# Analysis of RSPCA data 2008



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

In response to the launch of the latest ‘cruelty’ statistics by the RSPCA today, here are the facts.

Between 2000 and 2006 the income of the RSPCA has risen by 66% to over £110,000,000, (one hundred and ten million pounds). There expenditure, however, has only increased by only 34%. Actions directly benefiting the welfare of animals has dropped by 32% over the same period.

RSPCA Statistics 
2000 compared to 2006*

Phone calls received, Down 26.5%
Complaints investigated, Down 3.3%
Inspections, Down 95.6%
Animal collections, Down 18.7%
Homes found, Down 30.8%
Treatments, Down 18.9%
Humane destructions** Up 85.7%
Income, Up 66.1%
Expenditure, Up 34.4%
Cost of generating funds, Up 91.8%

 * Due to changed in format RSPCA data can best be compared up to 2006
** 2006 data not published. 2000 compared to 2005 showed a rise of 85.7%

In terms of there prosecutions, you may like to read this article published this week:
http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/features/hounded/


----------



## basil (Jul 29, 2008)

now why doesnt that surprise me.

sue


----------



## royalnking (Mar 26, 2007)

Oh my god I knew they were money grabbing ****ards but this just proves how bad.

and this section 
"The home of pensioner Betty McDiarmid, a 75-year-old wheelchair-user with diabetes, was raided twice by the RSPCA. The first raid resulted in a local vet concluding that none of the animals were suffering. However, a couple of weeks later, the RSPCA deemed another raid necessary and brought in its own vet, who concluded that every one of Mrs McDiarmid’s animals were suffering and should be seized. The RSPCA decided to prosecute, but the trial was halted when Mrs McDiarmid became too ill for it to proceed. She died soon after her trial." 
of the item linked is devastating if Betty had been one of my relations I would have been looking at ways to bring about a case of manslaughter against them.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Interestingly enough l received this press release today from SHG

The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing 
difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG)

Press Release
For Immediate Release
30th July 2008



RSPCA Statistics 2008 are a sham built on human and animal suffering


The new RSPCA figures indicate a huge rise in successful RSPCA prosecutions.

How have they achieved such spectacular results?

The SHG is releasing the contents of an e-mail we received today (29 
July 2008 from Paul Watson, a Criminal Defence Solicitor in Middlesborough:

“Anyone receiving a Summons issued in respect of an RSPCA prosecution 
may also receive a collection of statements supporting the RSPCA's case.”

“The recipient should be aware that if he/she fails to appear or be 
legally represented at the first hearing of the summons, then the RSPCA 
will "proceed in absence" by simply reading out the statements to the 
Magistrates.”

“The recipient will then be found guilty in his/her absence and the 
Magistrates will then be asked to issue a warrant not backed with bail.”

“Such a warrant requires the Police to find that person, arrest and 
detain them until the next sitting of the Court.”

“This has resulted in overnight detentions in the cells at the local 
Police Station and has caused very considerable distress to those 
detained.”

“This practice is now being routinely used by the Solicitors instructed 
by the RSPCA to conduct prosecutions on their behalf in the 
Teesside/North Yorks/Co. Durham area and possibly further afield.”

“We are taking one such case to the Teesside Crown Court to appeal the 
convictions of the family involved. It is to be hoped that the Appeal 
Judge will express some opinions as to the desirability or otherwise of 
this RSPCA tactic.”

“We will let you know the result.”


The SHG wants to know exactly how much of the RSPCA’s increase in 
successful prosecutions has been the result of such underhand and 
disgraceful tactics.

An interesting read

R


----------



## gtm (Jan 23, 2008)

It's a well know fact the RSPCA play hard and lose with criminal procedure:bash:


----------



## HS (Mar 19, 2008)

> “Anyone receiving a Summons issued in respect of an RSPCA prosecution
> may also receive a collection of statements supporting the RSPCA's case.”
> 
> “The recipient should be aware that if he/she fails to appear or be
> ...


I am not posting in the defence of the RSPCA, however, I believe that the practice of a court to 'proceed in absence' is common place in ALL magistrate court cases and not just a practice by the RSPCA.
This has been brought in due to a loophole whereby if a prosecution witness (including professional witnesses) didn't turn up for a court appearance, the case was often thrown out, and if a defendant didn't turn up, the case was adjourned for another date. This would buy the defendant more time from prosecution, and provide another opportunity for the prosecution witnesses to not attend. Obviously it became a standard tactic for defence lawyers to call all prosecution witnesses and for a large number of defendants to fail to attend.
It is not guaranteed that in the event of a case proceeding in absence the defendant will be found guilty, however, with no defence to be heard, it is more likely.


----------



## fixitsan (Apr 15, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> RSPCA Statistics
> 2000 compared to 2006*
> 
> Phone calls received, Down 26.5%
> ...


 
Before jumping to conclusions it is worth deciding which direction the jump should be in first of all.

I see three scenarios, and lacking further evidence it is difficult to say which best represents the current situation

The first situation is if animal cruelty is on the increase. If , year after year, more people are becoming more cruel towards animals then the RSPCA figures make them appear to be out of step with the service which is required

The next situation is the one where the 'cruelty rate' has neither increased or decreased between those to periods of measurement. In this case the figures look like a strategy of putting animal to sleep instead of rehoming is one of many conclusions you could draw.

