# RSPCA raid on exotics keeper



## Spikebrit (Oct 23, 2006)

Just seen this and thought i would share. 

BBC News - Exotic animals seized in RSPCA investigation

What to people think??

Jay


----------



## mitsi (Feb 1, 2012)

wow, wonder whereabouts in worcester it was, will have to keep my eye out for any updates regarding why etc. I know the company is based in birmingham, but according to the papers they were seized from a house in worcester, hope the animals werent being abused in anyway.


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

Spikebrit said:


> Just seen this and thought i would share.
> 
> BBC News - Exotic animals seized in RSPCA investigation
> 
> ...


Not sure y they were seized maybe there license didn't cover these? they could have had poor husbsndary , I no one thing the RSPCA are dodge so I haven't got a option on it till I no more how can u give ur opinion with such little info ?


----------



## Spikebrit (Oct 23, 2006)

jaykickboxer said:


> Not sure y they were seized maybe there license didn't cover these? they were could have had poor husbsndary , I no one thing the RSPCA are dodge so I haven't got a option on it till I no more *how can u give ur opinion with such little info* ?


Where have i given my opinion??


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

Spikebrit said:


> Where have i given my opinion??


Not u personally i mean in genral like everybody should have used a different word


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

More and more frequently, we're hearing stories of exotic hoarding and the neglect that can happen when someone has too many animals. We see it starting all too frequently on this very forum when people say they're "addicted", and leave every one of these reptile shows clutching a pile of boxes. Somehow, it always seems to be laughed off or _envied_ even.

I realise hoarding probably occurs more frequently with domestics, but when a case of neglected exotics is reported it always seems more shocking, and certainly doesn't paint the rest of us responsible keepers in a good light.

It's shocking and very sad


----------



## mitsi (Feb 1, 2012)

what puzzles me is the company they were taken from do parties and shows at schools etc with the reps, they must surely have been reported for something by someone from one of their venues perhaps, will have to wait and see if anything else comes up about it.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

ahhhhhh.....now i read it properly - it's Tropical Inc!

My mum, sister, nieces and nephew saw one of their shows at Butlins. They went to it because I do animal encounters and they wanted to check out the competition.

They said he was terrible! Everytime he brought out an animal (particularly the mammals), he would say "this will rip your head off!" or "this one will scratch your eyes out!" or "this would strangle you to death!"

To me this is really unprofessional, and certainly doesn't give a good impression of the rest of us educators that do a good job!

So during the show, he only got about 5 kids up to touch each animal. My 6 yr old niece is animal crazy and she shot up her hand to be picked each time....but got ignored 

Finally, the guy said "our last animal is _really_ unusual....I bet that _NOBODY_ knows what this is!" 
At which point, my niece's hand shot up! "It's a coatimundi!" she said.
The smug tit replied "Oh, so did you get your mum to tell you that then?"
To which Emily said loud and proud "NO.....my Uncle Chris has one actually!"
By all accounts, that shut him up! I've never been more proud :lol2:


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Does make you wonder what the problem was though, because what I can make out from their website, all the animals seem to be healthy and well kept.

Might be something seedy going on in the background.


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

I dont think its right to speculate too much, anything could have happened for this to occur, and he could well be innocent of any accusations. I guess we can only wait to hear more.

My main concern would be with the animals being I the care of the rspca. Hopefully, thier specialist keeper will be someone unaffiliated who knows the care requirements of these animals.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Tarron said:


> I dont think its right to speculate too much, anything could have happened for this to occur, and he could well be innocent of any accusations. I guess we can only wait to hear more..


Well I don't think the animals would have been seized if they were being kept correctly, or if they weren't pretty certain there was something dodgy going on


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

mrcriss said:


> ahhhhhh.....now i read it properly - it's Tropical Inc!
> 
> My mum, sister, nieces and nephew saw one of their shows at Butlins. They went to it because I do animal encounters and they wanted to check out the competition.
> 
> ...


Well I've been to several of their shows and have never heard them say anything will kill you, they did say 'genets can't be trusted with small animals it would eat them' and that 'meerkats stink' only 'negative' things they said, and they were both true 

I know they are re-doing their enclosures at the 'farm' place they keep them at, so maybe they were in less suitable temporary accommodation? 

All animals look healthy from what I've seen...


----------



## elmthesofties (Aug 24, 2012)

jaykickboxer said:


> Not sure y they were seized maybe there license didn't cover these? they could have had poor husbsndary , I no one thing the RSPCA are dodge so I haven't got a option on it till I no more how can u give ur opinion with such little info ?


I have to agree.
Somebody I know used to rescue cats. She lived in a grotty area of London where nobody was well educated on how to look after cats and nobody wanted to pay to spay/neuter them. So when she first moved there, people were giving unwanted animals to her all the time. When she first started, she actually had about 30 cats at one point. A lot, yes, but she rehomed them at an incredible rate. But the RSPCA took them all away anyway. Bearing in mind that they were all healthy, happy, well fed, had their jabs, and had been spayed/neutered. In fact, as soon as they were seized, they were up for adoption. They didn't need to be kept in for socialization, fattening up, or getting spayed/neutered like some animals that get taken in.

With that story in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if the RSPCA took them all because one person complained that they made a bit of noise or something. They are a bit silly with some of this. :/

EDIT: So maybe this one was owned by an idiot after all. Oops.


----------



## Spikebrit (Oct 23, 2006)

mrcriss said:


> ahhhhhh.....now i read it properly - it's Tropical Inc!


See we thought it could be them too, but my concern is speculation since it could just as easily be someone else. Would hate to tarnish them with the wrong brush accidentally, as by all accounts they seem like and OK organisation. Though i have had no personal dealings with them. 

