Petition to curb RSPCA prosecutions

Regandal said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the idea of abuse/neglect can be pretty broad. Someone who is a serious alcohol/drug user may be neglecting their children, and may not be feeding their dogs as well. Social services, the police, schools may be involved with but the children may remain with the parents, monitored. In one example I was shown as part of training it was only when the RSPCA started proceedings that the relevant government departments decided the child's needs were not being met.
 
honetpot said:
I think the idea of abuse/neglect can be pretty broad. Someone who is a serious alcohol/drug user may be neglecting their children, and may not be feeding their dogs as well. Social services, the police, schools may be involved with but the children may remain with the parents, monitored. In one example I was shown as part of training it was only when the RSPCA started proceedings that the relevant government departments decided the child's needs were not being met.
Click to expand...
Missed a bit.
I think the idea of abuse/neglect can be pretty broad.
Someone who is a serious alcohol/drug user may be neglecting their children, and may not be feeding their dogs as well. Social services, the police, schools may be involved with but the children may remain with the parents, monitored and supported.
In one example I was shown as part of training it was only when the RSPCA started proceedings that the relevant government departments decided the child's needs were not being met. Now as a statistic this would come as abuse of children and animals when the abuse is a consequence of a chaotic lifestyle and not necessarily deliberate animal cruelty or child abuse although the effect is the same. The chances would be the parents would not be prosecuted but the children would be taken into care.
The trouble with statistics is until they are broken down into actual causes, ie physical, emotional,financial etc they do not give you the whole picture. I think anyone who shows violence and a lack of empathy towards animals is likely to behave in the same way towards children, but a lot animal welfare cases seem to neglect when the people have knowledge and a history of keeping animals well so I think there is something else going on here. Its it a set of circumstances that happen, ie aging and lack of support, or some sort of blinkering to a problem the obvious hoping it will go away? Or is it an old shaggy pony in a wet field would look rough who ever owned it or however it was cared for and someone elses interpretation of events.
 
honetpot said:
Missed a bit.

…….. . Its it a set of circumstances that happen, ie aging and lack of support, or some sort of blinkering to a problem the obvious hoping it will go away? Or is it an old shaggy pony in a wet field would look rough who ever owned it or however it was cared for and someone elses interpretation of events.
Click to expand...

Very often, yes it is. Very often when life is overbearing for some their priorities lie elsewhere and they simply neglect their duty of care to their charges. It's all too easy to sit in judgement of them. Asking for help is all so often an admission of failure and would be unthinkable for many. Sad though it is, it's a fact.

A few years ago, near to Thetford, an otherwise lovely man fell on hard times, he was himself an elderly man, a bachelor and was caring for his dying mother. His sheep were in a pretty awful state. Thankfully, it wasn't the rspca but the Farm Team from Trading Standards who visited him. The story made the national news. There were those who made representations to TS, every assistance was offered locally, the sheep were removed, 'put right' and sold, the man concerned signed a declaration to the effect that he would never keep livestock again. That was the end of the matter. All credit to Trading Standards for taking such a humane and decent approach. Prosecution was a guaranteed route and success would have been a certainty, but they took a more pragmatic view, and the man is still with us.

Alec.
 
ycbm said:
A very good summary of your arguments, popsdosh :)
Click to expand...

Still havent answered my question ? Only to be expected !! People get abusive when they cant answer back! You keep asking for facts lets see yours to back up what you are saying.
It makes me laugh when in the face of professional people who are dealing with it day in day out you still insist you are correct and the only knowledge you profess to have is from google.
Now please try and answer my question as you have insisted from others all along,I will repeat it

Can you show where anybody in this long thread has suggested the majority should not be prosecuted as I like you like to see the evidence. In that case how does your example of 3 cases out of 2,000 show that everybody prosecuted are guilty as charged now please dont come out with the only 2% are acquitted as that was discredited long ago I think we all know those figures are manipulated to impress the little old cat ladies. Are there seriously 6 RSPCA cases concluding in the courts every day they are sitting.
I know the answer just want to see if its sunk in yet!! A little hint though I didnt use google!! I got it straight from the horses mouth so to speak!
 
