Alec Swan
...
I would very much like to hear from those who support the charity in question, just how they would offer a counter claim to the argument which I recently found, and I've copied below. I'd also like to hear from those who support the rspca, whether they actually offer their full support to Gavin Grant, or whether they'd prefer to see a wider quantifiable section of our population offer greater support to their charity.
I would very much like to support an animal welfare charity, but one which is fit for purpose, and I'm sure that I'm not alone.
Alec.
________________
How long before Grant is shown the door?
Simon Baseley 1:43pm, 21st May 2013
You cannot see trustees of the RSPCA allowing things to carry on as they are for too much longer. Grappling with mounting running costs which have led to redundancies among its 1500 or so employees, even its most ardent supporters will have looked on aghast as it has frittered away hundreds of thousands of pounds pursuing fatally flawed legal actions. It is a little known fact that the RSPCA is the UKs biggest private litigant, spending heavily each year on rightly prosecuting those who have mistreated animals. But since the arrival of chief executive, Gavin Grant, at the beginning of 2012, the RSPCA seems to have lost sight of its real purpose bringing with it the accusation that Lib Dem supporter, Grant, a virulent opponent of field sports generally and fox hunting in particular, is pursuing a political agenda; something strictly forbidden under Charity Commission rules.
Last month the latest case to turn sour left the charity with a £100,000 bill after a North Wiltshire court heard that charges against two Vale of Avon huntsmen, relating to alleged breaches the hunting act, were to be dropped. The judge in the case criticised the charity for wasting its time and refused to award costs in its favour. This action follows hard on the heels of £300,000 bill arising from the failed prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt plus whatever the costs accrued from the distinctly unsavoury case of huntsman Brian Nuttalls dog, Topic. The dog was seized by the RSPCA after Mr Nuttall was accused of interfering with a badger sett. Almost predictably the three RSPCA witnesses, each gave differing accounts of the circumstances, with the result that the RSPCA dropped the case. However it then took it more than a year to return Mr Nuttall's dog.
Never mind the way it squanders money, there is something very distinctly Orwellian about the charitys behaviour. And clearly others think so too. Reports indicate its income has fallen alarmingly. It can only be a matter of time before Mr Grant is given the opportunity to pursue other interests.
I would very much like to support an animal welfare charity, but one which is fit for purpose, and I'm sure that I'm not alone.
Alec.
________________
How long before Grant is shown the door?
Simon Baseley 1:43pm, 21st May 2013
You cannot see trustees of the RSPCA allowing things to carry on as they are for too much longer. Grappling with mounting running costs which have led to redundancies among its 1500 or so employees, even its most ardent supporters will have looked on aghast as it has frittered away hundreds of thousands of pounds pursuing fatally flawed legal actions. It is a little known fact that the RSPCA is the UKs biggest private litigant, spending heavily each year on rightly prosecuting those who have mistreated animals. But since the arrival of chief executive, Gavin Grant, at the beginning of 2012, the RSPCA seems to have lost sight of its real purpose bringing with it the accusation that Lib Dem supporter, Grant, a virulent opponent of field sports generally and fox hunting in particular, is pursuing a political agenda; something strictly forbidden under Charity Commission rules.
Last month the latest case to turn sour left the charity with a £100,000 bill after a North Wiltshire court heard that charges against two Vale of Avon huntsmen, relating to alleged breaches the hunting act, were to be dropped. The judge in the case criticised the charity for wasting its time and refused to award costs in its favour. This action follows hard on the heels of £300,000 bill arising from the failed prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt plus whatever the costs accrued from the distinctly unsavoury case of huntsman Brian Nuttalls dog, Topic. The dog was seized by the RSPCA after Mr Nuttall was accused of interfering with a badger sett. Almost predictably the three RSPCA witnesses, each gave differing accounts of the circumstances, with the result that the RSPCA dropped the case. However it then took it more than a year to return Mr Nuttall's dog.
Never mind the way it squanders money, there is something very distinctly Orwellian about the charitys behaviour. And clearly others think so too. Reports indicate its income has fallen alarmingly. It can only be a matter of time before Mr Grant is given the opportunity to pursue other interests.
. I carefully added the words (for slaughter) in my post, as I do realise that some animals travel via ships, planes and trains, indeed, I transport dogs/cats to Heathrow for emigration myself. My own horse was brought over from Alberta in utero (if that's the correct spelling) but inside a pregnant mare anyway
it isn't law but it is best practice to ensure that your animal is going to a suitable home, especially so for charities who often deal with animals who have already had one sub-standard home, and who generally guarantee to take that animal back in if the home doesn't work out.
