Animal welfare???

M

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
 
Sorry I'm probably being a dunce but I don't really understand the thinking behind this post - is it just for information purposes or are you asking opinions on some of the things in the links?

Have to admit I didn't get through them all!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I'm probably being a dunce but I don't really understand the thinking behind this post - is it just for information purposes or are you asking opinions on some of the things in the links?

Have to admit I didn't get through them all!

[/ QUOTE ]

They are about the RSPCA. I posted a link on OE but the peeps didn't take it too well.
confused.gif
 
http://the-shg.org/RSPCA%20criticised%20again.html

makes very interesting reading if you cannot be bothered to read all of the links provided

it elaborates on the subject of RSPCA witness coaching and cites a high court case as well - interesting and thanks for posting - although in the case of Jamie Gray let us hope that his defence lawyers in any potential cruelty action are not able to use any of this in JG's defence and that the RSPCA has learnt from the information cited here and doesn't do the same in any action in regard to Amersham.
 
MISSING PET PLUTO PUT DOWN BY RSPCA
(cutting from Liverpool Echo 22/11/01 by Emma Gunby)


Discovered by "Benjamin Franklyn" of news:uk.rec.pets We are grateful for your vigilance!


OWNER UPSET OVER DOG'S DEATH

A MUCH-loved family pet was put down by the RSPCA after it it had been registered missing by its owners.
Sue Carroll, a florist, from Walton, said she was devastated at the death of her golden cocker spaniel, Pluto.

"We put adverts in the ECHO and all the weekly papers, " said Sue. "We put street posters up and went up to the dogs' home in Halewood to see if he had turned up.

"He wasn't there but his details were logged by one of the girls there."

On Bonfire Night there was a breakthrough when one of Sue's neighbours said she thought she had seen Pluto in the RSPCA dogs' home. She said:

"We went up there and were told they had put him down seven days before. I couldn't believe it; they had all of Pluto's details and yet nobody thought to check whether it was my dog. "I've cried and cried over this but I just want to warn other people who have lost their animals that this might happen to them."

John Smallwood, secretary administrator for RSPCA Liverpool said: "The dog was reported missing in August but we do receive on average 50 calls a day from people reporting stray dogs. "The dog was handed in as a stray on October 23. It was not in good health and was around eight years old.

We had not been contacted by the owners since August and the dog did not have a name tag, tattoo or a microchip to identify it.

We put the dog to sleep after seven days in accordance with the law. "The Liverpool RSPCA receives over 4,000 strays a year and unfortunately we do not have the space to house them all indefinitely.//cutting ends

**************************************************************************

The RSPCA representative says "We put the dog to sleep after seven days in accordance with the law"
How are you reading that????? Do you read it that the law says the dog MUST be put down after seven days?!! The law says nothing of the kind they could have kept the dog alive until their £ 140.000000 had run out had they been so minded!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RSPCA DESTROY KELLY'S PET CAT
(cutting Evening News 28/1/01 by Amanda Patterson)

<<<LEFT Kelly with the mouse her cat used to play with.

The RSPCA has apologised for putting down a seven-year-old girl's pet cat.


Aweek after her family reported him missing. Cuddles the ginger tom disappeared after Nicky McManus, of Keyes Close in Lakenham, Norwich, let him out for his morning stroll.

She had bought himfor her daughter Kelly two weeks earlier from a cat shelter and had not yet had a chance to fix a name tag to his collar.

But although the Norwich branch of the RSPCA knew Cuddles was missing, the department responsible for putting animals down did not

. A tearful Kelly said: "He was a very good cat and was very good at cuddling. We have a folder where we keep our pictures of him and I keep looking at them. I miss him lots and want him back."

Mrs McManus was in the process of having an identity disc made for Cuddles when he disappeared.

Ginger Tom Cuddles Cuddles was handed in to the RSPCA, but staff had no idea he was a missing pet because the charity does not have a computerised register.

Mrs McManus said: "He was a much-loved pet and this has hit my daughter really hard. "It simply should not have happened . . . Cuddles was 100 per cent healthy."

John Atter, regional manager for the RSPCA, said he "very much regretted" that the cat had been put down, but staff were unable to identify Cuddles. "We do not like killing animals, it's the last resort," he said. "Hopefully this incident will highlight the importance of microchipping or at least fitting name tags to pets." He said the Dove Street branch of the RSPCA, where Mrs McManus reported Cuddles missing, was not obliged to contact charity HQ or the national RSPCA hotline about his disappearance.