I'm not really sure it's fair to take pot-shots at them with only an idea that it could be them until we know who it is officially. 

jay


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

em_40 said:


> Well I've been to several of their shows and have never heard them say anything will kill you,.


I have it on video somewhere.


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

I personally wouldn't trust the RSPCA, I have heard a lot of cases of animals removed without a shred of evidence of neglect, etc except someone else's say so. That said, I wouldn't have thought such a large operation would have been undertaken unless it was fairly serious stuff... pure speculation of course! :whistling2:

I'm with Tarron, though, I wonder where are these 'specialist facilities' where the animals have been taken..? As I'd be surprised if they are RSPCA owned.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

With the RSPCA it could be anything. 


This is one story i can remember reading.


http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/live...-jail-over-neglected-animals-100252-28649334/

For this bit 




> Reptiles, including a Cuban Anole, had been left without guards on their UV lamps and were at risk of being burned and a rat had been allowed to get infected feet.​




So there you go kids, if you don't put a guard on your UV 'lamps', the RSPCA will shut you down.

​


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Meko said:


> With the RSPCA it could be anything.
> 
> 
> This is one story i can remember reading.
> ...


But this bit is pretty horrific:

"Simon Downes committed a catalogue of crimes while he was running Rocky Lane Pets including throwing a live rat in a freezer"


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

mrcriss said:


> Well I don't think the animals would have been seized if they were being kept correctly, or if they weren't pretty certain there was something dodgy going on


Youve completely missed my point. The owner may be I trouble for something completely separate, on the property, and the police have requested the rspca to remove all the animals so they can perform investigations properly with no fear of being attacked or injuring anything.
You could also be right and they have been kept atrociously. However, until this man is charged and found guilty of anything, and without any evidence or inside knowledge of any wrong doing, I like to assume, as the law does, innocent until proven guilty.

Wild spe ulation and condemnation does no one any good in my opinion.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Tarron said:


> Youve completely missed my point. The owner may be I trouble for something completely separate, on the property, and the police have requested the rspca to remove all the animals so they can perform investigations properly with no fear of being attacked or injuring anything.
> You could also be right and they have been kept atrociously. However, until this man is charged and found guilty of anything, and without any evidence or inside knowledge of any wrong doing, I like to assume, as the law does, innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> Wild spe ulation and condemnation does no one any good in my opinion.


Ahhh, got you.
So you're saying he may have (par example) been growing weed or something, and the RSPCA are looking after the animals in the meantime?

I too believe in innocent until proven guilty, but gossip and speculation are simply human nature and also fun 
After all, what is the Beeb doing in the article if not a form of gossiping?


----------



## bbav (Oct 17, 2007)

The RSPCA have had a fair bit of bad publicity lately so will be looking for high profile "jobs" and what is better than an exotics show business? Not much really as that follows there anti exotic keeping and anti using animals for side shows ect.
Plus as not many people understand the keeping of exotics they can make everything sound worse..See Meko's post above about unguarded UV's.


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

mrcriss said:


> Ahhh, got you.
> So you're saying he may have (par example) been growing weed or something, and the RSPCA are looking after the animals in the meantime?
> 
> I too believe in innocent until proven guilty, but gossip and speculation are simply human nature and also fun
> After all, what is the Beeb doing in the article if not a form of gossiping?


Yeah, exactly.

I agree that speculation is part of human nature and fun, so long as its tame and not being used to slag off another. (Not saying anyone has btw)

Sometimes, news outlets do annoy me. They leave me wondering why I needed to know that lol


----------



## samurai (Sep 9, 2009)

Is there any more info on this yet?


----------



## Sirvincent (Jul 16, 2008)

a friend just posted this on my facebook wall - Exotic animals seized in raid (From Worcester News)


----------



## PPVallhunds (May 23, 2010)

That artical says 'mistreated' rather than neglected so could it be something to do with the shows they do or there training/handling that there has been a complaint about.


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

Hmmm, think I'll reserve judgement on this personally. A lot being made in the article about the purposes for which the animals were 'used' and the planning permisiion etc..wouldn't surprise me if there's a political element going on here :whistling2:


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Yeah, I just found that piece.

The bit that concerns me more is the last paragraph or so. A few members of the planning committee held concerns that the animals would be 'exploited' as they were going to be used for shows.

*wild speculation alert* is it possible that someone on this committee whose views are more 'ar' could have complained to the rspca, who have reacted in an overhanded way for publicity or prosecutions. When in fact the gentleman is innocent, holds all performing licenses and has done no wrong.

Im not saying thats right but possible.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Spikebrit said:


> Where have i given my opinion??


In your first post!

You said 


Spikebrit said:


> What to people think??
> 
> Jay


So people are telling you what they think, which is their opinion! :2thumb:

I agree with most people on here that I'm more worried about what the RSPCA are doing with the animals at the moment cos I don't have any trust in them.

As far as speculating that it might be something that is nothing to do with the animals, if they were seized under the Animal Welfare Act, then surely it must be something to do with the animals?


----------



## FreddiesMum (Jan 10, 2007)

I hope all the animals are ok the RSPCA are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard in my opinion.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

feorag said:


> In your first post!
> 
> You said
> So people are telling you what they think, which is their opinion! :2thumb:
> ...


I don't think the RSPCA would have been able to take such huge drastic action as seizing 70 animals merely on the strength of a complaint. I believe they would have had to have seen something whilst raiding the premises to get away with taking that much.

As for the animals, I'm sure they're ok......at times the RSPCA can be a bit incompetent, but they're not idiots. They'll have people that can sort temporary housing for animals....fosters etc. After all, some of them will probably have been DWA (he has caiman and venomous snakes).


