Petition to curb RSPCA prosecutions

[chillipup]

I think the one thing this thread highlights is that the RSPCA have lost their credibility. I'm presuming that most of us on here are horse/dog/livestock owners and that we are also enlightened as to the quality of life our animals deserve and make sacrifices to provide these animals with everything they need and a bit more.

That being the case surely we should all support an organisation with animal welfare at its heart? I can't speak for anyone by myself but for me the RSPCA is not worthy of my support. I don't trust them (they have been proven to lie) or any statements made by them.
I don't think they act in the best interests of animals. I know a lot of people who feel the same way I do, the RSPCA either needs a massive overhaul or should be stripped of its charitable status.

Not according to the independent report they commissioned from the former Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service.

 

[ycbm]

This thread does not highlight anything of the sort. You are quite clearly anti- RSPCA & that is your right but I will not take the written word from a handful of strangers whose anecdotes regarding alleged RSPCA corruption as truth without evidence.

I would still like to know if Carolyn Shires, the petitioner, is the same Carolyn Shires who was found guilty in a court of law for neglecting her 80 or so animals .As a previous poster stated, I do wonder about the motives of some of those who have signed the petition & if grudges regarding the RSPCAs anti-hunting stance & their subsequent prosecutions against illegal hunting with hounds is the reason for signing & not for the sake of the average pet owner.

This ^^^^

I would prefer the CPS to prosecute; the Arab case was a total mess, but on the whole they do a great job.

The RSPCA have taken a lot of criticism on this thread for its treatment of vulnerable people. I am concerned about those cases, but before I condemn the RSPCA for it, can anyone answer me the earlier question of whether the RSPCA are forced to prosecute vulnerable owners of animals because that's the only way they have of not having to give the animals back to be further mistreated, or new animals taken on in their place?.

 

[Alec Swan]

This ^^^^

…….. before I condemn the RSPCA for it, can anyone answer me the earlier question of whether the RSPCA are forced to prosecute vulnerable owners of animals because that's the only way they have of not having to give the animals back to be further mistreated, or new animals taken on in their place?.

I'm not sure that the rspca are actually 'forced' to do anything. When animals are signed over to them, that is often the end of the matter. In the most extreme cases then I suspect that prosecution follows. Once animals are 'signed over' (gifted in other words), then the chances of the giver being able to demand their return would be slim and the rspca would have little difficulty in satisfying a Court that the contract should not be rescinded.

Despite the fact that I'm a firm critic of the rspca and of their devious and underhand practices, the removal of animals from those who are either unable to, or won't care for them is, with the provision that it's coupled to a sense of justice, the only way forward for an animal charity which claims any degree of authority. The temptation all so often though is that they abuse their assumed powers, and that's the major stumbling block, in my view.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

I'm not sure that the rspca are actually 'forced' to do anything. When animals are signed over to them, that is often the end of the matter. In the most extreme cases then I suspect that prosecution follows. Once animals are 'signed over' (gifted in other words), then the chances of the giver being able to demand their return would be slim and the rspca would have little difficulty in satisfying a Court that the contract should not be rescinded.

Despite the fact that I'm a firm critic of the rspca and of their devious and underhand practices, the removal of animals from those who are either unable to, or won't care for them is, with the provision that it's coupled to a sense of justice, the only way forward for an animal charity which claims any degree of authority. The temptation all so often though is that they abuse their assumed powers, and that's the major stumbling block, in my view.

Alec.

The question remains, Alec. Does anyone on the thread know if the RSPCA have any way of stopping someone from keeping animals if they DON'T prosecute them?

Because if they don't, then that would explain why they feel it necessary to prosecute vulnerable people who they believe will simply go on keeping and mistreating animals.

I've googled it to death and I can't find a definitive answer. All the Government documents suggest the answer is no, which would explain a lot.

 

[Goldenstar]

The question remains, Alec. Does anyone on the thread know if the RSPCA have any way of stopping someone from keeping animals if they DON'T prosecute them?

Because if they don't, then that would explain why they feel it necessary to prosecute vulnerable people who they believe will simply go on keeping and mistreating animals.

I've googled it to death and I can't find a definitive answer. All the Government documents suggest the answer is no, which would explain a lot.

