Good work from RSPCA and WHW..

[Tormenta]

Oh I give up!! The RSPCA do not 'monitor' random horses for years on end - do you not think they have enough to do? They won't have been 'monitoring' this horse! The article says they visited two years earlier and at that time they said they had numerous calls about it and would go and have a look. They then cannot and should not continue to harrass people by turning up to 'monitor' their animals. They don't have a right to do that for a start.

As for WHW removing the other horse - they don't prosecute so likelihood is the owner signed the horse over to them.

The problem is that horsey people always have to be right! And if they make a call about a so called 'emaciated' horse - there's usually not an awful lot wrong with it other than being a bit ribby in winter with the odd cracked hoof and dirty water. That is not grounds to remove a horse.

I'll try not to take your first sentence personally by the way!

You need to wake up and smell the dirt lady, None of these biggies are interested unless the **** hits the fan or publicity is going to bring the money in. So yes, two years ago there was probably a problem with this horse, someone recognised that but no-one recognised the foreseeable problem. Horse dead on it's feet. And our welfare conditions in this country have improved??? I don't think so, same old scenario. Inspectors with too much area, not enough time, fleeting visits and a tick on the sheet to say 'adequate'.

How you can even bring the Jamie Gray into this I have no idea but I will tell you this that if authorities had acted on at least 3 major cases I know of, a couple of years before when concerns were first raised then many horses would not have died. In one in particular, deaths could have been completely avoided, not once but twice before any 'organisation' decided to do anything. Why, I wonder.

I will continue to give my money to small worthwhile charities who work their backsides off and don't lose sight of what they are there for.

 

[Moomin1]

You need to wake up and smell the dirt lady, None of these biggies are interested unless the **** hits the fan or publicity is going to bring the money in. So yes, two years ago there was probably a problem with this horse, someone recognised that but no-one recognised the foreseeable problem. Horse dead on it's feet. And our welfare conditions in this country have improved??? I don't think so, same old scenario. Inspectors with too much area, not enough time, fleeting visits and a tick on the sheet to say 'adequate'.

How you can even bring the Jamie Gray into this I have no idea but I will tell you this that if authorities had acted on at least 3 major cases I know of, a couple of years before when concerns were first raised then many horses would not have died. In one in particular, deaths could have been completely avoided, not once but twice before any 'organisation' decided to do anything. Why, I wonder.

I will continue to give my money to small worthwhile charities who work their backsides off and don't lose sight of what they are there for.

Because 'lady', the law doesn't allow for prosecutions to take place in 'foresight'. Lol - you have made me laugh!! How the **** do you expect any organisation to ask a vet and police officer to seize an animal that 'may' in the future be neglected seriously?!! If we all went with the attitude of - oh there's a slight welfare issue here - we better remove this animal immediately because in the future it may be neglected further, that would be absolutely insane!

The RSPCA can only act if a vet certifies suffering. Doesn't matter what Joe public thinks, or what the RSPCA inspector thinks for that matter. I know of inspectors sitting in their vans crying their eyes out because they have asked for vet support but just because the vet doesn't want to go to court they refuse. The animal has had to be returned to the owner.

 

[Ollie's Mum]

I don't think that anyone would say that we'd be better off without the RSPCA - of course not. Obviously they have to act within legal restraints and we might not always understand why something isn't dealt with as we'd think right for the animal. Any prosecution that they get is great news. But the sad fact is that many of us have had dealings with them that's led us to be somewhat disillusioned and any post that mentions them is going to get strong feelings both for and against. But people who've had the more negative experiences have just as valid a view as those that are avid supporters and obviously feel very upset about what they've experienced to want to speak out.

 

[B_2_B]

I don't think that anyone would say that we'd be better off without the RSPCA - of course not. Obviously they have to act within legal restraints and we might not always understand why something isn't dealt with as we'd think right for the animal. Any prosecution that they get is great news. But the sad fact is that many of us have had dealings with them that's led us to be somewhat disillusioned and any post that mentions them is going to get strong feelings both for and against. But people who've had the more negative experiences have just as valid a view as those that are avid supporters and obviously feel very upset about what they've experienced to want to speak out.