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> I don't think the RSPCA would have been able to take such huge drastic action as seizing 70 animals merely on the strength of a complaint. I believe they would have had to have seen something whilst raiding the premises to get away with taking that much.
> 
> As for the animals, I'm sure they're ok......at times the RSPCA can be a bit incompetent, but they're not idiots. They'll have people that can sort temporary housing for animals....fosters etc. After all, some of them will probably have been DWA (he has caiman and venomous snakes).


The RSPCA have seized far more animals than that on a whim…. and euthanatized them, it’s far cheaper than looking after them!!


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

After this I've lost all respect for the RSPCA so wouldn't be surprised if they did put the animals down for no real reason, Il be surprised if the geezers actually done anything wrong 

RSPCA puts down 10 German Shepherds with bolt gun - Telegraph


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Revealed: RSPCA destroys HALF of the animals that it rescues - yet thousands are completely healthy*



*Shock figures reveal 3,400 animals put down for 'non-medical reasons'*
*Whistleblower claims she shot healthy dogs 'because there was no room'*
*Statistics show 10,000 fewer animals were rehomed in 2011*
*But charity's prosecutions of rogue pet owners leap 20 per cent*
*Countryside Alliance says charity should lose right to call itself Royal*


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Exactly my point! :2thumb:


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

jaykickboxer said:


> After this I've lost all respect for the RSPCA so wouldn't be surprised if they did put the animals down for no real reason, Il be surprised if the geezers actually done anything wrong
> 
> RSPCA puts down 10 German Shepherds with bolt gun - Telegraph


Apologies for dropping in, but when people bandy that case around it gets my goat up :lol2: 

They were euthenised with a bolt gun for welfare reasons, they were suffering from skin conditions so awful that merely moving them into a van, transporting them, shaving an injection site, restraining them and administering the drug would have been absolute agony for them. Cruel in other words. The owners relative was told exactly what would happen by the RSPCA if they were taken and was given time to find someone else to take them, the relative then contacted the RSPCA to remove the dogs after no other shelter or persons that they contacted (if any at all) would touch the animals with a barge pole.

On top of that, their temperaments were not ones suitable for rehoming or offering the hands on, very long winded treatment for such awful skin conditions. 

Why is it unacceptable to kill 10 dogs with a bolt gun for their own good, but acceptable and 'humane' to dispatch livestock in this way? Sentimentality about one species over another should not cloud best judgement of putting an animal out of it's misery! 
Anyways, thats off topic and I've had my fill of arguing about the RSPCA on this forum, having worked for them it's clear people judge what they don't understand and theres no way to make either side see the others point of view :roll:


As for the case in question, it sounds very much like there's a do gooder in the ranks somewhere just stirring the pot. Hopefully there's found to be nothing wrong with the animals and they are returned :2thumb:


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

Drayvan said:


> Apologies for dropping in, but when people bandy that case around it gets my goat up :lol2:
> 
> They were euthenised with a bolt gun for welfare reasons, they were suffering from skin conditions so awful that merely moving them into a van, transporting them, shaving an injection site, restraining them and administering the drug would have been absolute agony for them. Cruel in other words. The owners relative was told exactly what would happen by the RSPCA if they were taken and was given time to find someone else to take them, the relative then contacted the RSPCA to remove the dogs after no other shelter or persons that they contacted (if any at all) would touch the animals with a barge pole.
> 
> ...


What's wrong with administering a injection on site


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

jaykickboxer said:


> What's wrong with administering a injection on site


As above, the skin conditions. The medical problem itself and temperament of the dogs didn't lend well to euthenasia via injection. The dogs would need to be muzzled, restrained, shaved and then injected. Have you ever had a skin condition? I've grown up with eczema, had it all my life. To have that all over my body, to then have someone man handle and restrain me (causing pain and intense itching) shave a patch of skin, put a muzzle on me that would rub on my skin and then inject me would hurt like hell and drive me mad. Restraining the dogs to simply put on a muzzle would have put people in the position to get bitten  in situations like these a solution needs to be found that balances the animals welfare and the safety of the team involved.

Edited to add, that people who haven't suffered a skin condition do not understand how it drives you mad... I used to burn myself in the places I had it because the pain of that, was more bearable than the intense itching. Hopefully that gives people some gauge of how bad some skin conditions can be!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Drayvan said:


> Apologies for dropping in, but when people bandy that case around it gets my goat up :lol2:
> 
> They were euthenised with a bolt gun for welfare reasons, they were suffering from skin conditions so awful that merely moving them into a van, transporting them, shaving an injection site, restraining them and administering the drug would have been absolute agony for them. Cruel in other words. The owners relative was told exactly what would happen by the RSPCA if they were taken and was given time to find someone else to take them, the relative then contacted the RSPCA to remove the dogs after no other shelter or persons that they contacted (if any at all) would touch the animals with a barge pole.
> 
> ...


Is there independent evidence to support this, or is this biased on what information the RSPCA released? 

If there is nothing wrong with the animals then they should never have been removed in the first place!


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> Is there independent evidence to support this, or is this biased on what information the RSPCA released?
> 
> If there is nothing wrong with the animals then they should never have been removed in the first place!


It's in every article written about it if you read them. Whether the information was released by the RSPCA or the relative I don't know but seeing as it's even in the articles slagging them off then it would suggest it to be true. From 'in poor condition' to actual mention of skin conditions, these dogs clearly weren't healthy or in a position to be removed from the site. Also if you notice, a lot of sites that condemn the killing are animal rights sights too : victory:

Even if there was nothing wrong with them, they would still have been removed? I don't know where you got that they would/should have been left, they weren't 'removed' the owners relative handed them over due to the owner dieing.