If the RSPCA remove an animal on the say so of a police officer then need to take it straight to a vet if the vet says that in his or her opinion the animal is suffering and it has to be PTS that's that at that stage .
There's no need for the RSPCA to take any further action .
The owner of the animal could sue them and then they would simply need to defend their actions they would have a paper trial and photographs and usually video and the vets notes and the vet to use to defend their actions .

 

[Alec Swan]

ycbm, the answer to your first question is obviously; No, short of applying for and being granted a case by case decision that the owner should be compelled to release their animals, prosecution is the only way forwards.

There could also be the argument put forward that the rspca have their charitable status removed, that they are granted and assume the duties and facilities of a government sponsored and provided authority and then they will be considered as Trading Standards and be compelled to abide by the conditions which are demanded of our Courts and Society in general. As things stand, and there is a clear conflict of interest, so a charity which is dependent upon charitable donations, attempts a level of authority, such as it is it's abused and simply because they are attempting to wear two hats.

Perhaps giving the rspca the authority which they need would be a way forward but with that authority comes responsibility and the removal of charitable status. Somehow I can't see that happening as it would include the disbanding of a fat-cat council.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

If the RSPCA remove an animal on the say so of a police officer then need to take it straight to a vet if the vet says that in his or her opinion the animal is suffering and it has to be PTS that's that at that stage .
There's no need for the RSPCA to take any further action .
The owner of the animal could sue them and then they would simply need to defend their actions they would have a paper trial and photographs and usually video and the vets notes and the vet to use to defend their actions .

That doesn't answer the question.

Is it possible for the RSPCA to prevent anyone from keeping animals without prosecuting them?

If a mad old lady insists on keeping fifty cats with no litter trays, can she be prevented from doing so without prosecution, or are the RSPCA forced to prosecute a vulnerable mentally ill old lady in order to protect animals?

If not, then it isn't fair to criticise them for prosecuting vulnerable people.

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

The owner of the animal could sue them and then they would simply need to defend their actions they would have a paper trial and photographs and usually video and the vets notes and the vet to use to defend their actions .

Vets, just like solicitors, will act and advise on behalf of the person who's paying them, so the evidence which is offered by an rspca paid for vet will be as biased as the vet who represents the defendant.

Ets; At the time of rspca intervention, they (the charity) will already have a vet standing in the wings. Few who would be in the position of a defendant would be in that position, and any vet who they subsequently engage could hardly be in a position to offer an opinion regarding an animal which they are likely to view days or weeks after the event.

Alec.

 

[Goldenstar]

That doesn't answer the question.

Is it possible for the RSPCA to prevent anyone from keeping animals without prosecuting them?

If a mad old lady insists on keeping fifty cats with no litter trays, can she be prevented from doing so without prosecution, or are the RSPCA forced to prosecute a vulnerable mentally ill old lady in order to protect animals?

If not, then it isn't fair to criticise them for prosecuting vulnerable people.

They could remove the pets subject correct procedure being followed but they could prevent the person getting more .
They are a charity they can't force UK subjects to do things without the sanction of the law .
The idea that they could is just awful .
There been some very very worrying cases with older people the one with the elderly vet was one that really made me wonder were on earth the charity I worked so closely with was going .
I worry very much that some defendants don't get good enough representation soon enough to give them a fair chance to defend them selves .
Or they have no money and there fore no protection .

 

[popsdosh]

How about reading the Wooler report (the RSPCA commissioned themselves) in full? Take your time to take it all in and see what the former Director of the Crown Prosecution Service recommends they do.


Oh and I'd be interested to know how the Trading Standards Animal Health Education team operates. Couldn't find anything on their site. I'd be pleased to pointed in the right direction.

Two points there and I will keep it short If the RSPCA was so squeeky clean why has it announced since the report that it will no longer prosecute farm animal or hunting cases . Has animal welfare got so much better that there has been a sharp decline in the number of prosecutions they have started.

On the Trading standards question, where have I said TS have an education team? They can come onto my farm at any time unannounced (unlike the RSPCA) if they find any issues with my stock which they judge on exactly the same welfare guidelines as any other animal they will then point these out. They will then have a conversation about how to rectify whats happening and make a return visit. This is the difference they have a conversation and not dictate their officers tend to be people who have farm animal experience . Their powers are draconian( they dont need to go to court) compared to even the RSPCA however farmers on the whole have no issue with the way they deal with people.

