Wagtail
Horse servant
But if you read what chillipup says, that's not true, is it? They had a barrister and a solicitor...
Petition to curb RSPCA prosecutions
- Thread starter Fenris
- Start date
But if you read what chillipup says, that's not true, is it? They had a barrister and a solicitor...
ycbm
Overwhelmed
EXACTLY the same as any other prosecution for a criminal offence, and if you bother to use Google at all you will swiftly find that the MAJORITY of RSPCA prosecutions will allow legal aid if the applicant's means pass the threshold applied to ALL criminal prosecutions.
I am sick to the back teeth of you people posting this rubbish without researching it!
Last edited:
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Wrong edit, back later.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
You will NEVER lose the farm. Rules on costs and fines are quite clear. They must be payable within one year usually or two years at the absolute longest, and will NEVER, EVER,include having to sell your property to pay them.
Last edited:
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Good grief, popsdosh, do your damned research before accusuing me of having no morals, won't you?
People who are prosecuted by the RSPCA have EXACTLY THE SAME defence as anyone else!!!!
Last edited:
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Your starting to sound like a teenager as they and google are the only things that are ever right
ycbm
Overwhelmed
You produce no evidence whatsoever to support your increasingly absurd allegations.
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
You Base your quotes on Google? I Base mine on what actually happens in the legal world. You would not get legal aid for an rspca prosecution - you can check this yourself by going on the.. Gov website and doing their calculator.
You really don't get it do you? Most would have to sell their properties to pay for legal counsel, not the fines.
Im totally bemused about how you can argue so forcefully about something that you clearly have no knowledge abiut other than doing a little googling... You do realise you look quite foolish saying 'you clearly haven't googled'?
ycbm
Overwhelmed
If 95 % or more of the results you get on Google say one thing, then that one thing can generally be relied upon to be correct. In addition to that I do have personal experience of RSPCA prosecutions.
No-one has to pay to defend themselves from an accusation for which the penalty includes a custodial sentence . If they meet the criteria, legal aid is available. Whether they meet any means test or not, they are entitled to represent themselves and will receive the full assistance of the court in order to do so.
And if they lose a case, no-one will ever face having to lose their home to pay their costs.
Get your facts straight before you post!
Last edited:
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
Do you honestly believe this? I really hope that you never have to go to court
As for facts - mine comes from a genuine real life lawyer, not Google... Google is frequently wrong - 95% consensus does not mean that it is 95% are correct. It could equally mean 95% are using the wrong source material. There is a difference between causation and correlation
Last edited:
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Do you honestly believe this? I really hope that you never have to go to court
I believe it because it's true. I've seen as many court cases as many as you've had hot dinners.
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
Judging from the quality of your posts I very much doubt this...
Eta - judge Judy doesn't count...
ycbm
Overwhelmed
You do recognise a figure of speech when your see one, do you ? OK, you may have had more than 600 hot dinners in your life, but I have been present at at least that number of prosecutions, some of which included RSPCA cases, which are in every respect handled exactly the same as any other criminal prosecution.
In general, the RSPCA use a Crown Court qualified barrister to prosecute, who is more effective than a CPS prosecutor, many of whom are young and inexperienced (and therefore cheap). This may partly account for a high conviction rate, but it doesn't mean the convicted offender wasn't guilty. I've seen CPS prosecutors without vital evidence to give to the court, and I've seen them make stupid mistakes. But I've never seen an RSPCA barrister do the same, and that's one reason why they are so successful at obtaining convictions. They get the basics right.
The RSPCA have flaws. I have signed the petition. But on the whole they do a terrific job for animal protection in this country and the vast majority of people the prosecute are guilty of animal cruelty.
Last edited:
cremedemonthe
Well-Known Member
Signed
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
I think you misunderstand what I mean - I mean that, as someone who uses Google as a frame of reference (and as Gospel it seems), I highly doubt you have had any court dealings in any professional sense... You claim you have, but your postings make me suspect otherwise.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Oh dear uou missed something googling
Although I despise the man and I was involved in the case(its when i learned a few of the RSPCA tricks) try telling Jamie Gray that! I suppose he found this from small change in his pocket ,His house was sold by court order to cover the RSPCA cost
Gray Senior, a horse trader, was ordered to pay costs of £400,000 to cover the expenses of the investigation by the RSPCA and the trial which was held Bicester Magistrates' Court.
Right or wrong it blows your argument out of the water or is that not evidential fact enough for you.
Last edited:
moosea
Well-Known Member
If 95% of google results told you the sky was green and not blue you would agree with them?
As far as I am concerned the rspca are a horrible organisation, who spend money on prosecutions, while killing perfectly healthy animals because the cannot afford to house and keep them. Money that is donated by the public to care for those animals.
I was shocked by their behavior when I worked for them.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
But they don't, do they?
ycbm
Overwhelmed
So now you call me a liar. Nice.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Reference please?
What I can find is that he was ordered to sell his business premises after the death or severe abuse of 146 horses. The court is not able to leave him homeless and I doubt he was homeless, but he may well, quite rightly, have lost most of his business, land, and any savings he had.
Last edited:
moosea
Well-Known Member
I don't know I don't rely on google for my information
I don't rely on google for my informationpopsdosh
Well-Known Member
He got everything he deserved so dont twist that around . The quote was from the telegraph 12/06/2009 oh and google so maybe its true
Surely you remember it .
Alec Swan
...
The problem with that suggestion is that the Courts simply aren't qualified, generally, to judge at such hearings. The word of the rspca is just about always taken as gospel, there are very few solicitors who want to take them on because of the very well documented campaigns launched the the rspca against those who do, and there is very clear evidence of the rspca and its officers perjuring themselves in Court.