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

As i remember,if the rspca seized the animals then they must be prosecuting the owner,meaning a court case,the animals must be looked after until case is over,no re-homeing,no destroying.Unless things have changed.Or they bullied owner into signing animals over,have seen this done many times.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Drayvan said:


> Even if there was nothing wrong with them, they would still have been removed? I don't know where you got that they would/should have been left, they weren't 'removed' the owners relative handed them over due to the owner dieing.


I was referring to the current case, not the dogs, sorry for the confusions!


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> I was referring to the current case, not the dogs, sorry for the confusions!


Oops :lol2: my bad, Ignore me!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

animalsbeebee said:


> As i remember,if the rspca seized the animals then they must be prosecuting the owner,meaning a court case,the animals must be looked after until case is over,no re-homeing,no destroying.Unless things have changed.Or they bullied owner into signing animals over,have seen this done many times.


The RSPCA cannot size animals, they have no authority to do so, only the police or Local Authority are empowered to size animals. 

Animal can, and very often are euthanized before any court case, even if the owner has not signed them over! It’s quite appalling.....


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> The RSPCA have seized far more animals than that on a whim…. and euthanatized them, it’s far cheaper than looking after them!!


They wouldn't destroy them until they've built a case.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> They wouldn't destroy them until they've built a case.


Yes they will, they will/have slaughter animals before the case comes to court and indeed before the defence vet has even had chance to examine the animals!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> Yes they will, they will/have slaughter animals before the case comes to court and indeed before the defence vet has even had chance to examine the animals!


Not if they've only been seized with only a vague doubt over their care though. 

Especially in something as high profile as a load of exotics, that has been reported by the press. If there's the possibility that they may have to go back to the owner, they wouldn't do that. 

Anyone who says otherwise is pettily RSPCA bashing for no reason.


----------



## JimmyMature (Jan 8, 2012)

Yet another group of people on this forum who are ignorant! They think the RSPCA are out to get them. 

You're quite happy to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who have had their animals removed by the RSPCA and the Police but you're not happy to wait for the facts from an RSPCA point of view.


Seriously, some people on here are complete idiots!


Jim


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> Not if they've only been seized with only a vague doubt over their care though.
> 
> Especially in something as high profile as a load of exotics, that has been reported by the press. If there's the possibility that they may have to go back to the owner, they wouldn't do that.
> 
> Anyone who says otherwise is pettily RSPCA bashing for no reason.


 
As you wish, but with practical hands on experience with such case I might suggest your unbridled faith in the RSPCA is somewhat misguided.


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

Hi Chris

Without commenting on the case as obviously it is all specualtion at the minute but !!

Can the Police / RSPCA go in and take all the animals into care.

In my much younger and innocent days I used to help the RSPCA house neglected animals. It was the case then that the RSPCA could only take the animals that were suffering / in need of care.

They were not allowed to take healthy animals that were kept in good conditions.

Has the law changed ?

Best Wishes

Neil


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

JimmyMature said:


> Yet another group of people on this forum who are ignorant! They think the RSPCA are out to get them.
> 
> You're quite happy to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who have had their animals removed by the RSPCA and the Police but you're not happy to wait for the facts from an RSPCA point of view.
> 
> ...


Actually, it's really not as simple as that.
There are people on here who keep exotics (including snakes) in excellent conditions who have been hounded by the RSPCA just because they keep exotics.
People who have had their beloved pets taken or have been lectured like school children about animals that the RSPCA have little knowledge about.
The RSPCA make simple school-boy errors about basic reptiles- corn snakes labelled as dangerous boas, tortoises labelled as terrapins.

The RSPCA categorically refused to help 14 horses last year in the NW for months.
The horses had no shelter, food etc and most cruelly of all, fresh pastures on the other side of a fence.
Several horses died tring to practically drag themselves thru the small brook surrounding the field to get to the grass.
They were stood in feet of mud and slush, had no proper care and the RSPCA did nothing! 
It took several kind people from the area to care for these animals and pay for vets fees, then once the media got involved down swooped the RSPCA, and stole the glory (as it were).

So, I can totally understand the bed feeling many people have regards to this charity.
They are the richest charity with thousands and assists and yet they still euthanaise animals for no good reason?

And before you say I've only quoted a few cases, I know! I was simply giving a few examples.


----------



## JimmyMature (Jan 8, 2012)

I have no doubt that there are examples where their action hasnt been appropriate. But the facts will be out and then people can make an informed comment instead of this jumping on the bandwagon slating the RSPCA at any opportunity.


Jim


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

But that's what I was trying to say,
People used to believe the RSPCA always acted in the animals bests interests etc,
That people who kept their animals well wouldn't be subjected to lectures and criticism but over the last few years or so it happens tome and time again.
And now it's all too often, and recently the exotics arena has become a publicity grabbing opportunity for the RSPCA.
It gets people upset I guess.


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

JimmyMature said:


> Yet another group of people on this forum who are ignorant! They think the RSPCA are out to get them.
> 
> You're quite happy to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who have had their animals removed by the RSPCA and the Police but you're not happy to wait for the facts from an RSPCA point of view.
> 
> ...


Well, that's not very 'mature' is it?!

Actually, I don't think anyone is assuming the animals' owner is innocent, just discussing that this is entirely possible given the number of RSPCA's past mistakes.


----------



## JimmyMature (Jan 8, 2012)

5plusmany said:


> Well, that's not very 'mature' is it?!
> 
> Actually, I don't think anyone is assuming the animals' owner is innocent, just discussing that this is entirely possible given the number of RSPCA's past mistakes.