Like I say what would I know obviously another case of the internet being right and professionals who deal with it all the time not having a clue. Still I know from previous threads you just wont believe what you are told with regard the RSPCA even when its personal experience that is involved. Practical experience means a lot more than you read on the internet. I probably would not have believed what they do till I was asked to help them out and then see what goes on from the inside. You wont change my views based on what I have seen personally in a professional environment however I do find it insulting when yourself and one other on here try your best to twist what is said to rubbish it ! I notice the other poster who knows who they are has still not answered my questions but their still googling away im sure. Maybe they already know their figures they quoted are wrong by a long way.

Enough said as we are getting away from the point of the thread, which surprisingly I haven't yet as it actually has little credibility having been started by who it was. Perhaps you might give me some credit for that. However I am sure that things are going to change on the way welfare cases are prosecuted and I hope the RSPCA survives the impact as under previous control they really lost the plot as can be born out by their drop in income. The question I ask you to answer is very straight forward why are the RSPCA not wanting the CPS to prosecute the cases they have investigated. I think I know the reason and it has nothing to do with animal welfare.

 

[Goldenstar]

Vets, just like solicitors, will act and advise on behalf of the person who's paying them, so the evidence which is offered by an rspca paid for vet will be as biased as the vet who represents the defendant.

Ets; At the time of rspca intervention, they (the charity) will already have a vet standing in the wings. Few who would be in the position of a defendant would be in that position, and any vet who they subsequently engage could hardly be in a position to offer an opinion regarding an animal which they are likely to view days or weeks after the event.

Alec.

I think my post there was obtuse I meant the RSPCA would have to defend themselves .
Owners of course don't go through their life preparing to defend themselves from a quasi NGO .
The only thing an owner can take them to court for is the valve of the pet ( so pretty well nothing )they might try to get recompense for their emotional suffering or if they could find some abuse of process but it's highly unlikely a pet owner would take this route .

 

[popsdosh]

If the RSPCA remove an animal on the say so of a police officer then need to take it straight to a vet if the vet says that in his or her opinion the animal is suffering and it has to be PTS that's that at that stage .
There's no need for the RSPCA to take any further action .
The owner of the animal could sue them and then they would simply need to defend their actions they would have a paper trial and photographs and usually video and the vets notes and the vet to use to defend their actions .

The problem is invariably the RSPCA will use only one vet in an area usually the one that gives them the result they want. One answer would be when it comes to the destruction of an animal maybe more opinions should be sought before it happens as its sure to late once its happened and i am afraid that there is always going to be some perception that a prosecution is just an a***e covering exercise after the event .

On a technicality which the RSPCA hide behind only the police have the power to seize the animal so you would need to sue the police authiority.

 

[honetpot]

When you criticise the RSPCA for how they handle a case or cases you are accused that you are not interested in animal welfare and they are defended by some with almost religious fervour,' how can this organisation that does so much good do anything wrong?'
Well history is littered with organisations that did the wrong things with what started out with the best intentions, government, social services, children's charities, the police, NHS, religious bodies,etc. I suppose the RSPCA has been not under much scrutiny because of its charitable biases and these cases are often spread out geographically and not well reported in the national press and perhaps only affect a relatively small amount of people who has very little understanding of the media and how to use it.
Well scrutiny is a good thing. It makes you examine your views, work out how to more effectively achieve your aims, makes you communicate effectively, invest in training and you have to justify your actions and their outcomes. This usually leads to a more effective organisation that serves its clients better.
If the RSPCA had been part of government services like the NHS all it employees would have had to under go training in what ever their role was, and this training is often updated yearly or when ever guidelines change. I as a professional have to be accountable for my actions and actually ask for feedback from the public, document it and then reflect on it. I can not understand how RSPCA employees who have very little understanding or experience of large animals can be allowed to go to people homes and land and make judgements about best practice when the person being visited because of their actions end up, signing over their animals, or in the worst case could end up in court and there appears to be little ability for anyone to examine their actions. Why do they wear a pseudo police uniform that infers authority, when even vets, doctors, social services do not wear a uniform and the ones that do like paramedics have a uniform that is based on practicality not intimidation?
I think there needs to be a review of how they operate, how their charitable donations are spent, and do they actually prevent cruelty? Target areas with poor animal welfare history and target interventions and record what happens. I can not understand why anyone wanting to prevent cruelty would advise not giving and animal in distress food or water, I am not interested in taking someone to court I would want to see that animal treated quickly who ever owned it.