*like*

 

[Moomin1]

I don't think that anyone would say that we'd be better off without the RSPCA - of course not. Obviously they have to act within legal restraints and we might not always understand why something isn't dealt with as we'd think right for the animal. Any prosecution that they get is great news. But the sad fact is that many of us have had dealings with them that's led us to be somewhat disillusioned and any post that mentions them is going to get strong feelings both for and against. But people who've had the more negative experiences have just as valid a view as those that are avid supporters and obviously feel very upset about what they've experienced to want to speak out.

That's very well put Ollie's Mum. I can fully understand that there are bound to be people out there who disagree with the RSPCA. That is fine - each to their own.

What gets to me is that some people feel the need to jump on every single bit of publicity about them - ie succesful prosecutions and slate them to the high hills. At the end of the day - this was a succesful prosecution, and the horse's suffering was put to an end. That is something to be positive about - and would not have taken place if everybody felt the same about the RSPCA.

 

[Beausmate]

I will never give a penny to the RSPCA. I have in the past worked for a large animal charity and I know how much they make, I have also seen inspectors walk away from a pony that should have been put down there and then. I rehomed a dog from them, they were less than truthful about him. My dogs went missing less than two miles from one of their centres, they didn't want anything to do with it as they don't take in strays.

What do they do? Maybe if I have a positive experience, I might change my mind.

If several calls had been received about that horse, then something must have been wrong with it, expect it's teeth were in a bad way back then.

Well done to the WHW, so sad it was too late for the horse.

 

[B_2_B]

That's very well put Ollie's Mum. I can fully understand that there are bound to be people out there who disagree with the RSPCA. That is fine - each to their own.

What gets to me is that some people feel the need to jump on every single bit of publicity about them - ie succesful prosecutions and slate them to the high hills. At the end of the day - this was a succesful prosecution, and the horse's suffering was put to an end. That is something to be positive about - and would not have taken place if everybody felt the same about the RSPCA.

That's why - every single bit of publicity is always the good stuff, people who have experienced the bad stuff feel very strongly that it needs to be put out there so people who blindly follow the adverts on tv of the crying kittens can make more educated choices about where their charity donations go.

 

[Ollie's Mum]

Whenever cruelty is involved - be it children or animals it stirs up strong emotions in people. We just need to all divert that energy and emotion into fighting the bad guys, not one another!

 

[Moomin1]

That's why - every single bit of publicity is always the good stuff, people who have experienced the bad stuff feel very strongly that it needs to be put out there so people who blindly follow the adverts on tv of the crying kittens can make more educated choices about where their charity donations go.

That's absolutely fine - people can make donations where they want! But by going hell bent to put people off donating to the RSPCA then at the end of the day, if they go under, no one will prosecute. Simple as.

I am all for the other charities getting donations too. Apart from the so called 'charities' that some people set up which end up being investigated themselves!

But at the end of the day - if the people of Britain want perpetrayors of animal neglect and cruelty brought to justice, they are going to have to continue digging in their pockets for the RSPCA.

 

[Moomin1]

Whenever cruelty is involved - be it children or animals it stirs up strong emotions in people. We just need to all divert that energy and emotion into fighting the bad guys, not one another!

I like your diplomacy Ollie's Mum!! And your sense of humour from the 'fence' thread!!

 

[mle22]

I hate the RSPCA bashing that turns up all the time on these type of threads.

 

[touchstone]

HOW THE RSPCA DEAL WITH LOST PETS
WHAT THE RSPCA DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW
Monday, 2 April 2012
RSPCA WASTE £ MILLIONS ON POLITICS, INTERNAL WITCH HUNTS AND OFFICES!

