Petition for investigation into RSPCA activities

F

Fenris

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 January 2008
Messages
229
Visit site
Please sign and share

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807

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.
 
Not signed as it is badly written and the bit about prosecuting being the remit of the CPS is incorrect.
If someone was to submit a petition which was worded better then I would sign, but no matter how many signatures this one gets it will never be taken seriously by the powers that be.
 
If trading standards take a prosecution, it is the council that pay, not the cps either, so are you looking to stop all private prosecutions???
 
Whilst I agree, wholeheartedly with the sentiments, AND I've signed the petition, I'd be surprised to hear that DEFRA were the body who were responsible for the rspca.

Far more likely that the responsible body would be The Charities Commission, I'd have thought. A detailed viewing of the charity's accounts wouldn't go amiss, for all that! ;)

Alec.
 
By political lobbying, I take it you mean lobbying for changes in law? If this is the case surely you could include the rspb and the nspcc for a start? Surely campaigning for changes in law, which benefit welfare can only be a good thing, or should we solely rely on our MP's for this?
 
So basically people do not want an animal charity to lobby on behalf of animals to change laws so that they can protect animals better?

The mind boggles!

So who should lobby government to improve animal welfare laws? Do you not think that WHW does not "lobby" for government to better protect horses?

World Horse Welfare was founded in 1927, as a campaigning organisation to prevent the export of live British horses for slaughter. The charity's founder, Ada Cole, was spurred into action after witnessing a procession of British work horses being unloaded and whipped for four miles to slaughter in Belgium.

In 1937 after political lobbying by the charity, The Exportation of Horses Act is introduced to protect the welfare of horses destined for the slaughterhouses of Europe. This introduces the concept of ‘Minimum Values’, which effectively stops the export of live horses for slaughter from Great Britain.

What about WWF and Greenpeace - they are charities. Of course they all lobby government for better protection of animals. One change in law can protect 1000's in one fell swoop if it is properly enforced. This is a great way to spend money.

As to CPS prosecutions - I agree they should be prosecuting more cases but they don't -lets sign a petition to make the CPS prosecute more animal cruelty offenders rather than vilify the RSPCA who are having to do their job for them.

Those who signed the petition - you are in good company.

The guy Mike Davidsohn leading the petition is apparently a BNP member who breeds poodles.

Lastly the one thing that makes me really proud is to be a member of the only party to be speaking the truth and the only party that allows its members and supporters a real freedom of speech, the BNP.

Mike Davidsohn, Hertfordshire - taken from the Stormfront website forum whose motto is "White Pride Worldwide"
 
onmybreak said:
So basically people do not want an animal charity to lobby on behalf of animals to change laws so that they can protect animals better?

Correct. The bulk of those who give the matter serious thought, want the rspca to follow the original tenet which was laid out at their inception.

The mind boggles!

So who should lobby government to improve animal welfare laws? Do you not think that WHW does not "lobby" for government to better protect horses?

Who do I think should be the lobbyists? I don't care, providing that it's a body which aren't such an embarrassment.

World Horse Welfare was founded in 1927, as a campaigning organisation to prevent the export of live British horses for slaughter. The charity's founder, Ada Cole, was spurred into action after witnessing a procession of British work horses being unloaded and whipped for four miles to slaughter in Belgium.

WHW previously the ILPH, are a body who single handedly have improved the lot of the European equine. The rspca have never achieved anything. Never confuse the WHW with the rscpa.

In 1937 after political lobbying by the charity, The Exportation of Horses Act is introduced to protect the welfare of horses destined for the slaughterhouses of Europe. This introduces the concept of ‘Minimum Values’, which effectively stops the export of live horses for slaughter from Great Britain.

What about WWF and Greenpeace - they are charities. Of course they all lobby government for better protection of animals. One change in law can protect 1000's in one fell swoop if it is properly enforced. This is a great way to spend money.

A charity which is close to my heart, started a project to protect Rhinos in Africa, realised that the trick was to improve the life of the local native so that he had no need to poach, built a school, a medical centre and became involved in the general well being of a great many Kenyan natives. The WWF, seeing their success offered to "buy them out", I'm serious. My chums asked just what had the WWF achieved, found it was very little (apart from the directors living very comfortably, thank you ;)), and sent them packing.

Greenpeace, when they held hands with that awful Daily Mirror owner, Maxwell, and despite advice to the contrary, brought about the end of the seal skin trade for the Inuits, when they realised the damage that they'd done, they got themselves into reverse, and refused to have anything more to do with the project. Such a shame that they didn't listen to advice from the outset.

As to CPS prosecutions - I agree they should be prosecuting more cases but they don't -lets sign a petition to make the CPS prosecute more animal cruelty offenders rather than vilify the RSPCA who are having to do their job for them.

The rspca aren't forced into taking on these prosecutions, and don't run away with the idea that their doing so for any altruistic reasons, these cases are huge fund raisers for them. Apart from mealy mouthed platitudes, the rspca doesn't give a jot about animal welfare. Making Money is the name of the game. ;)

Those who signed the petition - you are in good company.