Alec Swan said:
Very often, yes it is. Very often when life is overbearing for some their priorities lie elsewhere and they simply neglect their duty of care to their charges. It's all too easy to sit in judgement of them. Asking for help is all so often an admission of failure and would be unthinkable for many. Sad though it is, it's a fact.

A few years ago, near to Thetford, an otherwise lovely man fell on hard times, he was himself an elderly man, a bachelor and was caring for his dying mother. His sheep were in a pretty awful state. Thankfully, it wasn't the rspca but the Farm Team from Trading Standards who visited him. The story made the national news. There were those who made representations to TS, every assistance was offered locally, the sheep were removed, 'put right' and sold, the man concerned signed a declaration to the effect that he would never keep livestock again. That was the end of the matter. All credit to Trading Standards for taking such a humane and decent approach. Prosecution was a guaranteed route and success would have been a certainty, but they took a more pragmatic view, and the man is still with us.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed Alec luckily for us farmers TS are mainly responsible for welfare matters with farm animals and yes they are far more understanding and helpful in their dealings with people! Very rarely do they prosecute and when they do they are usually supported 100% by other farmers as they only do it as a last resort!
 
popsdosh said:
Yes indeed Alec luckily for us farmers TS are mainly responsible for welfare matters with farm animals and yes they are far more understanding and helpful in their dealings with people! Very rarely do they prosecute and when they do they are usually supported 100% by other farmers as they only do it as a last resort!
Click to expand...

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.
 
ycbm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course it would be wrong if it was true

See the argument is because us farmers operate under exactly the same rules as any animal. Why can one agency treat people so differently to another and it has nothing to do with the standards they are upholding.I keep all my animals in exactly the same way either domestic or farm .I have to I can have TS or other Government agencies turn up at any time without notice to inspect my stock. A lame cow to them is just as important to them as a lame horse is to the RSPCA. The difference is one agency makes allowances for the things that be fall all animal owners and educate,whilst another acts heavy handed and rushes to prosecuting people when it is not really in anybodies interest apart from seemingly their own.
Hopefully with a new man at the Helm the RSPCA may go back to the respected organisation they were was there really a public interest in a lot of the prosecutions they took on . I am pleased to say they now seem to accept that themselves.

Do you really see animal welfare getting worse if the RSPCA start cutting back on what they take to prosecution or is the perception that it has got worse because for whatever reason they have gone through a period of unprecedented growth in the prosecutions they pursue. So making things look worse.A lot of these prosecutions have been easy targets often prosecuted because for example an old animal needed putting down a few weeks earlier what benefit do animals in general get from the owner being prosecuted long after the animal has gone. We have all probably been guilty of that one at one stage or another.
 
Lizzie66 said:
The CPS was set up to be independent to the police to enable the gathering of evidence and prosecution to be done by separate bodies thereby allowing a one step removed approach that enabled a more fair approach. This should be the same for the RSPCA.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The RSPCA should investigate and then pass their findings onto the CPS.
 
Oh popsdosh, of course it's true. What is the point of pretending it's not?


Before I give you this example, I will tell you that I am a fully paid up meat eater of intensively farmed animals. I know that if they were farmed by the same standards of welfare as horses are kept, I could not afford to eat it. I'm going to give you one example of many.

Now imagine a scenario where someone has managed to selectively breed mares to routinely give birth to multiple foals, twins being the ideal. So now they turn out several hundred of these mares into areas where the ground is not as flat as a bowling green. As the mares advance in pregnancy, the have a bump on either side, and when they roll in a dip they get stuck on their backs. If no-one finds them in time (overnight, for example) they die on their backs and if they are lucky they are dead before the crows take their eyes. This situation, as you and I well know, is impossible to avoid if farming sheep in commercial numbers. It would never be tolerated as a normal occurrence on a horse breeding premises.