The RSPCA is one of Britain's richest charities. High profile animal welfare work by its uniformed inspectors ensures that it has a steady stream of income from donations and legacies.
Half of the £70 million it spent last year was on the 328-strong inspectorate and on prosecutions. But it is the way that money is spent elsewhere that has raised concerns.
The society has new headquarters near Horsham, West Sussex, and trustees complain of the mountains of paperwork produced by their bureaucracy.
Campaigns, including the drive against hunting, cost the charity £4,415,000 last year. Freedom Food cost £1,632,000 in direct grant aid, even though trustees have been repeatedly assured that it would be self-funding.
A council member said: "The problem is that the society has never had to worry about making money so hasn't had to worry about economising.
"Last year the AGM was in Newport and all the staff and council members stayed in the Hilton Hotel. At the end of the day it's a bed for the night and it's an animal charity."
However, an RSPCA spokesman said people could not be put in low-quality hotels and expected to do a good job. "There's a balance to be struck between looking after yourself and extravagance and I think we strike that well," he said.
The fact that the society directorate believes that more than £2 million can be saved from "efficiencies" suggests that those who work there are aware of slack that can be cut out of the system.
There has been criticism of the society's new £16 million headquarters, built to replace its old HQ in central Horsham.
The society says it was needed for the extra room. It could not have been built in a cheaper part of the country because many staff would have refused to move, leading to high redundancy and recruitment costs.
The council member, who asked not to be named because the society's "protocols of confidentiality" prevent councillors from talking to the press, said staff were already complaining about the new building.
The open plan offices were noisy and some employees were unhappy with the distance from the town centre. This concern may rise with the news that the lunchtime minibus into town is one of the potential cuts.
The council member said: "The society sold its old headquarters in the centre of Horsham for £5.2 million and has spent £16 million on a shed. We didn't need it.
"The amount of staff we have is ridiculous. It's because they like to run it on a military basis with chains of command. You could take three layers out of the bureaucracy and it would still work."
Eyebrows were raised when the society donated £80,000 to a charity chaired by Peter Davies, the director-general, which is building a memorial to animals in war. Money was also donated by WISPA, an international charity supported by the RSPCA.
The decision to give the money was backed by the Charity Commission and, the society says, on the condition that the memorial "promoted kindness towards animals and discouraged ill treatment".
The RSPCA is appealing for a similar amount to save the Llys Nini animal centre which opened near Swansea in 1997. Local members claim the case is indicative of the way the society uses money.
The local branch, which raised more than a million pounds to build the centre, accused the national society of forcing them to build something more extravagant than was necessary.
They say that the £95,000 needed by September to keep the £1.3 million centre open would still be available if a more appropriate and cost-effective centre had been built, using local architects and cutting down on the administrative space that the headquarters demanded.
The RSPCA counters that the centre was built to the society's "national standard" using a "tried and tested approach" but the result was that it lost the support of some of the local fund-raisers now needed to keep the centre open.
It is uncertain whether the money will be raised in time.
Members who criticise the society's activities claim to have been ostracised. Paranoia and an obsession with secrecy afflict both the organisation and its critics. Private detectives have even been used to investigate the society's opponents.
Last year, the society spent £40,000 pursuing an inquiry into the activities of David Mawson, a vegetarian chef and member of the council. The cost of the failed attempt to suspend him from the council is reported to have included £3,560 to track his e-mails.
There was also anger earlier this year when The Telegraph disclosed that the society was planning to spend tens of thousands of pounds on an investigation into which member of its council spoke to the BBC.
The investigation, which some sources suggest cost as much as £80,000, culminated in a 120-page deposition delivered to the Broadcasting Standards Commission last week disputing claims made about Freedom Food in an edition of the Watchdog programme. The BSC has not yet published a ruling. The RSPCA defended the expenditure, which it claimed was much less than reported, because it was "under attack" and had to defend itself.
A spokesman said: "The programme could have done us a lot of damage. If our fund-raising capabilities are threatened we will defend ourselves again and again." The society spent £4.2 million on campaigning last year, including taking out full-page advertisements about hunting in national newspapers.
Owen Perks, who was a council member and treasurer of the society, resigned last year and returned his Queen Victoria Medal in protest at the way he believed the hierarchy had lost touch with supporters.
"I believe the RSPCA should be doing the job it was set up to do and that's preventing cruelty to animals," he said. "It's become a campaigning body." Fears over repercussions mean that many critics within the organisation are willing to speak only anonymously. When they do, what they say reflects a desire from both the pro-hunting and animal rights wings of the society to refocus the charity on animal welfare.
There even appears to be an opportunity to find common ground between the two sides of the hunting debate, though both say that the RSPCA gives no effective forum for it to be found. One critic from the Left of the society said: "There's no open debate whatsoever.
"You've got to have members who agree with the objects but they don't have to agree with the policies. The objects are to promote kindness and prevent cruelty to animals. There are more important issues in animal welfare than hunting."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1402352/RSPCA-millions-go-on-politics-and-HQ.html