 
Sorry but there are plenty of people on this thread that are saying that. These comments are like hearing about someone being arrested for murder and saying 'the police make mistakes' 

It's not helpful, let the courts decide not some biased people on a forum.


----------



## Fenris (Apr 18, 2007)

Details of the 10 GSD case

http://the-shg.org/30 August 2009.pdf

http://the-shg.org/08 October 2009.pdf

http://the-shg.org/30 October 2009.pdf

The police passed a file to the cPS who declined to bring a prosecution against the RSPCA on the grounds that there was unlikely to be a conviction.

There is now have a petition running on the government e-petition site. Please sign and share

We ask the government to investigate the RSPCA's activities, especially where they infringe civl or legal rights. - e-petitions

*We ask the government to investigate the RSPCA's activities, especially where they infringe civl or legal rights.*

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The RSPCA use "bully boy" tactics against innocent members of the public to bring prosecutions. They often infringe on citizens civil and legal rights. 
They misuse funds which have been donated by members of the public specifically for animal welfare for their own political gain in bringing these often vexatious prosecutions. This petition asks that the government investigate fully the actions of the RSPCA, ensure that they are unable to prosecute anyone as that is the remit of the CPS and ensure tighter rules are in place from the charities commission to prevent registered charities from using funds for political lobbying or bringing private prosecutions.


----------



## Gryffindor (Jun 24, 2012)

JimmyMature said:


> Yet another group of people on this forum who are ignorant! They think the RSPCA are out to get them.
> 
> You're quite happy to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who have had their animals removed by the RSPCA and the Police but you're not happy to wait for the facts from an RSPCA point of view.
> 
> ...


The RSPCA is bad so no I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt. If nothing else, they're very against exotics so therefore I hate them.


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

I see your point but also think why _shouldn't_ we question the RSPCA - they take MILLIONS of pounds of the public's money and whilst yes, of course they do some great work, they have also been deceitful to those who support them on many occasions. 
When they do make mistakes it costs animals their lives. Regularly. Not to mention the distress to owners wrongly accused. 
They are in a unique position as far as charities go, renowned worldwide, but increasingly they are abusing their power.
Who knows what the truth is in this case, but I know I would take any press release from the RSPCA themselves with a large pinch of salt.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Fenris said:


> Details of the 10 GSD case
> 
> http://the-shg.org/30 August 2009.pdf
> 
> ...


Those links have an awful lot of links/contacts for animal rights organisations, PETA and the like...we all know how reliable they are at twisting things to suit their own agenda :hmm: also... shouldn't this be in a separate thread rather than further derailing this one?


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Gryffindor said:


> The RSPCA is bad so no I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt. If nothing else, they're very against exotics so therefore I hate them.


bugger off gryff  lol


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

kodakira said:


> Hi Chris
> 
> Without commenting on the case as obviously it is all specualtion at the minute but !!
> 
> ...


I am not aware of the circumstances of this case, so I am not standing in judgment one way or the other. The police or the Local Authority are empowered under the Animal Welfare Act to seize animals if they believe they are suffering or likely to suffer, they can do so without veterinary advice if the situation is deemed urgent [life threatening], or they can do so with such advice of a vet. If they are seizing animals under veterinary advice then I think it is relevant to determine who the vet is contracted to. The RSPCA are not empowered to seize animals, I am unclear if a vet in the employ of the RSPCA would be able to advice either the police or Local Authority to seize animals!


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> I am not aware of the circumstances of this case, so I am not standing in judgment one way or the other. The police or the Local Authority are empowered under the Animal Welfare Act to seize animals if they believe they are suffering or likely to suffer, they can do so without veterinary advice if the situation is deemed urgent [life threatening], or they can do so with such advice of a vet. If they are seizing animals under veterinary advice then I think it is relevant to determine who the vet is contracted to. The RSPCA are not empowered to seize animals, I am unclear if a vet in the employ of the RSPCA would be able to advice either the police or Local Authority to seize animals!


Hi Chris

Thanks for the reply. 

Yes totally agree with you about taking a stance either way, as mentioned in my question.

I just found it strange so many animals being taken away.

I know of many raids years ago in my area where there were many many animals with some in extremely disgusting state. These were the only animals taken and the other animals left with owner, so wondered if the law had changed.

The question is not meant to ask or insinuate against either the owner or the RSPCA, just a generalised question.

Best Wishes

Neil


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

kodakira said:


> Hi Chris
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> ...


The law today is dictated by the Animal Welfare Act, 2006 [enacted April 2007]. 

The curious situation with this case, as I understand it, the so called “exotic animals” were removed and yet the more conventional animals appears to have been left behind!

Considering the declared position of the RSPCA, i.e. opposed to “exotic pets”, I find this personally a little disconcerting….


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> The law today is dictated by the Animal Welfare Act, 2006 [enacted April 2007].
> 
> The curious situation with this case, as I understand it, the so called “exotic animals” were removed and yet the more conventional animals appears to have been left behind!
> 
> Considering the declared position of the RSPCA, i.e. opposed to “exotic pets”, I find this personally a little disconcerting….


Thanks for the reply

Yes if that is the case then as you say it is a little disconcerning.

Best Wishes

Neil


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> As you wish, but with practical hands on experience with such case I might suggest your unbridled faith in the RSPCA is somewhat misguided.


I don't have unbridled faith in anything....and with all due respect, to insist so without even knowing me is quite immature.

I used to work for the RSPCA, so am fully aware of all the goings on (both good and bad), thanks.