We can only have a proper discussion of the RSPCA if we are honest about animal welfare and how it is applied to different aspects of animal management.

I'll repeat, just in case you haven't got it. I eat meat. I am not saying it is wrong. But it doesn't make sense to say it isn't true.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
Oh popsdosh, of course it's true. What is the point of pretending it's not?


Before I give you this example, I will tell you that I am a fully paid up meat eater of intensively farmed animals. I know that if they were farmed by the same standards of welfare as horses are kept, I could not afford to eat it. I'm going to give you one example of many.

Now imagine a scenario where someone has managed to selectively breed mares to routinely give birth to multiple foals, twins being the ideal. So now they turn out several hundred of these mares into areas where the ground is not as flat as a bowling green. As the mares advance in pregnancy, the have a bump on either side, and when they roll in a dip they get stuck on their backs. If no-one finds them in time (overnight, for example) they die on their backs and if they are lucky they are dead before the crows take their eyes. This situation, as you and I well know, is impossible to avoid if farming sheep in commercial numbers. It would never be tolerated as a normal occurrence on a horse breeding premises.

We can only have a proper discussion of the RSPCA if we are honest about animal welfare and how it is applied to different aspects of animal management.

I'll repeat, just in case you haven't got it. I eat meat. I am not saying it is wrong. But it doesn't make sense to say it isn't true.
Click to expand...
I hope as I have been farming since I crawled out of a pram( many years ago) you may be courteous enough to accept I do know a thing or two about the regulations we have to work too.

I find this a bizarre argument you obviously dont know a huge amount about sheep! If people have lots of sheep getting stuck on their backs (as I assume thats the analogies you are trying to draw) they are just as likely to be taken to task! There are misapprehensions though I must put right

1, most ewes get cast after they have lambed it is not the belly full of lambs that cause it in fact they actually help prevent the problem as it is not so easy for them to get on their backs.

2, most happen in the period coming up to shearing due to the sheer weight of the wool particularly if its wet.

3, We have to stick to the same standards of animal welfare as anybody else whether farmed or domestic , Please show me the statutes that are different!! The reason TS takes on farm animal welfare is simply because they have right of access I cannot refuse to let them inspect my stock at any time but I could the RSPCA so who is better equipped to deal with it ?

Theres a saying in farming if you have livestock you have dead stock you can lose them for whatever reason however a dead animal doesnt earn me a lot .Take lameness as an example right every cow that is not treated and sorted costs me money in lost production its treated because of that not because im frightened of being prosecuted. TS work with farmers fully aware of all issues that can occur and believe me they have a bigger bite than the RSPCA( potentially I can lose £250k each time they visit and that doesnt need a court case) However to play devils advocate if the RSPCA were responsible every one I lose would be a prosecution opportunity for them which in the last few years since GG was in charge for whatever reason they have been more likely to do. Its a bit like if they were the CPS everybody speeding ,riding bikes without lights or other trivial misdemeanour's would end up in court so suddenly it looks like a crime wave.
They need to tread very carefully because they are starting to bite off the hand that feeds them!!
 
ycbm said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry popsdosh, but I have to agree with ycbm on this because though not perhaps ideal, it's just how life is. A case in question; I have a middle aged ewe here who I cannot get sound. She's non-weight bearing on one front foot. Her feet don't need trimming, she has 'scald' which persists, I treat her every 4 or 5 days, and all to no avail. Do I call a vet out to a horse which is similarly afflicted? Of course I do. Spending £100 on a sheep which is worth £80 doesn't make sense. I may just as well shoot her, but I don't (haven't yet!), I want to win and have her come sound. It isn't just to do with money, either! :)

Alec.
 
ycbm said:
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?
Click to expand...

ycbm said:
Oh popsdosh, of course it's true. What is the point of pretending it's not?


Before I give you this example, I will tell you that I am a fully paid up meat eater of intensively farmed animals. I know that if they were farmed by the same standards of welfare as horses are kept, I could not afford to eat it. I'm going to give you one example of many.