 

[Ollie's Mum]

A pity there isn't a big "animal aid" day along the lines of children in need where money could be divided up between animal charities.

 

[joeanne]

Carrot and Spud = EPIC fail on the part of the RSPCA
Foal in Tipton = EPIC fail on the part of the RSPCA
I could go on but I feel I make my point.

4 MILLION quid spent on refurbing the headquarters a few years back, but there are STILL kennels not fit for purpose and inspectors that are unable to tell a horse from a ruddy donkey because they do not recieve adequate training due to "lack of funds"

ETA and lets not forget the conference where they put up VIP's in a very exclusive and expensive London hotel. THATS where your donations go people!

 

[Moomin1]

HOW THE RSPCA DEAL WITH LOST PETS
WHAT THE RSPCA DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW
Monday, 2 April 2012
RSPCA WASTE £ MILLIONS ON POLITICS, INTERNAL WITCH HUNTS AND OFFICES!

The RSPCA is one of Britain's richest charities. High profile animal welfare work by its uniformed inspectors ensures that it has a steady stream of income from donations and legacies.
Half of the £70 million it spent last year was on the 328-strong inspectorate and on prosecutions. But it is the way that money is spent elsewhere that has raised concerns.
The society has new headquarters near Horsham, West Sussex, and trustees complain of the mountains of paperwork produced by their bureaucracy.
Campaigns, including the drive against hunting, cost the charity £4,415,000 last year. Freedom Food cost £1,632,000 in direct grant aid, even though trustees have been repeatedly assured that it would be self-funding.
A council member said: "The problem is that the society has never had to worry about making money so hasn't had to worry about economising.
"Last year the AGM was in Newport and all the staff and council members stayed in the Hilton Hotel. At the end of the day it's a bed for the night and it's an animal charity."
However, an RSPCA spokesman said people could not be put in low-quality hotels and expected to do a good job. "There's a balance to be struck between looking after yourself and extravagance and I think we strike that well," he said.
The fact that the society directorate believes that more than £2 million can be saved from "efficiencies" suggests that those who work there are aware of slack that can be cut out of the system.
There has been criticism of the society's new £16 million headquarters, built to replace its old HQ in central Horsham.
The society says it was needed for the extra room. It could not have been built in a cheaper part of the country because many staff would have refused to move, leading to high redundancy and recruitment costs.
The council member, who asked not to be named because the society's "protocols of confidentiality" prevent councillors from talking to the press, said staff were already complaining about the new building.
The open plan offices were noisy and some employees were unhappy with the distance from the town centre. This concern may rise with the news that the lunchtime minibus into town is one of the potential cuts.
The council member said: "The society sold its old headquarters in the centre of Horsham for £5.2 million and has spent £16 million on a shed. We didn't need it.
"The amount of staff we have is ridiculous. It's because they like to run it on a military basis with chains of command. You could take three layers out of the bureaucracy and it would still work."
Eyebrows were raised when the society donated £80,000 to a charity chaired by Peter Davies, the director-general, which is building a memorial to animals in war. Money was also donated by WISPA, an international charity supported by the RSPCA.
The decision to give the money was backed by the Charity Commission and, the society says, on the condition that the memorial "promoted kindness towards animals and discouraged ill treatment".
The RSPCA is appealing for a similar amount to save the Llys Nini animal centre which opened near Swansea in 1997. Local members claim the case is indicative of the way the society uses money.
The local branch, which raised more than a million pounds to build the centre, accused the national society of forcing them to build something more extravagant than was necessary.