The third situation I think should be considered is if the levels of animal cruelty have actually gone down between the periods of measurement. If that were true then the lower 'caring' type measurements would naturally go down and they would not seem at all unusual. A higher rate of terminations could be explained by the lower rate of telephone contacts reflecting the general attitude that people are less likely to want to rescue an animal, or are even bothered about animals at all. It could also mean that there is the same level of public interest but in fact the level of cases which the public consider need to be reported, or in other words the fewer number of telephone calls may well be indicating that there are fewer cases of cruelty overall.

I would like to know if there are further studies carried out by independent parties about the overall rate of cruelty, wether it is rising, falling, or remaining the same before I draw too many conclusions from these figures.

Chris


----------



## royalnking (Mar 26, 2007)

My jump didn't come from the number of cases brought it came from the fact that their funds have increased by 66%, they have been actively trying to increase their funds by increasing their advertising. Yet they have put no extra funds into caring for the animals they have, instead they have decided to destroy 85.7% more animals inspite of animal collections being down by 18.7%.

and ok so the destuction data was based on 2005 statistics but if it was less in 2006 they would have published it so only reasonable assumption to make is that it is actually higher that this.


----------



## Dustcart (May 31, 2008)

royalnking said:


> Oh my god I knew they were money grabbing ****ards but this just proves how bad.
> 
> and this section
> "The home of pensioner Betty McDiarmid, a 75-year-old wheelchair-user with diabetes, was raided twice by the RSPCA. The first raid resulted in a local vet concluding that none of the animals were suffering. However, a couple of weeks later, the RSPCA deemed another raid necessary and brought in its own vet, who concluded that every one of Mrs McDiarmid’s animals were suffering and should be seized. The RSPCA decided to prosecute, but the trial was halted when Mrs McDiarmid became too ill for it to proceed. She died soon after her trial."
> of the item linked is devastating if Betty had been one of my relations I would have been looking at ways to bring about a case of manslaughter against them.


Very sad case this.
75, wheelchair bound and diabetic. But still, she had animals that were suffering. Tough one to decide on. 
We only know one side of the story.


----------



## medusa0373 (Mar 18, 2008)

Dustcart said:


> Very sad case this.
> 75, wheelchair bound and diabetic. *But still, she had animals that were suffering.* Tough one to decide on.
> We only know one side of the story.


But there are 2 opinions stated, one of a local vet who declared all animals to be fine and not suffering, and one of an RSPCA vet who (not surprisingly) declared the animals to be suffering. which opinion is the honest and correct one?

I do feel that it would be useful to know WHAT animals she had and in what way they were "suffering". I was watching a programme about the RSPCA on Animal Planet, it was meant to show them in a good way etc but actually I think they shot themselves in the foot with a few examples of the way they bullied owners into giving up their perfectly happy, healthy animals.


----------



## fantapants (Jan 4, 2008)

i think at the end of the day statistics can be used to prove anything. its more important to look at who collected the data and what they are trying to achieve with it. often the same set of statistics can be used to prove the opposite of the roiginal intention. but i seriously dislike the rspca and all of the other organisations that activley spend their funds on......getting more funds. they seem more intent on advertising for mor money than putting the money to good use.


----------



## fixitsan (Apr 15, 2008)

royalnking said:


> My jump didn't come from the number of cases brought it came from the fact that their funds have increased by 66%, they have been actively trying to increase their funds by increasing their advertising. Yet they have put no extra funds into caring for the animals they have, instead they have decided to destroy 85.7% more animals inspite of animal collections being down by 18.7%.
> 
> and ok so the destuction data was based on 2005 statistics but if it was less in 2006 they would have published it so only reasonable assumption to make is that it is actually higher that this.


 
But that suggests to me that their is a rehoming shortage, maybe fewer people wish to rehome animals, or maybe not, but it is still quite vague


----------



## royalnking (Mar 26, 2007)

fixitsan said:


> But that suggests to me that their is a rehoming shortage, maybe fewer people wish to rehome animals, or maybe not, but it is still quite vague


 
maybe but surely with all the funds they have generated they can build bigger caring facilities rather than destroy the animals.


----------



## Gerry4292 (Apr 25, 2008)

Hold on guys,i have helped the RSPCA in a few cases of animal crulety / abandonment over the last year or so,and i can tell you here now that i still have several reps from one cruelty case that are still with me after almost 7 months and they pay all the food and electric bills to look after these reps,the money has to come from somewhere.How many other people up and down the country do this,I will admit they take their time to reimburse but after all without them a lot of reps and other animals would be dead already.Yes they do have a strange way of doing things sometimes,but without them and other organisations like them how many animals would be destroyed each year.
Gerry.


----------



## Reptilerescueden (Jan 2, 2006)

Chris Newman said:


> In response to the launch of the latest ‘cruelty’ statistics by the RSPCA today, here are the facts.
> 
> Between 2000 and 2006 the income of the RSPCA has risen by 66% to over £110,000,000, (one hundred and ten million pounds). There expenditure, however, has only increased by only 34%. Actions directly benefiting the welfare of animals has dropped by 32% over the same period.
> 
> ...


None of this surprizes me in the slightest but the Humane Destruction figures are looking like PETA http://www.qando.net/ - PETA Kills Animals.
Seems like these big organisations methods to keep their precious funding (much raised by members of the public) to them selves rather than spend on what it ought to be spent on, *like SAVING the animals lifes*, are the same.

Fooking makes my blood boil. If fellow rescuers like myself can save the lives of the animal we do it, we don't euthanise them to save money etc and the majority go on to be rehomed. Plus we don't get public funding! So if we can do it then why the hell dont other large organisations do it???? Why? Because they don't give a shit! :cussing:


----------