Now imagine a scenario where someone has managed to selectively breed mares to routinely give birth to multiple foals, twins being the ideal. So now they turn out several hundred of these mares into areas where the ground is not as flat as a bowling green. As the mares advance in pregnancy, the have a bump on either side, and when they roll in a dip they get stuck on their backs. If no-one finds them in time (overnight, for example) they die on their backs and if they are lucky they are dead before the crows take their eyes. This situation, as you and I well know, is impossible to avoid if farming sheep in commercial numbers. It would never be tolerated as a normal occurrence on a horse breeding premises.

We can only have a proper discussion of the RSPCA if we are honest about animal welfare and how it is applied to different aspects of animal management.

I'll repeat, just in case you haven't got it. I eat meat. I am not saying it is wrong. But it doesn't make sense to say it isn't true.
Click to expand...

Im starting to worry what argument you will come up with next ! said with a worried smile!!!!!!
 
[
Alec Swan said:
I'm sorry popsdosh, but I have to agree with ycbm on this because though not perhaps ideal, it's just how life is. A case in question; I have a middle aged ewe here who I cannot get sound. She's non-weight bearing on one front foot. Her feet don't need trimming, she has 'scald' which persists, I treat her every 4 or 5 days, and all to no avail. Do I call a vet out to a horse which is similarly afflicted? Of course I do. Spending £100 on a sheep which is worth £80 doesn't make sense. I may just as well shoot her, but I don't (haven't yet!), I want to win and have her come sound. It isn't just to do with money, either! :)

Alec.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is the rules to treat the sheep is no different to the horse . We stopped keeping sheep for the very same welfare verses cost reason. Got fed up with shooting ewes that needed ceasars!

However because you are trying your best by the sheep TS would understand ! Can you imagine in what way the RSPCA would react?
 
Last edited:
popsdosh said:
[


However because you are trying your best by the sheep TS would understand ! Can you imagine in what way the RSPCA would react?
Click to expand...

Accepted, of course, and reading between the lines, your point would be accepted by all! The simple fact is that generally, the rspca are totally and completely inept and they have no understanding of any of the factors which influence those who farm, they care even less, and those 'influences' cannot be ignored.

Alec.
 
Sussexbythesea said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very good spot if true.

Fenris, can you confirm or deny the Petitioner is the person involved in the above case? If it is, I shall await a petition for the curbing of opinion from the Donkey Sanctuary too.
 
popsdosh said:
Of course it would be wrong if it was true

See the argument is because us farmers operate under exactly the same rules as any animal. Why can one agency treat people so differently to another and it has nothing to do with the standards they are upholding.I keep all my animals in exactly the
same way either domestic or farm .I have to I can have TS or other Government agencies turn up at any time without notice to inspect my stock. A lame cow to them is just as important to them as a lame horse is to the RSPCA. The difference is one agency makes allowances for the things that be fall all animal owners and educate,whilst another acts heavy handed and rushes to prosecuting people when it is not really in anybodies interest apart from seemingly their own.
Hopefully with a new man at the Helm the RSPCA may go back to the respected organisation they were was there really a public interest in a lot of the prosecutions they took on . I am pleased to say they now seem to accept that themselves.

Do you really see animal welfare getting worse if the RSPCA start cutting back on what they take to prosecution or is the perception that it has got worse because for whatever reason they have gone through a period of unprecedented growth in the prosecutions they pursue. So making things look worse.A lot of these prosecutions have been easy targets often prosecuted because for example an old animal needed putting down a few weeks earlier what benefit do animals in general get from the owner being prosecuted long after the animal has gone. We have all probably been guilty of that one at one stage or another.
Click to expand...