They say that the £95,000 needed by September to keep the £1.3 million centre open would still be available if a more appropriate and cost-effective centre had been built, using local architects and cutting down on the administrative space that the headquarters demanded.
The RSPCA counters that the centre was built to the society's "national standard" using a "tried and tested approach" but the result was that it lost the support of some of the local fund-raisers now needed to keep the centre open.
It is uncertain whether the money will be raised in time.
Members who criticise the society's activities claim to have been ostracised. Paranoia and an obsession with secrecy afflict both the organisation and its critics. Private detectives have even been used to investigate the society's opponents.
Last year, the society spent £40,000 pursuing an inquiry into the activities of David Mawson, a vegetarian chef and member of the council. The cost of the failed attempt to suspend him from the council is reported to have included £3,560 to track his e-mails.
There was also anger earlier this year when The Telegraph disclosed that the society was planning to spend tens of thousands of pounds on an investigation into which member of its council spoke to the BBC.
The investigation, which some sources suggest cost as much as £80,000, culminated in a 120-page deposition delivered to the Broadcasting Standards Commission last week disputing claims made about Freedom Food in an edition of the Watchdog programme. The BSC has not yet published a ruling. The RSPCA defended the expenditure, which it claimed was much less than reported, because it was "under attack" and had to defend itself.
A spokesman said: "The programme could have done us a lot of damage. If our fund-raising capabilities are threatened we will defend ourselves again and again." The society spent £4.2 million on campaigning last year, including taking out full-page advertisements about hunting in national newspapers.
Owen Perks, who was a council member and treasurer of the society, resigned last year and returned his Queen Victoria Medal in protest at the way he believed the hierarchy had lost touch with supporters.
"I believe the RSPCA should be doing the job it was set up to do and that's preventing cruelty to animals," he said. "It's become a campaigning body." Fears over repercussions mean that many critics within the organisation are willing to speak only anonymously. When they do, what they say reflects a desire from both the pro-hunting and animal rights wings of the society to refocus the charity on animal welfare.
There even appears to be an opportunity to find common ground between the two sides of the hunting debate, though both say that the RSPCA gives no effective forum for it to be found. One critic from the Left of the society said: "There's no open debate whatsoever.
"You've got to have members who agree with the objects but they don't have to agree with the policies. The objects are to promote kindness and prevent cruelty to animals. There are more important issues in animal welfare than hunting."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1402352/RSPCA-millions-go-on-politics-and-HQ.html

You do realise that is from 2002?! And also - this is the opinion of ONE person. It is not fact. There are comments in their which are incorrect.

 

[B_2_B]

That's absolutely fine - people can make donations where they want! But by going hell bent to put people off donating to the RSPCA then at the end of the day, if they go under, no one will prosecute. Simple as.

I am all for the other charities getting donations too. Apart from the so called 'charities' that some people set up which end up being investigated themselves!

But at the end of the day - if the people of Britain want perpetrayors of animal neglect and cruelty brought to justice, they are going to have to continue digging in their pockets for the RSPCA.

*shakes head, gives up and goes to bed*

 

[Moomin1]

Carrot and Spud = EPIC fail on the part of the RSPCA
Foal in Tipton = EPIC fail on the part of the RSPCA
I could go on but I feel I make my point.

4 MILLION quid spent on refurbing the headquarters a few years back, but there are STILL kennels not fit for purpose and inspectors that are unable to tell a horse from a ruddy donkey because they do not recieve adequate training due to "lack of funds"

ETA and lets not forget the conference where they put up VIP's in a very exclusive and expensive London hotel. THATS where your donations go people!