 

[Goldenstar]

The problem is invariably the RSPCA will use only one vet in an area usually the one that gives them the result they want. One answer would be when it comes to the destruction of an animal maybe more opinions should be sought before it happens as its sure to late once its happened and i am afraid that there is always going to be some perception that a prosecution is just an a***e covering exercise after the event .

I agree the area of when to PTS is highly subjective .
I have often thought the whole unnecessary suffering thing is a bit of a red herring from the time I lived in another culture where many would not end a life this made examine my beliefs with I had formed based on our norms of our society .
Suffering at the time of death is normal and natural this whole area is a very interesting subject to explore .

 

[ycbm]

I agree the area of when to PTS is highly subjective .
I have often thought the whole unnecessary suffering thing is a bit of a red herring from the time I lived in another culture where many would not end a life this made examine my beliefs with I had formed based on our norms of our society .
Suffering at the time of death is normal and natural this whole area is a very interesting subject to explore .

It wouldn't matter to me where I lived or for how long, natural or not, I could never, ever, allow a dying animal to continue to suffer when I had it in my power to end that suffering.

 

[eahotson]

I have been keeping a small number of animals for a number of years.The RSPCA haven't been round to remove them or prosecute me.Why is that as they seem to be targeting all sorts of innocent people? Should I feel offended? Are they prejudiced against me for some reason?

 

[popsdosh]

It wouldn't matter to me where I lived or for how long, natural or not, I could never, ever, allow a dying animal to continue to suffer when I had it in my power to end that suffering.

However your perception of when to call it a day will be different to somebody else. Thats why I say the decision should not be down to just one Vet when the animal is seized obviously there are clear cut cases but also others that are not so easy to judge.
More often than not the animal is very well looked after and much loved and suddenly that owner has their decision making options taken away from them rather than somebody spending time with them and trying to persuade them in a caring and sympathetic way what the correct thing may be .

 

[Goldenstar]

It wouldn't matter to me where I lived or for how long, natural or not, I could never, ever, allow a dying animal to continue to suffer when I had it in my power to end that suffering.

But that's a subjective opinion .
The law is not clear on the subject because it can't be , however if you say , keep your dog going after the vet has said PTS you had better be able to defend your course of action if necessary .
Other cultures take very different views on this .
My mother takes a very different view keeping dogs going long after I would have PTS .
Everyone's view on what's acceptable varies .
And tbh it's exactly the same with humans I consider what many people go through as unacceptable and inhumane many people believe that what I believe is unacceptable

 

[Alec Swan]

I have been keeping a small number of animals for a number of years.The RSPCA haven't been round to remove them or prosecute me.Why is that as they seem to be targeting all sorts of innocent people? Should I feel offended? Are they prejudiced against me for some reason?

Perhaps you haven't irritated any neighbours, and sufficiently so that they report you!

Alec.

 

[windand rain]

As an animal welfare charity, and as the majority on here are animal lovers if the RSPCA were squeaky clean and never did any wrong then the majority would be hailing how wonderful they are and supporting them in every way. The fact is that the majority want the review and have less than faith in the organisation. The persuance of the old, frail, ill and weak is the problem they are abusing their powers as when it comes to the ones that fight back they are less than effective. The best way forward for them and one which I would support is they become excusively animal welfare officers with the proper training needed for every animal they may come across. They may prepare prosecutions if deemed necessary and then present a case to the CPS for further review, who then could proceed as needed or not. Having watched the American system it seems a much fairer way forward. They have police officers that do have powers of arrest that are specialists in animal welfare and as such are in a better position to bring forward prosecution.
The issue that I perceive to the biggest one is one of ignorance on the part of the RSPCA officers. Having heard of one who was called to some young native horses wintering out in 50 acres of rough grazing, with coats like Yaks advise a very experienced horse owner they need to be rugged. The ponies may well have been a wefare ase in the spring when the grass came through as they were hail and hearty enjoying life to the full. Feet trimmed vaccinated etc as they were show stock wintering out. Once heard of a young lass who had an old dog thrown from a car at her feet she lived in a no pets rental, it was apparent the dog was seriously injured, she was on low income the RSPCA informed her they didnt deal with dogs anymore and to call the dog warden the following monday (it was friday evening). I am sure these are not isolated incidents but an example of why a lot of animal lovers do not support the RSPCA. Maybe it is a question of training being inadequate that is at the heart of distrust. If the cases were prepared for scrutiny and an indepedant body filtered them for prosecution then justice would be seen to be done and the RSPCA would be respected by animal lovers instead of being appalled by their behaviour. Still there is no cure for stupid

