Hope its ok to post this link
- Thread starter nuffield
- Start date
stacey_lou
Well-Known Member
I will donate when I get paid next week x
flyingfeet
Well-Known Member
Anyone else wondering how they managed to spend £7,657.66 per animal rescued????
nuffield
Well-Known Member
Medical needs, feed, staff wages etc . its not alot, per animal, when you think of thespecialist needs many of those horses had.
Every £1 given will help ensure other cruelties are investigated.
Earlier today I learned of a mare found, tied up in a stable and left to die, her dead filly foal was behind her.
She is skin and bone.
She is now in a place of safety and the poor girl is whinnying at a foal in the paddock near to her stable.
RSPCA have been informed and it turns out the mares owner has been prosecuted for cruelty in the past. They are looking into this latest atrocity.
Every £1 given will help ensure other cruelties are investigated.
Earlier today I learned of a mare found, tied up in a stable and left to die, her dead filly foal was behind her.
She is skin and bone.
She is now in a place of safety and the poor girl is whinnying at a foal in the paddock near to her stable.
RSPCA have been informed and it turns out the mares owner has been prosecuted for cruelty in the past. They are looking into this latest atrocity.
flyingfeet
Well-Known Member
So its not a restricted fund for the Amersham horses??
I'm sorry, but my money will go to WHW (nee ILPH), as RSPCA seem to be more interested in taking people to court who they think can pay the bill and ignore the pikeys.
I'm sorry, but my money will go to WHW (nee ILPH), as RSPCA seem to be more interested in taking people to court who they think can pay the bill and ignore the pikeys.
Santa_Claus
Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought although the RSPCA were involved with the initial rescue all the horses and ponies went to different charities (i.e. blue cross, WHW etc) and none to the RSPCA themselves?
As said please correct me if i'm wrong but as someone else said above I prefer my money to go to the likes of WHW.
As said please correct me if i'm wrong but as someone else said above I prefer my money to go to the likes of WHW.
teddyt
Well-Known Member
SC- youre right, alot of the horses did go to other charities to be looked after. Unfortunately i think it is only the rspca that can bring a case to court (ready to be corrected on this). The cost therefore is all probably legal fees. I personally would rather give my money to WHW, they are much more proactive, practical and helpful in the real world. The rspca is too political in my view, too many chiefs and not enough indians. Only ever seem to step in when its far too late or a really big welfare case, such as amersham.
nuffield
Well-Known Member
The RSPCA are the only organisation which can bring a court case.
The various rescue organisations collaborate with each other with no prejustice.
The amount quoted is what the amersham case has cost so far, remember those horses are still being fed and cared for.
It matters not at all whether you donate to the RSPCA, WHW or redwings. All are involved.Nit picking wont help the horses.
The various rescue organisations collaborate with each other with no prejustice.
The amount quoted is what the amersham case has cost so far, remember those horses are still being fed and cared for.
It matters not at all whether you donate to the RSPCA, WHW or redwings. All are involved.Nit picking wont help the horses.
nuffield
Well-Known Member
https://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/donate/
WHW state the 11 horses they have in their care have cost £112,000 so far.
The donation link for them is above.
WHW state the 11 horses they have in their care have cost £112,000 so far.
The donation link for them is above.
nuffield
Well-Known Member
nuffield
Well-Known Member
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else wondering how they managed to spend £7,657.66 per animal rescued????
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes - in their dreams.
Anyone else wondering how they managed to spend £7,657.66 per animal rescued????
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes - in their dreams.
joe_carby
Well-Known Member
me thinking im not going to waste good money on RSPCA i will donate to the other causes. Asin the ones that know about animal welsfare but thanks for the links to redwings anf WHW
nuffield
Well-Known Member
my pleasure
dozzie
Well-Known Member
So they need to raise £850,000 to pay for this? What happened to all the donations that flooded in? Does this mean not a penny of those donations went to help these horses?
Or have i just misunderstood the advert?
Or have i just misunderstood the advert?
competitiondiva
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
SC- youre right, alot of the horses did go to other charities to be looked after. Unfortunately i think it is only the rspca that can bring a case to court (ready to be corrected on this). The cost therefore is all probably legal fees. I personally would rather give my money to WHW, they are much more proactive, practical and helpful in the real world. The rspca is too political in my view, too many chiefs and not enough indians. Only ever seem to step in when its far too late or a really big welfare case, such as amersham.
[/ QUOTE ]
No the RSPCA are not the only ones who can bring a case at all. They are private prosecuters and therefore take the case on privately at their own cost. Anyone of the other charities are perfectly free to take on a case but most leave the legal side to the rspca. In the amersham case I believe that all the charities that could help in boarding did BUT (correct me if I'm wrong) most of the horses boarding/vets/rehab/feed etc etc fees were paid for by the rspca.
I realise that there are alot of people on here anti rspca but without them a hell of a lot of animals out there would be worse off. Being a big organisation they will never meet everyones expectations. People do forget (or don't realise) that they are a charity and as such receive NO government or lottery funding yet they are expected to attend god knows how many calls a day.
