Petition to curb RSPCA prosecutions

[blueboy day]

What is also now coming to light especially for people who follow the Farming Forum

http://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index....arm-finance-des-phillips-beware.9953/page-165

That is the fact that the LPA receiver in these cases of repossession of the farms uses the RSPCA, Trading Standards, Environmental Health and DEFRA, the owners are constantly reported for animal welfare issues, to get the various authorities to seize the animals and therefore get vacant possession much cheaper than going through the correct channels. Why should he go to court, when a phone call to the relevant authorities works just as well. Is that really what the people are giving their donations to the RSPCA for?

 

[Fenris]

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.

There is another major problem with using prosecution and a banning order to deal with people who have mental health problems. Just like women who have baby after bay taken from them by social services because they are replacing the child they have lost, people who have every animal removed just go out and get more irrespective of the law.

It should be noted that when defence legal teams tried to arrange limited numbers orders to ensure that people who had desperate needs to keep something with them it was the RSPCA who took appeals to get a determination that it could not be done. They simply do not care about people just about getting a total ban.

 

[Fenris]

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?

The RSPCA don't just drop out of the sky. People get a visit if they have upset a neighbour or an ex is looking for vengeance. The other scenario is where someone passing by sees a thin animal or one in a situation they don't understand and rings. That is why some suffering goes on for years undetected.

 

[Alec Swan]

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.

There's nothing in your post above with which I'd argue, but the problem that I have is that you seem to swing from the realities to rather strange extremes. Don't ask me to go back and source the references, because I cba! I don't understand the points which you make as they seem to be contradictory. Perhaps it's just me !

I wonder how you see the ideal world, regarding the subject in hand. Would you have the rspca 'controlled' or would you give them greater powers still? Explain to me, if you will.

Alec.

 

[Fenris]

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.

The relevant point is not that they do not prosecute everyone but that they can prosecute for all of those situations if they so wish and that they do not seem to prosecute the worst offenders but the most vulnerable and those likely to bring in publicity.

They do not prosecute every dog and cat owner who has left their animals without water for instance. But if they take an interest in your dog or cat then you can expect to be prosecuted for that oversight, even if it was only for a few minutes.

 

[Fenris]

I have a question for all of those who are suggesting that the petition is somehow tainted if it has been started by someone who has had previous problems with the RSPCA.

Would you suggest that the same criteria should be applied to animal welfare and rights issues just because governments or organisations that were dodgy or absolutely appalling started them?

http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2016/01/10/the-hypocrisy-of-the-animal-rights-movement/

 

[popsdosh]

I have a question for all of those who are suggesting that the petition is somehow tainted if it has been started by someone who has had previous problems with the RSPCA.

Would you suggest that the same criteria should be applied to animal welfare and rights issues just because governments or organisations that were dodgy or absolutely appalling started them?

http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2016/01/10/the-hypocrisy-of-the-animal-rights-movement/

Not quite sure how to answer that! I dont believe the aims are tainted at all , I just believe with past history maybe the whole petitions aims could be easily discredited if people think the petition is for the wrong reason which it could be perceived as being! I am probably wrong but thats the tack the opponents will take and in a small way its been made easier for them.

 

[ycbm]

There's nothing in your post above with which I'd argue, but the problem that I have is that you seem to swing from the realities to rather strange extremes. Don't ask me to go back and source the references, because I cba! I don't understand the points which you make as they seem to be contradictory. Perhaps it's just me !

I wonder how you see the ideal world, regarding the subject in hand. Would you have the rspca 'controlled' or would you give them greater powers still? Explain to me, if you will.

Alec.

Alec, I don't claim to know the answer to the issues. I believe that they aren't as bad as some people are trying to make out, and that some have causes that we do not fully understand. I think they need debating, but in a more rational way than on this thread at times. I believe that there are things that need changing and I am hoping that the Select Committee can address them without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[ycbm]

I have a question for all of those who are suggesting that the petition is somehow tainted if it has been started by someone who has had previous problems with the RSPCA.