 

[Fenris]

I'm afraid it is. In my previous job, I had to attend various protection policy steering groups. It was recognised then, and that must be 7-8 years ago.
A quick look through the reports available on the NSPCC website shows numerous reports highlighting this. They put 'neglect' under the umberella of 'abuse'. I tried to link one, but it came up huge.

Not suggesting for a minute that organisations like the NSPCC (who were, incidentally, started by the RSPCA) do not claim that there re 'links' and that there has not been a huge amount of literature produced claiming that there are. The point is that when you actually read the content of the research it is not up to standard and easily debunked as in the article by Heather Piper posted earlier. She is not the only expert who is critical of the situation, and if you do a search you will find many such.

The problem is that when this sort of misinformation becomes mainstream and 'everybody' 'knows' it to be true it leads to real horrors of injustice, like the Satanic Panic, and unfortunately, because of the secrecy of the family courts system most of the facts can never be known, including the RSPCA's involvement.

Here are reports of just one such case. Be aware that only a fraction of what was done to these people has been reported.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...58902/Evil-destruction-of-a-happy-family.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...tion-another-win-for-the-child-snatchers.html

 

[Fenris]

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/owner-donkeys-lucky-survive-banned-from-keeping-animals-462108

Has this petition been started by the same Carolyn Shires that was prosecuted by (ironically given the statement above) Trading Standards and supported by the Donkey Sanctuary? If you Google her name you come up with various news reports about her regarding animal neglect and debt.

Could be a different one I suppose but seems a bit of a coincidence.

I will certainly ask but can you tell me why it should matter who started the petition? The whole point is that the issues are important and need addressing, hence the interest from government, the possible EFRA inquiry and the Wooler report.

 

[Fenris]

It's not luck. There's a reason trading standards do farm animals and not the RSPCA. it's an economic necessity. It is impossible to farm animals for meat to the same welfare standards as are expected of pet and horse owners, people would simply never be able to afford to eat meat.

This isn't necessarily wrong, it just is.

Trading standards are supposed to do farm animals but I have personally been told by several TS departments that it is surprising how many times the RSPCA move in on a Friday afternoon having know about the issues for long enough to have informed them, manage to get hold of the animals and go on to prosecute and only inform TS after the event if at all.

 

[Fenris]

It's not luck. There's a reason trading standards do farm animals and not the RSPCA. it's an economic necessity. It is impossible to farm animals for meat to the same welfare standards as are expected of pet and horse owners, people would simply never be able to afford to eat meat.

This isn't necessarily wrong, it just is.

Try using that a a defence in an RSPCA prosecution. The AWA is very clear. Any unnecessary suffering is sufficient to produce a guilty verdict. The RSPCA do not differentiate between a lame dog, horse or sheep. If the owner is aware of the lameness or should reasonably have known that it was present then they must seek veterinary advice.

 

[ycbm]

The fact is that the majority want the review and have less than faith in the organisation. The persuance of the old, frail, ill and weak is the problem they are abusing their powers as when it comes to the ones that fight back they are less than effective.

Can you point me to your statistical evidence for this statement?

Can you also answer my question whether the only way to stop the old, frail, ill and weak from being allowed to mistreat further animals is to prosecute them, because a banning order is only available after conviction.

The old, frail, ill and weak are, unfortunately, far from immune from mistreating animals.

 

[popsdosh]

Can you point me to your statistical evidence for this statement?

Can you also answer my question whether the only way to stop the old, frail, ill and weak from being allowed to mistreat further animals is to prosecute them, because a banning order is only available after conviction.

The old, frail, ill and weak are, unfortunately, far from immune from mistreating animals.

You still haven't answered mine perhaps you dont want too.

 

[Fenris]

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and the difference between Trading Standards and the RSPCA has really taxed my brain. Is it possibly that the RSPCA don't actually have ENOUGH powers?