Sure, they have done things that are questionable blah blah blah.....but to bash them at every available opportunity, at every suggestion of their name, is ridiculous. You know nothing more about this case then anyone else, Chris, so how can you start doom-mongering and assuming the worst about their actions, when the facts aren't even apparent to any of us?

It seems that after screaming about calci-sand and cohabiting snakes, RFUK's favourite pastime is slagging the RSPCA. And yet a quick search would show that the very same people have urged others to ring the organisation at the drop of a hat when people have trouble with neighbours dogs/dodgy pet shops/whatever. Lest we forget the proud displaying of the RSPCA inspector by yourself, Chris, at last year's Doncaster reptile show! 

You can't have it both ways....you either hate them or not. Personally, I take the more sensible middle ground and see that there's good and bad in every organisation. From reading the second article properly just now in this particular case, I suspect that the RSPCA had less to do with the seizure than other political figures with a bee in their bonnet.


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

Always the same on here whatever the subject so much rubbish and to many people reading the daily fail, i work for the RSPCA at there reptile rescue in brighton im employed to look after and rehome reptiles we do alot of good work and i'm proud of what we do.


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

We use to look after rspca,police and social service animals for 15 years,unless things have changed,in our experience no animal was ever destroyed whilst a court case was going through,at huge cost it would be boarded for sometimes up to 2 years,then if needed i.e if not re-homeable it could be destroyed.But each area was run by a committee and these had a no destruction policy,so therefore we had some animals for 3-4 years.At the time of our work with the rspca i always had exotic animals and never had any conflict.I must add after working around them for so long the visiting inspector can be very good at their job,or very bad,some are power mad and complete arses,some are very reasonable and keep exotics themselves.For so many to turn up at the premises i suspect there must be more going on than just a complaint to rspca.
Just because someone has a good looking website does not mean animals are looked after.There was a very well known person who use to be on rfuk and part of a consultancy who use to jump on everyone for one reason or another,and as it turned out she was a hoarder,dead animals in cages,kept in filth,so you just never know!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> I don't have unbridled faith in anything....and with all due respect, to insist so without even knowing me is quite immature.
> 
> I used to work for the RSPCA, so am fully aware of all the goings on (both good and bad), thanks.
> 
> ...


With all due respect you made sweeping statements that they would not do certain things when I am aware they have done precisely that in previous cases. I do not think that is unreasonable for me to point that out! 

I have been involved in dealing with RSPCA cases now for twenty years and in that time I have seen some pretty horrific things, and I am the first to concede that I have little confidence with the RSPCA when it comes to exotics.

You are indeed correct that Tim was the former chief officer of the RSPCA, emphasis on former! Tim and I clashed many times over exotics and it was Tim who pushed for the RSPCA to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with us to deal wish such situation. Unfortunately the RSPCA decided they did not want independent and impartial experts involved!!

My primary concern in this, and indeed any such case is for the welfare of the animals, that is the number one priority.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

animalsbeebee said:


> We use to look after rspca,police and social service animals for 15 years,unless things have changed,in our experience no animal was ever destroyed whilst a court case was going through,at huge cost it would be boarded for sometimes up to 2 years,then if needed i.e if not re-homeable it could be destroyed.But each area was run by a committee and these had a no destruction policy,so therefore we had some animals for 3-4 years.At the time of our work with the rspca i always had exotic animals and never had any conflict.I must add after working around them for so long the visiting inspector can be very good at their job,or very bad,some are power mad and complete arses,some are very reasonable and keep exotics themselves.For so many to turn up at the premises i suspect there must be more going on than just a complaint to rspca.
> Just because someone has a good looking website does not mean animals are looked after.There was a very well known person who use to be on rfuk and part of a consultancy who use to jump on everyone for one reason or another,and as it turned out she was a hoarder,dead animals in cages,kept in filth,so you just never know!


Since the Animal Welfare Act came into force in 2007 things has changing things and animals can now be putdown before a case comes to court if a vet certifies the animal needs to be destroyed. One of the issues that I have with this is the incestuous nature of the operation. The vet attending should in my view be under the employment of the police not the RSPCA, typical you will find the vet has substantial connections to the RSPCA and are employed by them frequently, thus are not independent or impartial and could be suggested to have a vested financial interest.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> With all due respect you made sweeping statements that they would not do certain things when I am aware they have done precisely that in previous cases. I do not think that is unreasonable for me to point that out!
> 
> I have been involved in dealing with RSPCA cases now for twenty years and in that time I have seen some pretty horrific things, and I am the first to concede that I have little confidence with the RSPCA when it comes to exotics.
> 
> ...


Well, I have to confess that last night's post was written somewhat under the influence, I had just got back from rather a boozy wake. So apologies for sweeping generalisations and any incoherency.

But I stand by what I said. There's no sense in flying off the handle every time the RSPCA are mentioned, as you do. _Each case should be taken on it's own merit,__ just as each case has different staff involved in it with different ways of handling things!_

I have to confess that upon hearing about this, the recent sad case of an RFUK member (the very same that Animalsbeebee mentioned) came to mind. In that instance, I believe the RSPCA acted impeccably and with apparent sensitivity. Of course there were subsequent problems with identifying snakes which belonged to other people as there would be, but the actual seizure seemed to be all correct and proper.

You can't just go on ranting and raving and stamping your feet about them at the drop of a hat....I'm extremely sorry to point this out, but it comes across as a bit childish tbh.:blush:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> Well, I have to confess that last night's post was written somewhat under the influence, I had just got back from rather a boozy wake. So apologies for sweeping generalisations and any incoherency.
> 
> But I stand by what I said. There's no sense in flying off the handle every time the RSPCA are mentioned, as you do. _Each case should be taken on it's own merit,__ just as each case has different staff involved in it with different ways of handling things!_
> 
> ...