Would you suggest that the same criteria should be applied to animal welfare and rights issues just because governments or organisations that were dodgy or absolutely appalling started them?

no, just to petitions started by one person trying to drum up support to a cause of the cause is not just

http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2016/01/10/the-hypocrisy-of-the-animal-rights-movement/

I'll quote the last paragraph of that article, just to give people a flavor of what they'll be reading of they wade through the entire diatribe, which begins with Hitler and the Nazis, yes in an article about animal rights they thought that was a good starting point.

 

[ycbm]

The false piety of animal rights conglomerations have been used in the ‘30s and ‘40s by Hitler and the Nazis to help further their genocidal policies, more recently to brainwash adults and particularly children and create a dangerous and an unsustainable military industrial complex in Africa that sounds like what you would get if you combined the nightmares of Eisenhower and Patrice Lumumba. The most fanatical proponents of misanthropy didn’t care if you burned into nothingness, as long as you weren’t a lobster.

It also begins with Hitler and the Nazis. This is the final paragraph of a very long article on a similar vein. I found the comparison between poaching elephant for ivory and dealing cocaine very amusing. Apparently people only deal cocaine because they are poor

 

[fburton]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

 

[Fenris]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

The problem with that is that it has become a ay of getting out of dealing with the direct comparisons and issues that are relevant. Do you believe that the petition should be ignored simply because people don't like the person who started it or because they think the very serious issues raised in the petition should be ignored because the person who started it 'might' have had a run in with the RSPCA? If so, why do you not believe that animals rights issues should not be tarnished in the same way due to their origins and associations?

 

[ycbm]

The problem with that is that it has become a ay of getting out of dealing with the direct comparisons and issues that are relevant. Do you believe that the petition should be ignored simply because people don't like the person who started it or because they think the very serious issues raised in the petition should be ignored because the person who started it 'might' have had a run in with the RSPCA? If so, why do you not believe that animals rights issues should not be tarnished in the same way due to their origins and associations?

Do you believe that animals have no rights worth holding humans to account for, which is basically the gist of the rabid rant that you quoted?

 

[Wagtail]

You know, the more we learn about just what animals are capable of and feeling (yes they are self aware and have an idea of fairness, and emotions such as jealousy, and even love), the more I am disgusted by the attitudes of some fellow humans.

 

[blueboy day]

The threads on here assume, that because the person that started this petition has been found guilty, it means they were guilty, when in fact this may NOT have been the case. There are many reasons why a person is found guilty, or pleads guilty.

An honest person that is taken to court, whether by Trading Standards, The RSPCA or any other agency, is at a disadvantage before they even reach court. Firstly the RSPCA know exactly how to take the perfect picture for court, whether that means them lying flat on the floor to get a really bad picture of a deep litter, when in fact had they taken the picture in the normal position, it would have shown a lovely thick bed of clean straw.

A bent over nail head in a barn of 48 sq mtres, looks so much worse magnified to the extreme.

These people are trained in how to make a normal situation look like a crime.

Then there is the whole court process, for a normal person, they do not have untold amounts of charity money to spend, and therefore, the fact that the RSPCA file ridiculously high costs, it is made quite clear, that if you plead guilty, the costs will be kept to a minimum, and therefore the RSPCA get a number of guilty convictions, purely on this fact along

It is also common knowledge, and statistics, that the RSPCA usually pick on old animals, or animals that are already sick, a classic example of this is the waste of money they spent on the persecution of the owners of the well publicised owners of Claude the cat.

This post could go on and on about the things the RSPCA has done, to convict people.

The whole point of the petition is to get an investigation into the activities, of the RSPCA, and whether, they should be able to investigate and prosecute, which is very unfair for the innocent people that have found themselves at the mercy of what is a charity. It is far better for them to seize an animal that is already under treatment by a vet, than a animal which is truly suffering, and even more convenient if that person has property that they can then put a claim on.

If the RSPCA were that transparent, they would not be afraid to show their figures for the animals they destroy, they would not be afraid to show their figures for their costs for convictions, they would not be afraid to show their figures for how many OAP's they convict. As they are only regulated by the Charity Commission, who have limited resources, there is no one to oversee how they are really conducting themselves, and this form of regulation is always open to abuse.