The guy Mike Davidsohn leading the petition is apparently a BNP member who breeds poodles.

Lastly the one thing that makes me really proud is to be a member of the only party to be speaking the truth and the only party that allows its members and supporters a real freedom of speech, the BNP.

Mike Davidsohn, Hertfordshire - taken from the Stormfront website forum whose motto is "White Pride Worldwide"

He also lives in this country, would you have us all emigrate? It's an irrelevance.
Click to expand...

onmybreak, you may well consider that I care little for animal welfare. You'd be wrong. I care immensely, but I do have serious problems with the larger and the more established charities. They lose their way, which is sad really, considering that most set out with the best intentions.

Alec.
 
Last edited:
An occasional investigation into the activities of any multi-million pound organisation by independent responsible people cannot be a bad thing. Maybe the RSPCA are doing a great job. Maybe the man who started the petition is affiliated to the BNP and breeds poodles. Is that really important?

Sign the petition and let's get to the unbiased truth!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807
 
As a charity you work to your charitable object(s) with measurable goals and strategies - for instance you cannot raise money for a lifeboat and give it to a donkey. Charities report to the Charity Commission and the annual audit and reporting is not to be sniffed at (we are just starting the run up to ours).

For those interested.

Here is the link to the RSPCA charitable objects
RSPCA.

And a link to their annual report
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/DocumentList.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=219099&SubsidiaryNumber=0&DocType=AccountList

They raise a staggering amount of money and have a lot in reserve (my personal bugbear). So in my opinion, a complaint should be directed towards the Charity Commission as they have the teeth to deal with it.

It is said that the ideal charity would be for a blind donkey in a lifeboat.
 
Perhaps the reason for the BNP show poodle breeder and judge's vendetta against the RSPCA is a little more personal.

Could it be that he is angered by the RSPCA's stance against shaving the whiskers off dogs for cosmetic reasons ?
He certainly likes his puppies to have a close shave.

Concerned about animal welfare ? I don't think so M.J.

i'll stick with the RSPCA.

And yes, they do a lot of international work to give practical help and education to help animals in countries where animal welfare is not a priority.

Those who are busily criticizing the RSPCA, why not improve the charity and work as a volunteer ? You could use your skills as an administrater, a trustee or working direct with animals.
Or is it easier to sign the rather strange petiton and sit back, happy in the knowledge that you have done satisfied your principles by doing nothing.
 
horserider said:
.......

Those who are busily criticizing the RSPCA, why not improve the charity and work as a volunteer ? You could use your skills as an administrater, a trustee or working direct with animals.

.......
Click to expand...

The rspca have their very own Wall. Were that wall, and the intransigent attitude which supports it, removed (or let's be honest here, the Society's management), then progress may be made. As the system is, no one in their right minds would attempt to bring about improvements. Considering the original principals upon which the Society was formed, that Society is now morally bankrupt, if not financially.

Alec.

Ets, horserider, as an afterthought, and though you may not believe me, I'm as certain as anyone else that we need a Society to Prevent Cruelty to Animals. The one which we have is a joke, it needs replacing. a.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't go as far as agree with Alec on this. (Sorry!:D).

But if the RSPCA is opposed to being investigated, I would say that is one very strong reason why it NEEDS to be investigated.

I am opposed to The Kennel Club for the very same reason. But that is a private club and I don't think it would be very easy to investigate it. Its accounts aren't even open to its own members (did you know that?), so God knows what goes on behind the closed doors of Clarges Street!

But the RSPCA CAN be investigated -- and if it is as wonderful as some claim, it has nothing to fear.
 
Copied and pasted from sussexbythesea, (hope they don't mind) from another of these threads, thought it was an extremely insightful response that people may not be aware of.

"From a quick look at their extensive reports and published Accounts that are open to all. Frankly I don't see how they can be any clearer or more accountable on that front.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator...05371&mode=prd

http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator...40914&mode=prd

In 2011 the RSPCA received 1,314,795 calls, 159,759 Complaints about animal abuse. The gave out Welfare advice in 79,174 cases.

They took 2018 prosecutions - that is 1.2% of the number of complaints they received. They spent £4,698,137 on prosecution - that is an average of £2349. They received a total income of £116,200,000 - so they spent 4% of their income on prosecution.

Hardly a large proportion of what they do is it?

So really people are not looking at the facts but making assumptions on the few cases that are actually highlighted in the press."
 
diva,

explain something to me. If they spent some £4.698mil on prosecutions, and that was a mere 4% of their income, does "Spent" mean expenditure, or was the money recouped in Court costs, and was it the public coffers, or those of the rspca which were swelled by the, presumably imposed, fines?

I must say that getting on for £5mil sounds an awful lot of money.

Alec.
 
Fines are awarded to the courts, rspca only gets costs. Other than that I can't answer, as said, I copied and pasted the reply which was from another thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top