Most who face prosecution by the rspca are very poorly represented, because it would be rare for any defending counsel to be any better advised than the Court themselves. The system is quite simply as far removed form justice as one can imagine. Further, the current system is corrupt. The CPS present clear and unequivocal evidence before the Courts, generally, and generally, the rspca don't. If Police Officers present evidence on a criminal matter to the CPS and the evidence is perjured, then the CPS will take action against them. With the evidence which is dishonest and is presented by the rspca, there is no apparent body who will in turn prosecute those who are the perjurers and this can all so often be the rspca themselves.
Alec.
minesadouble
Well-Known Member
I myself am a lawyer and believe me when it comes to legalities Google is not a good point of reference. If an organisation has a good Legal Team there are means of rendering it unlikely a defendant be eligible for Legal Aid, not least by bringing a lesser charge than perhaps originally intended.
Contrary to most opinion on this thread many of this Country's top earning Barristers got rich on Legal Aid - thereby negating the statement that if you are on Legal Aid your representation will be below par. Some of our Barristers take £600k + annually from the Legal Aid purse.
The RSPCA is corrupt at the core.For a charity to happily perjure itself in Court for financial gain smacks of an arrogance which knows no bounds.. Maybe the folk on the ground have good intentions but the organisation as a whole is just not about animal welfare, money and politics seem to be the top priorities.
Contrary to most opinion on this thread many of this Country's top earning Barristers got rich on Legal Aid - thereby negating the statement that if you are on Legal Aid your representation will be below par. Some of our Barristers take £600k + annually from the Legal Aid purse.
The RSPCA is corrupt at the core.For a charity to happily perjure itself in Court for financial gain smacks of an arrogance which knows no bounds.. Maybe the folk on the ground have good intentions but the organisation as a whole is just not about animal welfare, money and politics seem to be the top priorities.
Last edited:
Alec Swan
...
The CPS has often counselled against the rspca progressing with cases because the evidence has been so unsound. Again, the Courts are rarely in a position to contradict the rspca because of their own lack of experience on technical matters regarding animal welfare, and it's only when there is clear evidence that the rspca have shown either scant respect for the Court or they've been found to be wanting, that the cases are thrown out.
Does anyone remember the case of 'dymented' on here? It was a debacle and a shameful offering of British Justice. All bar one charge was thrown out as the Court simply didn't believe the evidence offered by either the rspca officers or the attending police officers because they were contradictory and clearly improbable. The whole case is on record.
Alec.
Alec Swan
...
By all means, consider the case of a man on here with the user name 'dymented'(sp!) and consider how he was treated. It was a shambles and the only point won was through shear dishonesty.
Alec.
Last edited:
ycbm
Overwhelmed
When? The CPS plays no part in RSPCA prosecutions, except for the fact that it can stop them at any time if it considers them to be unfounded or vexatious. Please substantiate your claim.
Yes I remember it well. Dreadful case. One in over four thousand prosecutions in the last two years. There have been at least two other bad ones. Let's for the sake of argument say there have been fifty, which I think is way over the top. Let's get this in perspective. That would be able one per cent. Most of what the RSPCA prosecutes is bang on the nail. They need questions asked because one bad case is one too many. But the outright condemnation going on on this thread is a bit over the top, ime.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Alec, come on now. A couple of thousand cases a year are about starved horses, beaten dogs and microwaved cats. Your average court is perfectly well able to understand the vast majority of cases prosecuted by the RSPCA.
There are problems. They need investigating. But it's not right to suggest that those problems apply to more than a tiny minority of RSPCA prosecutions.
Alec Swan
...
The only unsound and blatantly fraudulent cases are those which we read of when they're thrown out of Court. There are far too many which succeed when the shouldn't and they 'shouldn't' because the defendants are all so often ill advised, the Courts are also similarly treated, and if the question arises 'Is it in the public interest', then most would benefit from help and advice rather than prosecution. Considering the HHOer in question, his defence counsel asked of the prosecuting barrister if the witness (a qualified vet) needed to attend Court. The answer given was that the vet wouldn't need to attend and that his written statement (in total support of the defendant) would be acceptable. On the morning of the hearing, the prosecuting barrister said that he'd changed his mind, the vet would need to attend (he couldn't he was in surgery) and so his statement was deemed inadmissible.
Alec, come one now? ycbm, are you really going to tell me that this was an isolated case of the rspca showing neither respect to the Court or the defendant? Are you so certain that the rspca have any real interest in justice?
It's also my belief that prosecutions are all so often brought with the deciding factor being the defendant's ability to pay. The high profile cases regarding Hunting offences, generally have the defendants accepting the charge and pleading guilty because Hunting isn't how they earn their living and the risks of bankruptcy are very real. Hunting cases are also generally a matter of opinion and a belief of intent and defending such an argument is fraught with risk, risk which few are prepared to take.
We need an RSPCA now and perhaps more than ever, it's just that the views of a great many are that the current shower who are the rspca council need to be replaced with a body which will return that august body to its original charter.
Alec.
ets, and I've just remembered, it wasn't that long ago when the rspca talked a man in to gifting all his sheep to them (they weren't as they should have been), they got them fit, sent them to slaughter, and pocketed the proceeds!
Last edited:
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Are you confusing Google with Wiki? Google is an invaluable research tool used by most professionals. For example, if you Google 'Sentencing Guidelines animal welfare act' It will point you straight to the actual sentencing guidelines used in courts to prosecute cases of animal cruelty. And if you read those guidelines, you will see that there is no charge under that act which could not potentially carry a prison sentence. And if you Google legal aid rules, you will find that automatically means that anyone who qualifies on means can get legal aid to defend an animal cruelty charge.