Let's take the example of a mentally ill person hoarding cats in bad conditions. Someone goes in to advise the person that they need to get the cats sorted. They don't do it. They are then asked if they will sign over the animals. They won't. The RSPCA seize the animals (or, rather, the police do and give them to the RSPCA to look after. What happens then if the RSPCA don't prosecute the mentally ill person? Would they simply be able to demand their animals back and go on maltreating them?

Any lawyers who can answer that one, it's too complicated for Google I think?

There have been a number of cases in which the RSPCA have gone for a S.20 to dispose of the animals and have never gone on to prosecute. The problem with this approach is that it has been used on people who did not have mental health problems as well as those who did.

Does anyone here really believe that serious accusations of animal neglect or cruelty should be decided to the civil standard or proof instead of the much more stringent criminal standard?

If all of your breeding stock, or show ponies were seized, would you be happy if a magistrate decided they could go for horse meat or be sold on to your rivals?

In cases involving the mentally ill there are usually other agencies involved, and if there are not the RSPCA most certainly notifies them.

Landlords are informed or the council or housing association. The RSPCA puts pressure on them to enforce a No Animals tenancy even when there have been prior agreements that the person can keep a small number of animals.

If there is an issue with environment or untidiness, again landlords are involved along with environmental health etc.

Many other variations but effectively all suspend the individuals rights, and although there are times that it is the only way to deal with the situation it should not be for a charity to decide to put all of these things in motion when there is no proper oversight of that charity.

 

[ycbm]

Try using that a a defence in an RSPCA prosecution. The AWA is very clear. Any unnecessary suffering is sufficient to produce a guilty verdict. The RSPCA do not differentiate between a lame dog, horse or sheep. If the owner is aware of the lameness or should reasonably have known that it was present then they must seek veterinary advice.

If the RSPCA routinely prosecuted farmers whose sheep have foot rot, sheep who died on their backs due to not having been supervised, sheep left unsheared on a sweltering summer day, sheep left without shade from sunburn after being newly sheared, sheep left out in freezing weather after being newly sheared, sheep with bits of plastic tied into their vaginas with a bit of baling twine in an effort to stop them prolapsing before they can be lambed, sheep routinely nicked and blooded by shearers who pride themselves on the number they can get through, etcetera, etcetera

Then the courts would be full of farmers and none of us would be able to afford to eat lamb.

It is laughable to claim that farming is subject to the same application of welfare standards as per animals.

It isn't wrong, it just is. If it wasn't, meat would be the preserve of the very rich.

And in case anyone has forgotten, I buy and eat intensively farmed meat and poultry.

 

[ycbm]

My question still has not been answered. Is there any other way that the RSPCA can obtain a banning order against a vulnerable person other than as an ancillary order to a successful prosecution?

I'd really like to know the answer, because if not, then it seems very unfair to criticise them for prosecuting people.

 

[Fenris]

Thanks Fenris, I have read the Wooler report previously (more than once). However, I did feel that the SHG submission was not only amateurish but sadly, unprofessional, emotional and contentious. The employment of a professional in this instance, would no doubt, have given greater gravitas to the problems raised and could have been interpreted likewise.

That said, I am not that naive to believe there is not both good and bad RSPCA staff (as there is in all walks of life, including no doubt the SHG) However making random statements such as those above, without giving factual evidence does little to promote your cause.

Despite the independent review (commissioned by the RSPCA itself, remember) on the activities of their Prosecutions, by the former Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution service, you appear to have issues that perhaps haven't been resolved by Mr Wooler to the SHG satisfaction, (even if the RSPCA adopt all his recommendations). I would therefore, be very interested to know what those issues are exactly.

Of course it was emotional. If we take emotion out of animal welfare then there is absolutely no reason for welfare at all. Why not just shoot all stray dogs and cats or poison them? What does it mater if a farmer starves his sheep? After all, he will just go bankrupt. Problem solved.

Note that the RSPCA depends on tweaking people's emotions in order to gain support for their prosecutions, drive donations and alienate support form anyone in their firing line.

Mr. Wooler took on board much of what the SHG had to say. Did you know that he met with some of the people who featured in the SHG
submission along with the RSPCA? That further investigations took place?

Yes, there are many issues with the RSPCA, but the overwhelming problem is that there is no proper oversight of the RSPCA or any other charity. A charities ombudsman would give people the opportunity to have problems dealt with and would undoubtedly have prevented most of the problems that now exist from getting to the stage they have.