case...you have to wonder...


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

selina20 said:


> 1) Rather than sticking to guidelines then investigators should air some common sense
> 
> *5) Anyone caught phoning the RSPCA to get their own back on another person to be punished accordingly*.


This is something I have experienced - a neighbour with a vendetta (which actually got SO bad I moved out of the house I'd been in for 10 years as a direct result). I think once one complaint has been found to be untrue, if another comes in from the same source, that person should be prosecuted. JUST as someone would be fined for a hoax call to the emergency services. I've spoken to dozens of people who have had false complaints made against them - it must cost the RSPCA thousands when these are all added up.
I'd also like to see:

A revision of responsibilities and clarity given to the agencies concerned AND the public about WHO is responsible for WHAT - ie, police, RSPCA, local council, AHVLA, etc etc.

Prosecutions should only be brought where the CPS sees fit, perhaps with the odd exception but NOT the amount that the charity has recently been bringing about willy-nilly at public expense.

Improved utilisation by the RSPCA of the help of smaller local rescues where possible, and an increased network of (vetted) individuals for fostering and rehoming - especially for the more exotic species their centres may struggle to cater for.

I agree that political and direct animal care 'arms' should be completely separate - and now I'm wondering if/how much of the RSPCA's public donations are spent on Eurogroup for Animals.. ?

Also agree that in many areas more inspectors may be needed, so why not offer training to individuals who are willing to do the job for free? (I'm sure there are plenty of genuine people who would devote a few hours a week - I know I would if I could drive).

I'd also like to see the charity get off their high horse and accept the help and expertise of knowledgeable organisations (the FBH for example) and individuals with specialist experience, on a much larger scale - after all, is everybody not on the same side..?!

On a final note, I don't think slating the OP, or anyone else, is really fair. For most people signing a petition is pretty much all they are in a position to do, and it's certainly better than nothing. I've signed :2thumb:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

miss_ferret said:


> it is, but despite hunts regularly flaunting the ban and evidence being caught on film in some cases, when have they ever actually prosecuted?
> 
> genuine question, not being arsey.


I am personally in favour of letting the police get on and do their job and deal with crime, rather it handing over to a private vigilante, which in effect is what happens when the RSPCA enforce hunting issues!! We have the National Wildlife Crime Unit, and Police Wildlife Crime Officers, I would be more confident about trained police officers policing a law, rather then untrained members of the public! Now, if the argument is the police don’t do their job probably then lobby parliament to ensure they do!


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> I am personally in favour of letting the police get on and do their job and deal with crime, rather it handing over to a private vigilante, which in effect is what happens when the RSPCA enforce hunting issues!! We have the National Wildlife Crime Unit, and Police Wildlife Crime Officers, I would be more confident about trained police officers policing a law, rather then untrained members of the public! Now, if the argument is the police don’t do their job probably then lobby parliament to ensure they do!


thats kind of my point. its all well and good saying the RSPCA shouldnt be prosecuting people (and i agree, they shouldnt) but theirs no sense in removing that ability without putting something in place to replace it. currently all this campaigning is focused on 'what to take from the RSPCA' not on what will happen if/when this happens.

the animal welfare act should be enforced by the police but while they have wildlife units they, as far as i know, have nothing which covers domestic animals, exotics and livestock. i've only done a quick search but can find no prosecutions on animal welfare grounds brought solely by the police/cps. now that could be because the RSPCA 'monopolise' them - so to speak - or it could be because the police view enforcing these as further down their agenda than other things.

six of one, half a dozen of the other i expect. the RSPCA want the publicity involved in gaining a conviction and the police are happy to hand over the work to someone else.


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

miss_ferret said:


> *six of one, half a dozen of the other i expect. the RSPCA want the publicity involved in gaining a conviction and the police are happy to hand over the work to someone else.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I think this is probably correct, now veering ever so slightly off subject..I think the police should pay far more attention to animal cruelty cases, it's well researched and documented that people who subject animals to pain and suffering (obviously I'm talking intentional acts here) are far more likely to go onto commit similar crimes against humans. Perhaps the law needs to be altered so it easier and cheaper for the RSPCA to pursue the milder cases whilst the police/CPS focus on the more sadistic b:censor:ds?


----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

5Plusmany,

Interesting - and valid point made in your post.

However, the RSPCA went through a phase recently where they held themselves up as 'Experts' on child cruelty! They actually conned a number of Social Service Departments into allowing the RSPCA to participate in Social Services! Chris Newman will probably have more info on the subject.

Miss_ferret,

You commented "the RSPCA want the publicity involved in gaining a conviction"

Using the publicity to obtain funds is, in fact, a breach of the rules relating to bringing private prosecutions set out by the Crown Prosecution Service. One of the reasons why I personally would like to see the right to privately prosecute removed from the RSPCA. The RSPB and SSPCA operate without private prosecutions - so why should a charity with Criminal Convictions (the RSPCA!) bring prosecutions - 70% of which would not meet CPS standards?


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

duffey1 said:


> Miss_ferret,
> 
> You commented "the RSPCA want the publicity involved in gaining a conviction"
> 
> Using the publicity to obtain funds is, in fact, a breach of the rules relating to bringing private prosecutions set out by the Crown Prosecution Service. One of the reasons why I personally would like to see the right to privately prosecute removed from the RSPCA. *The RSPB and SSPCA operate without private prosecutions - so why should a charity with Criminal Convictions (the RSPCA!) bring prosecutions - 70% of which would not meet CPS standards?*


for the same reasons i've stated: who else will if they dont?

Selina has already stated how vague the law is on fox hunting specifically, but it is also vague on what is or is not animal cruelty and what is and isnt permissible in court as evidence. take the ever popular live feeding debates in the snake section and the relevant passages in the animal welfare act for example. 

the CPS are unlikely to want to touch any case regarding a grey area in law with as many loop holes as these can have, which may be why the cases do not meet CPS standards. dont forget the CPS will also drop cases for not being in the public interest, which many 'small scale' (for lack of a better phrase) cases of animal cruelty may be deemed as. for example, to the police and CPS one man/woman beating the daylights out of one dog is far less likely to be picked up on and be taken to court by them than, say, a dog fighting ring. both are violations of the animal welfare act, but which is the 'taxpayer' going to prefer to have money spent on?

remove the right to prosecutable by all means, but a contingency plan needs to be in operation for the police and CPS to pick up the slack.


----------



## slizard (Sep 3, 2012)

The rspca are useless uncaring scum, I called recently about a neighbors puppy farm, they called me back not because they had helped or done anything but to ask for money! 4 adult dogs and lord knows how many puppies died next door and they have done fack all, got video evidence and pictures but they wont do a damned thing but we get called daily for money, at the point I just hurl abuse at them now.
luckily the neighbours stopped after the financial crisis cause no one was buying the dogs.


----------