 

[Fenris]

Do you believe that animals have no rights worth holding humans to account for, which is basically the gist of the rabid rant that you quoted?

As usual it all depends. A tame pet rat has more protections (not rights) than its wild counterpart who can be poisoned and killed with impunity, and indeed, if someone cared for a colony of wild rats in their house they could be ordered to destroy them as pests.

There is a great difference between cases where someone has beaten their dog to a pulp, set it on fire and chucked it off the roof of a tower block and cases where someone's dog tipped its water bowl over and didn't have any water for an hour or so.

Everyone will have their own range of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour towards animals. How much of that should be enshrined in law ought to reflect the wishes of the public in general, unfortunately it tends to reflect the wishes of the most vocal minority.

Personally I do not believe that animals should have rights, they should have protections within the law.

Even humans do not have rights unless they or someone on their behalf is prepared to fight to uphold those rights. For instance, go and demand your right to life in a war zone or even some of our big cities.

 

[Wagtail]

Thankfully this petition only has 955 signatures. If the right of the RSPCA to prosecute was revoked, it would be a very sad day for animals. Investigating and prosecuting people for crimes of animal cruelty and neglect is time consuming and expensive. The police have very limited resources as it is and animals would be their very lowest priority. The RSPCA performs a very valuable role in doing the work that would otherwise need to be done (but most likely wouldn't) by the police. No, they are not perfect, and like any organisation, including the police, will no doubt have some dubious and less than honest individuals in it. But it is the best hope the animals have got. I do think the instigator of the petition and their supporters have ulterior motives such as wanting to illegally hunt, or keep their animals to a less than ideal standards without risk of prosecution.

 

[eahotson]

Thankfully this petition only has 955 signatures. If the right of the RSPCA to prosecute was revoked, it would be a very sad day for animals. Investigating and prosecuting people for crimes of animal cruelty and neglect is time consuming and expensive. The police have very limited resources as it is and animals would be their very lowest priority. The RSPCA performs a very valuable role in doing the work that would otherwise need to be done (but most likely wouldn't) by the police. No, they are not perfect, and like any organisation, including the police, will no doubt have some dubious and less than honest individuals in it. But it is the best hope the animals have got. I do think the instigator of the petition and their supporters have ulterior motives such as wanting to illegally hunt, or keep their animals to a less than ideal standards without risk of prosecution.

This

 

[popsdosh]

Thankfully this petition only has 955 signatures. If the right of the RSPCA to prosecute was revoked, it would be a very sad day for animals. Investigating and prosecuting people for crimes of animal cruelty and neglect is time consuming and expensive. The police have very limited resources as it is and animals would be their very lowest priority. The RSPCA performs a very valuable role in doing the work that would otherwise need to be done (but most likely wouldn't) by the police. No, they are not perfect, and like any organisation, including the police, will no doubt have some dubious and less than honest individuals in it. But it is the best hope the animals have got. I do think the instigator of the petition and their supporters have ulterior motives such as wanting to illegally hunt, or keep their animals to a less than ideal standards without risk of prosecution.

I have not seen one poster on here who has suggested the RSPCA should not investigate. The point is their prosecutions should come under more scrutiny .Why is there such a big issue with the CPS taking over the prosecution as it is unlikely to cost the tax payer any more than it does already and possibly less.

Just for your Info the instigator runs a donkey sanctuary and do not as far as I am aware have anything to do with hunting and neither does the petition. You may not be aware also the RSPCA has already stated it will not prosecute any more hunting cases so thats not really a valid point.

 

[Wagtail]

I have not seen one poster on here who has suggested the RSPCA should not investigate. The point is their prosecutions should come under more scrutiny .Why is there such a big issue with the CPS taking over the prosecution as it is unlikely to cost the tax payer any more than it does already and possibly less.

Just for your Info the instigator runs a donkey sanctuary and do not as far as I am aware have anything to do with hunting and neither does the petition. You may not be aware also the RSPCA has already stated it will not prosecute any more hunting cases so thats not really a valid point.