Fine - let everyone stop donating - then have a good ol' moan when nobody gets prosecuted.

It's very easy for people to judge and scrutinise such a large organisation who are probably one of the most well known charities in the country. But at the end of the day, why not take a good look at the positives here - go and find the ACCURATE (not from anti RSPCA sights - or pro sites - but actual numbers) of prosecutions and animals removed from neglectful situations.

Nobody ever comments on those do they?

 

[Beausmate]

The more political they get, the more they seem to lose the plot.

 

[joeanne]

WHW prosecute.
As do other charities.
RSPCA is not the only charity with the ability to prosecute as much as they would like to believe they are!
Oh and they only pick battles they know they can win.....so the majority go unpunished!

 

[Moomin1]

WHW prosecute.
As do other charities.
RSPCA is not the only charity with the ability to prosecute as much as they would like to believe they are!
Oh and they only pick battles they know they can win.....so the majority go unpunished!

Do they?! Google it and find ONE prosecution that WHW have taken!

WHW call in the RSPCA when they find a potential prosecution.

Have a look at their website

Oh, and by the way - just for your info - ANYBODY can prosecute - the RSPCA bring about private prosecutions in Magistrates Courts. So anybody here who feels they would like to prosecute someone for animal abuse or neglect can do - provided they read up on the animal welfare act!

 

[joeanne]

I'm off to bed. Your utter twoddle is tiring me out......

 

[Hollycatt]

WHW prosecute.
As do other charities.
RSPCA is not the only charity with the ability to prosecute as much as they would like to believe they are!
Oh and they only pick battles they know they can win.....so the majority go unpunished!

I thought about posting this too. It is true. I don't know how often they actually go ahead and prosecute- but they can. So it begs the question, why be SO hard on the RSPCA when the others are sitting back and not prosecuting, but letting RSPCA take the flak as it is the only one that does. True RSPCA have extra powers that other welfare officers don't have. But as I understand it, the reason other charities do not prosecute is due to the fact it is not cost effective.

I have met some fantastic RSPCA officers and some bad ones. Same with any profession.

 

[Moomin1]

I thought about posting this too. It is true. I don't know how often they actually go ahead and prosecute- but they can. So it begs the question, why be SO hard on the RSPCA when the others are sitting back and not prosecuting, but letting RSPCA take the flak as it is the only one that does. True RSPCA have extra powers that other welfare officers don't have. But as I understand it, the reason other charities do not prosecute is due to the fact it is not cost effective.

I have met some fantastic RSPCA officers and some bad ones. Same with any profession.

Just to correct you Hollycatt - RSPCA officers have no powers whatsoever - the powers referred to in the animal welfare act are in relation to Local Authority Inspectors - ie council funded inspectors. The RSPCA have never and won't ever in the foreseeable future be awarded powers because they are a charity.

 

[Hollycatt]

Ok I will change my use of the English language. By 'powers' I mean the ability to issue warnings or whatever they call them. i.e we have visited adn you have x days to sort this out. WHW, Donkey sanctury etc don't carry little books/forms that they leave at people's houses to tell people to get their act together or else. I am not an expert on the legislation, but if the other charities want a warning or whatever it is called issued, they will get RSPCA officer to come along and do it for them. Or that used to be the situation, I have not lived in the UK for several years.

 

[alsiola]

Oh and they only pick battles they know they can win.....so the majority go unpunished!

Does this not make sense? Surely otherwise they would be slated for "wasting money on court battles they knew they would lose?!"

I am not always in agreement with RSPCA policies, and like any large organisation there is of course wasted money on bureaucracy. However, all of the inspectors I have worked with do an exceptionally good job, often in exceptionally difficult circumstances. Overall there is no doubt in my mind that their contribution to animal welfare in this country is a massively positive one.