"I admit our lost and found register did not work but we do not claim to have a complete register," he said. "We put our resources into animal identification schemes. If people are not prepared to microchip their pets, then a disc is better than nothing." Mr Atter said the computer system was being updated so all branches would have access to a lost and found register. But Barry Nobbs, who helps run Country Cat Shelter at Rockland St Mary, where the family adopted Cuddles, said it should have been obvious he was not a stray. "Common sense tells you that if a cat has a new collar on, it has a home," he said. /cuttings ends
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
but if they put down all stray dogs within 7 days where do all the animals in their rescue centres come from? If you find a dog you can't consider it yours until 6 months are up so surely they would have to give it the same length of time?
 
They dont put all stray dogs down within seven days. I there is a lack of space they will put down animals in ill health or that have pshycological issues. There are too many strays to spend the time to rehabilitate.

If you find a dog you are legaly obliged to inform your local authority. At my LA they will almost allways collect the dog and hold it at our kennels for the 'stautory period'. If the finder expresses an interest in keeping the dog our dog warden will nearly always allow the dog to go to the finder (pending a home check) once the 'stautory period' is over. Thats how I got my lovley little dog. Much simpler route than waiting tentatively for 6 months.

If as you say ythe owner turns up after the 7 days (we do 8 days) then tough. If the dog had a collar and tag - which incidentaly is the law, even if your dog is microchipped, there would not be a problem. If anyone looses there dog they should alsways contact their Local Authority 1st as they have the legal duty to deal with strays (along with the police until April 2008)
 
ithink i know what this thread is about....


all i can say is this myjack...

IF PLUTO AND CUDDLES-CUDDLES WERE MICRO-CHIPPED THEY COULD HAVE BEEN REUNITED WITH THEIR OWNERS................



Owner's Responsibility......jack-all to do with your arguement with the RSPCA really.....
 
[ QUOTE ]
It elaborates on the subject of RSPCA witness coaching and cites a high court case as well - interesting and thanks for posting - although in the case of Jamie Gray let us hope that his defence lawyers in any potential cruelty action are not able to use any of this in JG's defence and that the RSPCA has learnt from the information cited here and doesn't do the same in any action in regard to Amersham.

[/ QUOTE ]

The RSPCA has been 'prosecuting' in the same inept way - AND driving a coach and horses through PACE - for at LEAST 15 years to my personal knowledge. And I doubt if many of the recommendations of the independent Sparrow Inquiry of 1974 have actually been acted upon! Who remembers the 'horse on the gate' case? Or for that matter the prosecution of Ian Farquhar, Master of the Beaufort? In practically EVERY case they prosecute, they make a mess of it. Magistrates tend to automatically convict in cases brought by the RSPCA - many cases are thrown out on Appeal - either because the prosections were 'bogus' in the first place - or because the actions of the RSPCA were SO out of line with the rules of justice that the convictions could NOT stand! And who pays for these failed prosections?? WE do - costs are almost always awarded 'from the public purse' - in other words, the taxpayer!

These links make interesting reading - but they're just the tip of the iceberg. Animal 'rights' rules at the RSPCA - NOT animal welfare! And the attitude of the Inspectorate - that they have 'powers' (which they don't) - causes more misery and suffering than it prevents!

If anything GOOD can come out of Amersham it would be a hefty exposure of the mis-management of our allegedly premier animal charity - but I suspect the RSPCA will wriggle out from under - yet again!

I sadly doubt that the RSPCA has learnt ANYTHING!
 
[ QUOTE ]
http://the-shg.org/RSPCA%20criticised%20again.html

in the case of Jamie Gray let us hope that his defence lawyers in any potential cruelty action are not able to use any of this in JG's defence

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you 'know' Jamie Gray is guilty? Because the press have told you so?

What you have read are RSPCA press releases. Of course they are going to portray the man as guilty. Until you hear the defence part of the case you have nothing to go on.
 
Thank you Fenris - that video should be food for thought.

Weird situations can occur in life; JG may be guilty but JG just might be innocent.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you Fenris - that video should be food for thought.

Weird situations can occur in life; JG may be guilty but JG just might be innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]
He is innocent untill a conviction but unless the 30+ dead horses were an outright lie he will be found guilty.

JanetGeorge,well said
smile.gif
 
Thanks for posting those links, they may be a bit one sided, but do make interesting reading nevertheless. I still hold by my view that the activities of the RSPCA are only as good as the Inspector you are dealing with at the time, some may be bad, inefficient or otherwise failing - I have been lucky enough to meet and work with a really good one.
 