It is naïve to think that removing the prosecution powers of the RSPCA would cost the tax payer less. It is not just investigation which takes time and money, but prosecution too. Time and money which our already stretched police force does not have. Where do you think the money is going to come from which the RSPCA currently provides? The answer is nowhere, and the reality is that cases of cruelty will be dropped when they shouldn't be due to lack of resources, time and money. Animals will suffer as a result.

 

[ycbm]

The point is their prosecutions should come under more scrutiny .Why is there such a big issue with the CPS taking over the prosecution as it is unlikely to cost the tax payer any more than it does already and possibly less.

I would just love to hear your explanation as to how the CPS can take on animal cruelty cases and have it cost the taxpayer less. While you're about it, you might send me your design for a perpetual motion machine or explain your cold fusion generation of energy

Earlier on this thread you expressed disbelief that there are six cases a day in court. I did some research on that. It's believed that there are 14 or 15 million animal owning households in this country. The surprise to me is how there are so few, not so many!


Blueboy Day, when a person is found guilty in this country, they are guilty until they prove otherwise by appealing their conviction. Are you seriously suggesting that someone found guilty of EIGHTY counts of animal cruelty is simply the poor victim of an RSPCA vendetta? Don't make me laugh!

 

[Lizzie66]

Thankfully this petition only has 955 signatures. If the right of the RSPCA to prosecute was revoked, it would be a very sad day for animals. Investigating and prosecuting people for crimes of animal cruelty and neglect is time consuming and expensive. The police have very limited resources as it is and animals would be their very lowest priority. The RSPCA performs a very valuable role in doing the work that would otherwise need to be done (but most likely wouldn't) by the police. No, they are not perfect, and like any organisation, including the police, will no doubt have some dubious and less than honest individuals in it. But it is the best hope the animals have got. I do think the instigator of the petition and their supporters have ulterior motives such as wanting to illegally hunt, or keep their animals to a less than ideal standards without risk of prosecution.

No one (as far as I can tell) is suggesting that people shouldn't be prosecuted what we are querying is who should do it. The RSPCA have no legal right of entry no more rights than a normal civilian, therefore they have to work with the Police to get right of entry and to serve a S20.

What I would like to see is the RSPCA work more on education with people where neglect or lack of knowledge is the issue and where this fails or where deliberate cruelty is concerned (cat in the microwave) then they should be handing the case over to the police and CPS and providing expert witness statements.

S20 should only be applied for by the Police and should have a 7 day maximum duration without further evidence being provided by both parties. Cases where animals have been held for more than a year on a S20 where the owner has then been found to not have a case to answer are appalling. Imagine having a 12 year old family pet taken off you held in kennels for over a year and then dying before the case comes to court. These type of cases might be relatively rare but the level of distress caused not only to the family but to the dog itself would be huge. If the RSPCA wants its reputation back then it needs to be prioritising the welfare of animals and pushing charging people to the CPS.
Maybe what we should be petitioning for is making a S20 a criminal not civil matter.

 

[ycbm]

What I would like to see is the RSPCA work more on education with people where neglect or lack of knowledge is the issue

Are you aware of what they do already, at least in my area?

I reported a neighbour for the appalling state of her horses' feet and their extreme overweight. They didn't prosecute her, they advised her and she put things right.

The thin dog case I referred to earlier, they tried very hard to work with the owners, and got the dog right without removing it or prosecuting them. They were only prosecuted when they failed to continue with the expensive food which the dog required and it became extremely thin again.

My experience is that they do try to educate if the owners will listen and that they don't rush to prosecute in my area.

They aren't perfect but I simply don't recognise the organisation that some people on this thread are describing.

 

[Wagtail]

No one (as far as I can tell) is suggesting that people shouldn't be prosecuted what we are querying is who should do it. The RSPCA have no legal right of entry no more rights than a normal civilian, therefore they have to work with the Police to get right of entry and to serve a S20.

What I would like to see is the RSPCA work more on education with people where neglect or lack of knowledge is the issue and where this fails or where deliberate cruelty is concerned (cat in the microwave) then they should be handing the case over to the police and CPS and providing expert witness statements.