 

[Moomin1]

Ok I will change my use of the English language. By 'powers' I mean the ability to issue warnings or whatever they call them. i.e we have visited adn you have x days to sort this out. WHW, Donkey sanctury etc don't carry little books/forms that they leave at people's houses to tell people to get their act together or else. I am not an expert on the legislation, but if the other charities want a warning or whatever it is called issued, they will get RSPCA officer to come along and do it for them. Or that used to be the situation, I have not lived in the UK for several years.

Yeah you are right the RSPCA do issue warning notices as you mention. These are not statutory notices however. As you say - if the other charities wished to issue these they could do just the same, but they don't. I don't know why - haven't looked into it.

 

[Moomin1]

Does this not make sense? Surely otherwise they would be slated for "wasting money on court battles they knew they would lose?!"

I am not always in agreement with RSPCA policies, and like any large organisation there is of course wasted money on bureaucracy. However, all of the inspectors I have worked with do an exceptionally good job, often in exceptionally difficult circumstances. Overall there is no doubt in my mind that their contribution to animal welfare in this country is a massively positive one.

Exactly - it would be an absolute waste of public money to go for battles which have very little chance of being prosecuted due to lack of evidence!! Also, if there is lack of evidence then no prosecution should take place because someone could end up being convicted, or not, incorrectly. As for saying that the 'majority' go unpunished - what a wild, plucked out of the air comment!! Have we got any statistics of this?

 

[alsiola]

Exactly - it would be an absolute waste of public money to go for battles which have very little chance of being prosecuted due to lack of evidence!! Also, if there is lack of evidence then no prosecution should take place because someone could end up being convicted, or not, incorrectly. As for saying that the 'majority' go unpunished - what a wild, plucked out of the air comment!! Have we got any statistics of this?

I can speak only from personal experience. My perspective (as attending vet on cases) is that if the suffering/potential suffering justifies seizure, then it equally justifies prosecution. I have never worked with an inspector who wasn't equally as keen to prosecute whenever possible. On occasion we are advised by the RSPCA legal people that based on the strength of the case, prosecution is unlikely to be successful and the cost can't be justified. That's fine by me, just making best use of limited resources.

I do somewhat agree that the majority go unpunished, or at least underpunished. Unfortunately this is often in spite of a successful prosecution, where a ridiculously light punishment is meted out by the judge. Nothing the RSPCA or I can do about that.

 

[Hollycatt]

Yeah you are right the RSPCA do issue warning notices as you mention. These are not statutory notices however. As you say - if the other charities wished to issue these they could do just the same, but they don't. I don't know why - haven't looked into it.

As I understand it they do not prosecute as it is not cost effective. I also have no idea about the warning notices, but perhaps partly due to the fact the welfare officers would perhaps need a lot more, expensive training to do the job? In terms of prosecution, one case can easily cost hundreds of thousands. Balance banning one person for keeping animals for x years or whatever the expected penalty may be against how many animals can be saved for £300,000 and rightly or wrongly, it is easy to see why prosecutions are not popular for anyone.

 

[Dolcé]

I'm sorry but the RSPCA are NOT knowledgeable enough about horses. If they were monitoring this horse then how did it become one of the thinnest horses the WHW had seen? HOW?

If you reported a neglected child to social services and they put that child on the 'at risk' register (meaning it was being 'kept an eye on'), and that child subsequently ended up looking like an anorexic through neglect - heads would roll, people would be sacked.

Really? I can think of several high profile cases where children on the CP register lost their lives because social workers were taken in by the lies of the carers! Some heads rolled on one of the cases but then the senior manager was paid a huge amount of compensation for unfair dismissal, usually it is blamed on other factors. I am not a fan of the RSPCA but will acknowledge that they are the only welfare agency with the funds to prosecute people in cases like this. Unfortunately the welfare officers of all the agencies are often taken in by excuses, age, previous laminitis etc but also their hands are very tied! The new laws that came in promised so much but in reality delivered nothing and that is where action needs to begin. All animals in this country should be given the full protection of the law and that would give the agencies the power they so desperately need.

eta I would also imagine that if the malicious calls to welfare agencies stopped it would free up masses for officer time to chase up genuine cases.