There is a new press release on the SHG pages. No doubt it will upset a few vested interests in the wider world, but it seems rather relevant to this thread.

http://www.the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm


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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
28th January 2008



YET ANOTHER JUDGE VILIFIES THE RSPCA …
YET ANOTHER ‘CRUELTY’ CASE COLLAPSES

RSPCA v MARTIN GRIFFIN & GINA GRIFFIN

Hot on the heels of the severe criticism of the RSPCA’s Prosecution Department last month by:

1.
Judge Gray in Harwich (RSPCA v Name Withheld** (primary school teacher) – see earlier release); and

2.
Portsmouth Magistrates (RSPCA v Name Withheld** (kennel maid) – see earlier release)

comes the damning judgment in Norwich, on the afternoon of 23 January 2008, of Judge Philip Browning. It concerned Martin and Gina’s 24 year old laminitic horse Florrie, which had been a family pet for two decades.

The case, as usual for the RSPCA, was a private prosecution for ‘cruelty’:

1.
accompanied by the RSPCA’s traditional PR techniques, and spinning to local and national media;

2.
presented to the court over a number of days, at great expense (to both the taxpayer and the RSPCA’s hapless subscribers) and inconvenience to other court-users;

3.
brought by the RSPCA’s unaccountable Prosecutions Department, led by barrister Sally Case, against defendants (in this case a council worker and a salesperson) of impeccable character; and

4.
where the Defendants own vet - with whom the RSPCA ‘expert’ disagreed – was advising them.

The RSPCA’s ‘expert’ in this case was Nic de Brauwere. Rather worryingly for the RSPCA, in the light of the court’s findings against it, Mr de Brauwere is the vet in the RSPCA’s recent high-profile seizures in Amersham. Mr de Brauwere is in charge of welfare at ‘Redwings’, the rescue centre which the RSPCA pays to stable many of its ‘rescued’ horses. The Griffins vainly tried to tell de Brauwere that they knew the horse was thin and that they had to keep its weight down to avoid an acute recurrence of the long-standing laminitis. This is not only good equine practice – it followed the excellent advice obtained from their horse’s vet, Charlotte Mayers, who knew all about the horse, but with whom it seems that de Brauwere disagreed.

So, the RSPCA’s ‘Inspector’ John Jenkins and Mr de Brauwere thought they knew better than the Griffins’ own vet. The horse was seized from the Griffins’ field where all the other animals, everyone agreed, were in superb condition. Three ‘cruelty’ charges eventually emerged. The animal was taken to a “place of safety” - de Brauwere’s facility - and his clients, the RSPCA, blindly pressed on with its case. They were undeterred by the report of Colin Vogel, the country’s pre-eminent equine specialist (who incidentally writes the RSPCA’s own “Horse-Care Manual”). Mr Vogel was called as an expert by the defence.

Judge Philip Browning, who is not known as a firebrand, made the following findings:

1.
“Mr Vogel is a pre-eminent authority on horses who heard the evidence in the case. In his opinion, the horse was not suffering; he said that he had heard no evidence that the horse could not eat, no evidence that it was hungry and he said that he had heard reasonable evidence that there was a reason to keep the animal thin.”

2.
“It seems pretty clear that Inspector Jenkins had made his mind up [to seize the animal] and that he was unlikely to have agreed that the horse could be treated as offered by Miss Mayers, a course which would, in my opinion have avoided all of this”

3.
“Mr de Brauwere was not minded to discuss alternative causes of the thinness with Mrs Griffin and agreed that Mrs Griffin was offering other causes - he did, to use his words, not want to enter a long debate and did walk away at one point.”

4.
“I go further than saying that there is doubt - I find that the horse was not suffering at all at the time it was seized. I do not need to go on to consider causing or permitting, but I will say that nothing I have heard in this case casts any criticism of Mr and Mrs Griffin.”

5.
“I fully understand the reaction of Mrs Griffin in a situation where she is faced with the sudden removal of Morrie, a much loved virtual member of the family.”

6.
“Mr de Brauwere was challenged in a number of respects by Miss Mayers and Mr Stanley as well as by the Griffins themselves. On the 2nd October, other than being thin, agreed by everyone, the horse was apparently healthy, alert and happy as far as one can judge these things. It is significant that the other horses were in good condition … I cannot accept the inferences I am asked to draw by the prosecution from the thinness of the horse and state of her teeth. I consider that she was able to eat and although she appeared to be getting thinner, her demeanour and general condition on the 2nd October at the very least would create strong reservations about whether she was suffering. There is no explicit evidence to that effect.”

7.
“I recognise the emotional aspect of this case and the feelings of the whole family on her removal. For reasons which will become apparent, I am of the view that this case could have been dealt with in a better way, and certainly more sympathetically by Inspector Jenkins and the RSPCA.”

The SHG speculates that the RSPCA might have brought the case to highlight the 10th anniversary of the damning report from BEVA (the British Equine Veterinary Association). BEVA’s concerns – one of many criticisms by specialist vets – are attached for ease of reference. Is it possible that Sally Case, the Barrister in charge of the RSPCA’s Prosecutions Department, and her team of highly-paid support staff and “out-house” lawyers, wanted to emphasise the correctness of BEVA’s report?