S20 should only be applied for by the Police and should have a 7 day maximum duration without further evidence being provided by both parties. Cases where animals have been held for more than a year on a S20 where the owner has then been found to not have a case to answer are appalling. Imagine having a 12 year old family pet taken off you held in kennels for over a year and then dying before the case comes to court. These type of cases might be relatively rare but the level of distress caused not only to the family but to the dog itself would be huge. If the RSPCA wants its reputation back then it needs to be prioritising the welfare of animals and pushing charging people to the CPS.
Maybe what we should be petitioning for is making a S20 a criminal not civil matter.

Everyone, including other charities and organisations, have the right make private prosecutions. You cannot just single out one and revoke this right because you are biased against them. I have had nothing but good dealings with them, both when I was reported for keeping my dogs in a kennel and run during the day, and when I have reported cruelty to them, or asked for their help with wild animals and birds. They have been brilliant. Now I understand that this is not always the case and that there are some bad eggs in the organisation, but the same can be said for almost any company or organisation.

 

[fburton]

The problem with that is that it has become a ay of getting out of dealing with the direct comparisons and issues that are relevant. Do you believe that the petition should be ignored simply because people don't like the person who started it or because they think the very serious issues raised in the petition should be ignored because the person who started it 'might' have had a run in with the RSPCA? If so, why do you not believe that animals rights issues should not be tarnished in the same way due to their origins and associations?

If the petition raises serious issue I don't think it should be ignored, no - regardless of who started it. That knowledge would naturally cause me to read the wording more closely and critically, but wouldn't stop me from supporting the cause if I thought it was a worthy one. A true statement is not made wrong just because someone vile makes it. (It may be wrong for other reasons, of course.)

 

[popsdosh]

I would just love to hear your explanation as to how the CPS can take on animal cruelty cases and have it cost the taxpayer less. While you're about it, you might send me your design for a perpetual motion machine or explain your cold fusion generation of energy

Earlier on this thread you expressed disbelief that there are six cases a day in court. I did some research on that. It's believed that there are 14 or 15 million animal owning households in this country. The surprise to me is how there are so few, not so many!


Blueboy Day, when a person is found guilty in this country, they are guilty until they prove otherwise by appealing their conviction. Are you seriously suggesting that someone found guilty of EIGHTY counts of animal cruelty is simply the poor victim of an RSPCA vendetta? Don't make me laugh!

Yes you also stated that there were over 2000 cases prosecuted in that period with only 2% acquitted yet even the RSPCA only claim 1029 convictions so theres a discrepancy in the figures somewhere.

So may I ask are you assuming that the RSPCA are not having their prosecution costs paid out of central funds as all private prosecutions can claim as long as they are not a public body . I am sure that will now drag down the speed of google. Thats why I made that comment.

 

[ycbm]

Yes you also stated that there were over 2000 cases prosecuted in that period with only 2% acquitted yet even the RSPCA only claim 1029 convictions so theres a discrepancy in the figures somewhere.

In what period? I think you are talking about two different time periods.

 

[popsdosh]

I will hold my own hands up they are not claiming all their prosecution costs however in 2013 this figure was in excess of £431,000

Thats from the wooler report!

 

[popsdosh]

In what period? I think you are talking about two different time periods.




Are you assuming they do? From everything I have read so far, it is not possible to recover costs for a private prosecution from anyone but the offender. Please point me to the information you have that the RSPCA are repaid from public funds.

My conviction figure was 2014 given to me on friday from within the organisation.
The Wooler report has a very interesting chart that gives you all the prosecution data page 72 talk about confusing .

 

[ycbm]

So may I ask are you assuming that the RSPCA are not having their prosecution costs paid out of central funds as all private prosecutions can claim as long as they are not a public body . I am sure that will now drag down the speed of google. Thats why I made that comment.

If you Google up the Government publication relating to the payment of costs from the public purse for private prosecutions, if I am understanding it correctly, costs can only be claimed for offences in the High Court, and for some Magistrates Court cases which have been sent to a higher court for sentencing after a guilty verdict.

The vast majority of RSPCA prosecutions take place in the lower courts, as far as I can see entirely at the RSPCA's expense in the many cases where the costs are too high for the offender to be required to pay them all.

I'd be happy for a lawyer to correct me on that if I have misread it.