Well I have to disagree that we all have been in the situation of keeping animals that need PTS .
However I think that very many of the type of prosecutions of the type you talk about here are won by the RSPCA because their lawyers know their way around the laws better than the lawyers that are defending .
Then there's also the issue that if you defend the case and lose the RSPCA can come after you for the costs and as they run up some pretty ridiculous bills it's not surprising defending lawyers have to advise their clients of the risk of defending a case and that may well lead to many guilty pleas from people who are guilty of nothing more than having a different view than the norm about the taking of life to avoid suffering
I have often thought the unnecessary suffering argument around the PTS issue is subjective in the extreme .
Suffering around death is a pretty natural thing .
 
popsdosh said:
Of course it would be wrong if it was true

See the argument is because us farmers operate under exactly the same rules as any animal. Why can one agency treat people so differently to another and it has nothing to do with the standards they are upholding.I keep all my animals in exactly the same way either domestic or farm .I have to I can have TS or other Government agencies turn up at any time without notice to inspect my stock. A lame cow to them is just as important to them as a lame horse is to the RSPCA. The difference is one agency makes allowances for the things that be fall all animal owners and educate,whilst another acts heavy handed and rushes to prosecuting people when it is not really in anybodies interest apart from seemingly their own.
Hopefully with a new man at the Helm the RSPCA may go back to the respected organisation they were was there really a public interest in a lot of the prosecutions they took on . I am pleased to say they now seem to accept that themselves.

Do you really see animal welfare getting worse if the RSPCA start cutting back on what they take to prosecution or is the perception that it has got worse because for whatever reason they have gone through a period of unprecedented growth in the prosecutions they pursue. So making things look worse.A lot of these prosecutions have been easy targets often prosecuted because for example an old animal needed putting down a few weeks earlier what benefit do animals in general get from the owner being prosecuted long after the animal has gone. We have all probably been guilty of that one at one stage or another.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Fenris said:
The vast mjaority of RSPCA cases are not starving animals or tortured animals. They revolve around disputes over whether a vet was consulted quickly enough. Or whether the right treatment was applied by the individual. Or whether an animal was put down at the right time.

Many of the defendants are elderly or homeless or ill people. Certainly many are vulnerable. The CPS has ordered the RSPCA to drop charges in some cases and the whole case in others. But they are dependent on being informed that there are concerns about how a case has been handled or that it does not comply with the Code for Crown prosecutors.

It is not enough to depend on the courts to be the final arbiter. By the time a case reaches court much of the damage will have already been done. Elderly and much loved animals have died of old age. Puppies have grown up in kennels instead of the family home.

The RSPCA may well have gone to people's employers to inform them of the investigation and pending prosecution. Jobs have been lost.

Social services is often notified if there are children or elderly people present. Clearly precedence is given to these fights allowing the RSPCA a much easier 'win' in their case.

You will find much more information on RSPCA prosecutions in the SHG submission to the Wooler report

http://the-shg.org/Notes for Independent Review of RSPCA Prosecutions.pdf
Click to expand...

Fenris said:
Take a look at the SHG submission to the Wooler inquiry. Then go and read the Wooler report and you will see that much of the SHG's submission has been incorporated into the final report - even allowing for the RSPCA having demanded changes in it. If that is not sufficient for you then nothing will satisfy you.
Click to expand...


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.
 
I haven't read all the replies, but I'd be surprised if anyone who has ever had any dealings with the RSPCA has not signed the petition. No one wants animals to suffer at all, but the RSPCA really cannot carry on being the people who police this! They are so corrupt, even on occasion at a local level, and I can give chapter and verse on that if needs be! That they cannot be allowed to continue as the highest authority in the land!
 
No, will not sign.

Do not agree with everything they do & how they spend their money, and yes they can be pretty useless at times, but any causes they bring forward will be seen before a court and a judgement made. The court will decide if animal cruelty has taken place, not the RSPCA.
 
"I have often thought the unnecessary suffering argument around the PTS issue is subjective in the extreme .
Suffering around death is a pretty natural thing ."
Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/foru...RSPCA-prosecutions/page17#kSs1UkJe6p9JjLUI.99

Yes, animals in the wild may take days to die of starvation, injury, water deprivation.
Does that mean we should allow it in the domestic environment?
Of course, it's cheaper to allow something to die 'naturally' than call in a vet.
 
minesadouble said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top