Horse keeping by it's very nature attracts a very wide variety of people none of which agree on how a horse is best kept. The rspca act within the law when attending/investigating and will take a case where they believe a successful prosecution is likely (the amount a case costs you cannot critise them for not taking a case if there is insufficient evidence etc the CPS wouldn't!)
SC- youre right, alot of the horses did go to other charities to be looked after. Unfortunately i think it is only the rspca that can bring a case to court (ready to be corrected on this). The cost therefore is all probably legal fees. I personally would rather give my money to WHW, they are much more proactive, practical and helpful in the real world. The rspca is too political in my view, too many chiefs and not enough indians. Only ever seem to step in when its far too late or a really big welfare case, such as amersham.
[/ QUOTE ]
No the RSPCA are not the only ones who can bring a case at all. They are private prosecuters and therefore take the case on privately at their own cost. Anyone of the other charities are perfectly free to take on a case but most leave the legal side to the rspca. In the amersham case I believe that all the charities that could help in boarding did BUT (correct me if I'm wrong) most of the horses boarding/vets/rehab/feed etc etc fees were paid for by the rspca.
I realise that there are alot of people on here anti rspca but without them a hell of a lot of animals out there would be worse off. Being a big organisation they will never meet everyones expectations. People do forget (or don't realise) that they are a charity and as such receive NO government or lottery funding yet they are expected to attend god knows how many calls a day.
Horse keeping by it's very nature attracts a very wide variety of people none of which agree on how a horse is best kept. The rspca act within the law when attending/investigating and will take a case where they believe a successful prosecution is likely (the amount a case costs you cannot critise them for not taking a case if there is insufficient evidence etc the CPS wouldn't!)
dozzie
Well-Known Member
I think you hit the nail on the head. When there is insufficient evidence the CPS wont prosecute. So the RSPCA prosecute when there is insufficient evidence. How is that right? Sorry but it is so unjust.
This country is supposed to be a democracy. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. In my mind that means with sufficient evidence. I know some guilty people will walk free because of this but in my mind better that some guilty people walk free than innocent people are destroyed.
This country is supposed to be a democracy. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. In my mind that means with sufficient evidence. I know some guilty people will walk free because of this but in my mind better that some guilty people walk free than innocent people are destroyed.
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
No the RSPCA are not the only ones who can bring a case at all. They are private prosecuters and therefore take the case on privately at their own cost. Anyone of the other charities are perfectly free to take on a case but most leave the legal side to the rspca. In the amersham case I believe that all the charities that could help in boarding did BUT (correct me if I'm wrong) most of the horses boarding/vets/rehab/feed etc etc fees were paid for by the rspca.
I realise that there are alot of people on here anti rspca but without them a hell of a lot of animals out there would be worse off. Being a big organisation they will never meet everyones expectations. People do forget (or don't realise) that they are a charity and as such receive NO government or lottery funding yet they are expected to attend god knows how many calls a day.
Horse keeping by it's very nature attracts a very wide variety of people none of which agree on how a horse is best kept. The rspca act within the law when attending/investigating and will take a case where they believe a successful prosecution is likely (the amount a case costs you cannot critise them for not taking a case if there is insufficient evidence etc the CPS wouldn't!)
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunatley they dont. They walked onto SF with an army of people and seized JG animals without a warrant. The police did not know anything about the animal welfare act so they trusted the RSPCA when they told the police that the act states that police have the authority to not only enter the farm themselves, but to also take RSPCA and others onto the farm with them to remove the animals. All without a warrant.
This evidence was heard in court. If I remember rightly, the court heard that sections 18 and 19 of the act were quoted to the police and the Grays to support that idea.
No the RSPCA are not the only ones who can bring a case at all. They are private prosecuters and therefore take the case on privately at their own cost. Anyone of the other charities are perfectly free to take on a case but most leave the legal side to the rspca. In the amersham case I believe that all the charities that could help in boarding did BUT (correct me if I'm wrong) most of the horses boarding/vets/rehab/feed etc etc fees were paid for by the rspca.
I realise that there are alot of people on here anti rspca but without them a hell of a lot of animals out there would be worse off. Being a big organisation they will never meet everyones expectations. People do forget (or don't realise) that they are a charity and as such receive NO government or lottery funding yet they are expected to attend god knows how many calls a day.
Horse keeping by it's very nature attracts a very wide variety of people none of which agree on how a horse is best kept. The rspca act within the law when attending/investigating and will take a case where they believe a successful prosecution is likely (the amount a case costs you cannot critise them for not taking a case if there is insufficient evidence etc the CPS wouldn't!)
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunatley they dont. They walked onto SF with an army of people and seized JG animals without a warrant. The police did not know anything about the animal welfare act so they trusted the RSPCA when they told the police that the act states that police have the authority to not only enter the farm themselves, but to also take RSPCA and others onto the farm with them to remove the animals. All without a warrant.
This evidence was heard in court. If I remember rightly, the court heard that sections 18 and 19 of the act were quoted to the police and the Grays to support that idea.