I think the question that should be asked is _why_ do people fly off the handle when ever the RSPCA get mentioned? You absolutely do not see this with the SSPCA!!!!

Why do so many animal keepers hate the RSPCA so much? In Scotland the situation is entirely different. Having spoken to many animal keeping organisations over the years the difference in terms of support for the relative organisation is day and night, so why?


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

You are correct chris in that the vet should be independent,i have witnessed first hand a vet saying to rspca officer that they would write whatever rspca wanted,it was a stitch up,and they do try to frighten people into handing over.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

animalsbeebee said:


> You are correct chris in that the vet should be independent,i have witnessed first hand a vet saying to rspca officer that they would write whatever rspca wanted,it was a stitch up,and they do try to frighten people into handing over.


What I have been pushing for over the years is this should all be independent and transparent, known one involved should be able to make a decision which has financial implications for them at a latter date. For example the expert used to decide if the animals need removing should have no further role than making that decision. They should not be able to take animals on to care for or treat them. That was the whole purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding, to bring transparency, accountability and above all impartiality.


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Regardless of peoples opinions on the matter, I think, being passionate animal lovers, we can all agree, the welfare of the animals is all that counts. until further info is released we should probably reserve all judgement against all parties.
Unfortunately, I dont think there is anyway of finding any more info out, so all we can do is wait.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> I think the question that should be asked is _why_ do people fly off the handle when ever the RSPCA get mentioned? You absolutely do not see this with the SSPCA!!!!
> 
> Why do so many animal keepers hate the RSPCA so much? In Scotland the situation is entirely different. Having spoken to many animal keeping organisations over the years the difference in terms of support for the relative organisation is day and night, so why?


This is just a suggestion here:

Maybe it depends on how you think of them. Correct me if I'm wrong and apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth here, but being involved in politics yourself, then I imagine that you think of "the RSPCA" as the organisation, the company if you will. And I have no doubt whatsoever that up there in the higher echelons, there are some less than perfect policies/motives/dealings etc going on.

As someone who just simply works with animals, I think of "the RSPCA" as keepers, inspectors and volunteers....as just "staff" if you like. Some will be rubbish, some mediocre, and some bloody brilliant. Sure they have to ultimately answer to the bigwigs, but they no more want to kill off animals than you or I would, and will do everything they can to make sure they are well cared for.

That's why when someone on this thread (may have been yourself) expressed concern for the animals, I reckoned they'd be ok and looked after. When I worked for the RSPCA, if an animal came in that we weren't experienced with, we'd all sit down and research the hell out of it, so we had an idea what to do with it.

I also really doubt they would go on a mass spree of putting down 70 exotics when this Tropical Inc bloke hasn't even been charged with anything yet! There's really no sense in getting over dramatic about it at this point.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> This is just a suggestion here:
> 
> Maybe it depends on how you think of them. Correct me if I'm wrong and apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth here, but being involved in politics yourself, then I imagine that you think of "the RSPCA" as the organisation, the company if you will. And I have no doubt whatsoever that up there in the higher echelons, there are some less than perfect policies/motives/dealings etc going on.
> 
> ...


You are not putting words into my mouth, I very much view “the RSPCA” as a political party and like all political parties the staff have to tow the political line – personally that is what I see as the fundamental problem!

The RSPCA is a hugely political organisation and it takes prosecutions for political and financial objectives, that’s, in my view is morally wrong. What you also have to bear in mind is the overwhelming majority of RSPCA centres are not operated by “the RSPCA” they are independent bodies operating under the main banner; they receive no funding from “the RSPCA”!

I have grave concerns for the animals; I just hope you are right!


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> The RSPCA is a hugely political organisation and it takes prosecutions for political and financial objectives, that’s, in my view is morally wrong. What you also have to bear in mind is the overwhelming majority of RSPCA centres are not operated by “the RSPCA” they are independent bodies operating under the main banner; they receive no funding from “the RSPCA”!
> [/SIZE][/FONT]


This is the reason I don't donate to the 'door to door' collectors, asking for a mere £5 a month. I'd rather leave my change in a pot at at a local rescue, to help with the animals in the specific building. Although, am I right in also thinking, the Main RSPCA HQ take a cut of these donations too?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Tarron said:


> This is the reason I don't donate to the 'door to door' collectors, asking for a mere £5 a month. I'd rather leave my change in a pot at at a local rescue, to help with the animals in the specific building. Although, am I right in also thinking, the Main RSPCA HQ take a cut of these donations too?


That is a good question, if you look at the charities register there are over 100 independent RSPCA centres registered. To the best of my knowledge affiliated centres have to pay to use the name.


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

''A brief statement from the staff at Tropical Inc
As some of you may already be aware, the RSPCA visited our developing site on 3rd January 2013 at 6.30am, which unfortunately resulted in some of our rescued animals being removed from the site. 

As we had recently received planning permission to build our new education centre, some of the existing buildings had to be demolished in the process of constructing the new premises. Some of our animals had been moved from their enclosures to temporary indoor enclosures and the RSPCA have deemed some of these temporary enclosures to be unfit. 

We would like to make everyone aware that these enclosures were temporary and it was never our intention to keep animals in them for any prolonged amount of time. However due to the extreme wet weather we have been experiencing which has caused significant problems for us and some animals had been in these enclosures for longer than we had anticipated. 

We wholeheartedly agree that animal welfare is a priority and will be working with the RSPCA to make sure our temporary enclosures are more suitable for our animals and will keep you all updated when we can.

We would like to thank everyone for their support.''