1. “Some BEVA Council Members have voiced concern that the Society has appeared to prosecute cases more in order to generate publicity and gain ‘scalps’ than out of genuine concern for equine welfare.”

2. “In most cases, equine welfare cases do not present as an emergency; the cases usually involve [alleged] neglect or malnutrition, which is by nature not acute … Recent cases have highlighted the failure of some vets to perform full, or competent examinations, which are necessary to support the decision to seize animals, or prosecute owners.”

Ten years ago, it was hastened by specialist equine vets who were concerned that the RSPCA was damaging the profession. The criticisms in RSPCA v Humphries are quite well summarised by BEVA, and every one of these points could be made of the RSPCA again today. The RSPCA has learned nothing in ten years, other than better ways of causing expense, distress and misery for ordinary decent people, like the Griffins, who look after animals properly. It has also “generated publicity” recently!

The Self-Help Group (“SHG”) was formed to, and does, help people like the Grffins. SHG’s Anne Kasica said:

“Like BEVA ten years ago, the public have had enough. The Griffins’ case shows the RSPCA does not want to learn a thing from BEVA. It wants money to keep its leviathan prosecutions running. The public, and the judiciary, are turning their backs on an RSPCA which is increasingly desperate to justify and promote its sinister and unattractive agenda. It is not just the RSPCA’s most obvious victims - like the Griffins, the Harwich and Portsmouth, and the many others referred to on SHG’s website http://the-shg.org - who see the RSPCA for what it is.”

Ernest Vine, also from the SHG said:

“The reporting of the recent cases shows that even the media now recognise the public don’t like the RSPCA’s animal rights ‘take and spin’ approach. The actual results, and serious consequences, of the RSPCA’s ridiculous cases have been escaping into the public domain. The truth sells papers better than printing the RPSCA’s press releases, which furiously spin against honest and decent defendants like the Griffins. The RSPCA was more donations from people to run more cases like this. We want to save the RSPCA from animal rights extremists and its own lawyers, who are regularly paid ten times more than defence teams. I sincerely hope the result of the Griffins’ case will be reported with the same alacrity and prominence that the RSPCA’s preposterous allegations against them were given. Long may judges like Gray and Browning, and brave magistrates, like those in Portsmouth, continue to hear the cases fairly, objectively and also without fear.”



Name Withheld**Names removed to protect individuals who have been the subject of animal rights harassment.Can be supplied but only to bona fide journalists.



Notes to Editors: -
References

Full details of the cases referred to can be found in the following articles

Pair cleared of horse cruelty
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?
or
http://tinyurl.com/23tgq7

BEVA Report
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/bevastatement.htm

YOUNG KENNEL MAID ACQUITTED
RSPCA CRITICISED AGAIN AS YET ANOTHER “CRUELTY” CASE COLLAPSES
http://the-shg.org/kennel%20maid%20acquitted.html

RSPCA CRITICISED AGAIN AS YET ANOTHER “CRUELTY” CASE COLLAPSES
http://the-shg.org/RSPCA%20criticised%20again.html

Trio cleared by court in dog cruelty case
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/fareham-and-meon/Trio-cleared-by-court-in.3540766.jp

The Attorney General v The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/The%20Attorney%20General%20v%20The%20Rspca.htm

For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566.
Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: shg@the-shg.org

The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since.

The national help line number is 08700 72 66 89

A copy of this and previous press releases from The SHG are online at
http://www.the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm

Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at

http://www.the-shg.org

Details of further criticisms of the RSPCA can be found at the RSPCA-Animadversion website:
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion

ENDS
 
And More criticism of the handling of the Amersham case. This time from Chris Day, a vet.

http://chris-day.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/1/30/3495034.html

The Amersham Horses and the RSPCA
by Chris Day on Wed 30 Jan 2008 08:05 GMT | Permanent Link

There has been an outcry in the press about the delays in dealing with the animal welfare situation in Hyde Heath near Amersham (horses, ponies and donkeys).

The Buckinghamshire/Beaconsfield Advertiser and Buckinghamshire/Amersham Examiner have published, on their 'Newsdesk' page, an item by Sarika Sharma (17th January 2008):

Tim Was, a regional superintendent at the RSPCA, said: "We did not have the power to remove animals earlier"

But ......

Is the RSPCA only concerned with 'powers' and with 'removal of animals'. Is there a danger of preoccupation with prosecution?

Could nothing have been done in situ? If all the media coverage is to be believed (and I'm sure that arguments will be put up to the contrary and there will almost certainly be a court case to establish the rights and wrongs), a great deal of suffering could have been avoided by more timely intervention and help for the animals. Should animal welfare not be the proper emphasis and the ultimate aim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top