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think you hit the nail on the head. When there is insufficient evidence the CPS wont prosecute. So the RSPCA prosecute when there is insufficient evidence. How is that right? Sorry but it is so unjust.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is extremely unjust. Just goes to show how keen they are to prosecute.
[ QUOTE ]
This country is supposed to be a democracy. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. In my mind that means with sufficient evidence. I know some guilty people will walk free because of this but in my mind better that some guilty people walk free than innocent people are destroyed.
[/ QUOTE ]
They had JG down as guily of cruelty and neglect from day 1.
The RSPCA gave live tv interviews outside of SP on the 9th of Jan 08, telling the world that it was the worse case of cruelty and neglect that they had ever seen. They did this without knowing any facts what so ever. Obiviously there was a reason why there were some dead animals, but without a single test or post mortom, the RSPCA told the world that JG was cruel and neglectful.
The RSPCA dont need to have sufficient evidence to accuse someone of being guilty of cruelty and neglect. If they say it's cruelty then it must be. Thats all the evidence they need as far as they are concerned.
I think you hit the nail on the head. When there is insufficient evidence the CPS wont prosecute. So the RSPCA prosecute when there is insufficient evidence. How is that right? Sorry but it is so unjust.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is extremely unjust. Just goes to show how keen they are to prosecute.
[ QUOTE ]
This country is supposed to be a democracy. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. In my mind that means with sufficient evidence. I know some guilty people will walk free because of this but in my mind better that some guilty people walk free than innocent people are destroyed.
[/ QUOTE ]
They had JG down as guily of cruelty and neglect from day 1.
The RSPCA gave live tv interviews outside of SP on the 9th of Jan 08, telling the world that it was the worse case of cruelty and neglect that they had ever seen. They did this without knowing any facts what so ever. Obiviously there was a reason why there were some dead animals, but without a single test or post mortom, the RSPCA told the world that JG was cruel and neglectful.
The RSPCA dont need to have sufficient evidence to accuse someone of being guilty of cruelty and neglect. If they say it's cruelty then it must be. Thats all the evidence they need as far as they are concerned.
nuffield
Well-Known Member
Please give as much as you can to the horsey and other animal welfare people. RSPCA WHW Redwings etc. The abused and cruely treated horses will benefit greatly from this. Thankyou.
competitiondiva
Well-Known Member
QUOTE 'Unfortunatley they dont. They walked onto SF with an army of people and seized JG animals without a warrant. The police did not know anything about the animal welfare act so they trusted the RSPCA when they told the police that the act states that police have the authority to not only enter the farm themselves, but to also take RSPCA and others onto the farm with them to remove the animals. All without a warrant
This evidence was heard in court. If I remember rightly, the court heard that sections 18 and 19 of the act were quoted to the police and the Grays to support that idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you will find that the seizure took place with trading standards officers present who ARE warranted..... If the animals weren't seized legally the case would never have reached court. Even if there is the tinniest bit of inconsistency in evidence a case can be thrown out so to make a statement such as this I think is crazy.
As far as the CPS not prosecuting is concerned do you really think that it is the general publics best interest to cost the tax payer up to £million for boarding these animals and bring the case to court? The rspca was willing to take the case as they are trained to deal with these types of cases.
This evidence was heard in court. If I remember rightly, the court heard that sections 18 and 19 of the act were quoted to the police and the Grays to support that idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you will find that the seizure took place with trading standards officers present who ARE warranted..... If the animals weren't seized legally the case would never have reached court. Even if there is the tinniest bit of inconsistency in evidence a case can be thrown out so to make a statement such as this I think is crazy.
As far as the CPS not prosecuting is concerned do you really think that it is the general publics best interest to cost the tax payer up to £million for boarding these animals and bring the case to court? The rspca was willing to take the case as they are trained to deal with these types of cases.
competitiondiva
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think you hit the nail on the head. When there is insufficient evidence the CPS wont prosecute. So the RSPCA prosecute when there is insufficient evidence. How is that right? Sorry but it is so unjust.
This country is supposed to be a democracy. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. In my mind that means with sufficient evidence. I know some guilty people will walk free because of this but in my mind better that some guilty people walk free than innocent people are destroyed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstood me here, I was saying that the CPS won't take on a case if there is insufficient evidence AND nor will the rspca. I'm not sure who you know who has been falsly prosecuted but they have a statutory right to appeal. As far as you prefering that some guilty people walk free if the rspca ceased to exist, I find this a very disappointing comment for an animal lover......
I think you hit the nail on the head. When there is insufficient evidence the CPS wont prosecute. So the RSPCA prosecute when there is insufficient evidence. How is that right? Sorry but it is so unjust.
This country is supposed to be a democracy. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. In my mind that means with sufficient evidence. I know some guilty people will walk free because of this but in my mind better that some guilty people walk free than innocent people are destroyed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstood me here, I was saying that the CPS won't take on a case if there is insufficient evidence AND nor will the rspca. I'm not sure who you know who has been falsly prosecuted but they have a statutory right to appeal. As far as you prefering that some guilty people walk free if the rspca ceased to exist, I find this a very disappointing comment for an animal lover......