-From their FB page


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Well there we have it.....good to lay it to rest.
It seems that, as suspected, the RSPCA have _once again_ acted fairly and responsibly by removing animals from an unsatisfactory situation, holding them and I'm assuming they'll return them once the new enclosures are finished. 

In the meantime, Tropical Inc have their business costs reduced during the traditionally quiet christmas period :2thumb:


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> It seems that, as suspected, the RSPCA have _once again_ acted fairly and responsibly by removing animals from an unsatisfactory situation, holding them and I'm assuming they'll return them once the new enclosures are finished.


but have they acted fairly and responsibly?

Animals were seized, the RSPCA joined the police and specialists. For the police to go then there'd be a warrant issued; if it was simply because the temporary enclosures weren't suitable, wouldn't the responsible thing be to go and speak to them? police, warrants and specialists is a bit heavy handed if it was just that the temporary accommodation wasn't acceptable.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Meko said:


> but have they acted fairly and responsibly?
> 
> Animals were seized, the RSPCA joined the police and specialists. For the police to go then there'd be a warrant issued; if it was simply because the temporary enclosures weren't suitable, wouldn't the responsible thing be to go and speak to them? police, warrants and specialists is a bit heavy handed if it was just that the temporary accommodation wasn't acceptable.


Well the Tropical inc guy isn't stamping his feet and calling them all the names under the sun like people on here. His response seemed calm and matter of fact.

He also said that those animals were in the temporary enclosures for longer than they should have been.....which to me is kind of an admission. I do feel for them as the weather has been dreadful and affected all of us that have outdoor livestock. 

I dont know if you've ever been present at one of these kind of occurrences, but they aren't like drugs busts when they have all guns blazing you know!


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

lol, no i haven't. but from the details - ie RSCPA 'raid' because the temporary accommodation wasn't up to scratch; it sounds like it could have been a bit more amicable without the need for the police and warrants.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

To be fair, we are still making assumptions about the situation. How do we know that the police weren't called first by the concerned person, who then contacted the RSPCA after finding themselves faced with exotic animals. Everyone then sat down and amicably decided that having the RSPCA move the animals into more suitable temporary housing whilst the work was finished or new temp enclosures are built? As said, the guy in question hasn't been arrested, isn't ranting and raving about the situation or denying keeping the animals in less than suitable housing for 'x' amount of time. 

It seems that everything was handled and dealt with, with more suitable temporary enclosures being built in expectation of the animals being returned. So all in all, the best possible outcome for the animals, the owner and everyone else involved.

Time to put away the torches and pitchforks I think :2thumb:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> I dont know if you've ever been present at one of these kind of occurrences, but they aren't like drugs busts when they have all guns blazing you know!


Yes on many occasions, one a couple of years ago I was called to a raid organised by the RSPCA because some rabbits were uncomfortable, 15 police officers in attendance, including the armed response unit! Such situations are common place I am afraid……


----------



## Spikebrit (Oct 23, 2006)

_[/quote] Where have i given my opinion??_
In your first post!

You said 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Spikebrit*  
_What to people think??

Jay_

So people are telling you what they think, which is their opinion! :2thumb:


feorag said:


> In your first post!


Not meaning to back track here but go back and re-read the quotes i think you've miss read them. I was clarifying a miss statement not moaning about people having opinions as saying what do people think it not me giving an opinion, its me asking a question. 


On topic: It would be interesting to find out a bit more about whats going on. Seems an over reaction for tempory enclosures. Disgruntled employee maybe?


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

I would think the guy involved would be inclined to be nice about the RSPCA as they currently have his animals.


----------



## Benny864 (Jul 30, 2009)

Hello,
i never ever reply to any of these posts and have often seen my case being discussed but feel that i need to stick up for all those people that helped me win my case. I know as i was involved in a case brought about by the RSPCA and originally started by Monkeyworld exactly what the RSPCA are all about, i went through 3 years of hell with them both. They are excatly how Chris Newman describes them, a charity with so much money that no member of the public could possibly take them on due to the large amounts of cash they can throw at any case they decide should be brought about before a court, thank god i had a district judge who could see straight through them.
Also Monkey world being a ltd company reaping in the rewards of the paying public looking at all the seized rescued monkeys including mine for 2 years that were pulling in the crowds!!
I had a pair of Capuchins, not Squirrel monkeys, taken from me, they had a baby in the care of Monkey world that completley disapppered off the face of the earth, after asking what had happened to it i was told that it had died, i asked for the post mortem and the body but was told that no records or deaths were recorded!!
My animals were continually put into quarantine so that i would never have them back but once i involved the chief veteninary officer telling him that Monkeyworld were abusing their quarantine facilities my animals were released within 48 hrs. Thanks to people like Chris Newman my animals were reunited with myself. I know Stephen Rowlands and know what he is going through and hope that every thing goes ok for him and his company, i know he is a very capable exotic keeper and has probably made a small mistake that has been jumped upon by the RSPCA. 
I wont reply to any questions regarding my post and will probably not post again but needed every body to know how under handed the RSPCA are!!
Just for the record i was offered £5000 from the RSPCA for Monkeyworld to keep my pair of Capuchins when they knew they had to give my animals back, obviously i decllned but after talking to numerous people i have been told that this is very unusual for the RSPCA to offer to buy animals off somebody, just goes to show what they spend their hard earned donations on!! I have kept the original letter to prove this!!
Thank you for reading and hope this shows how under handed the RSPCA are, i will not respond to this post. Good luck to Tropical Inc i hope that it all works out for them, but please everybody else dont be fooled by the RSPCA.


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

I would imagine under the care of the rspca all these animals are now in temporary housing,which could last years!


----------

