ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...HH-Jv4sbdUd6gso7g&sig2=XZJd-dbzv4C0atZnvNbi-w
This is the reference.
This is the reference.
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!
Did that not include over £300,000 from one hunting prosecution, never to be repeated?
2.6.1 There is no power to order the payment of costs out of Central Funds of any
prosecutor who is a public authority, a person acting on behalf of a public
authority, or acting as an official appointed by a public authority as defined in
the Act. In the limited number of cases in which a prosecutor's costs may be
awarded out of Central Funds, an application is to be made by the prosecution
in each case. An order should be made save where there is good reason for not
doing so, for example, where proceedings have been instituted or continued
without good cause. This provision applies to proceedings in respect of an
indictable offence or proceedings before the High Court in respect of a
summary offence. Regulation 14(1) of the General Regulations extends it to
certain committals for sentence from a Magistrates Court.
I wonder if you may have misread as its easy to. The high court bit refers to summary offences all indictable offences allow the payment of costs from central funds for private prosecutors. I think that means ?
That would have been 2012 I believe
Did that not include over £300,000 from one hunting prosecution, never to be repeated?
http://media.rspca.org.uk/media/facts
This is my source for 2014 convictions. Is it possible that you asked how many people were convicted instead of how many charges people were convicted of?
This little snipet I think confirms my figures. published 2015 so I assume 2014 figures .
The number of animal owners prosecuted by the RSPCA for offences such as cruelty or neglect has dropped by a quarter in just a year despite an upward trend in allegations of mistreatment reported to the charity, new figures show.
It follows the departure of the controversial former chief executive, Gavin Grant, who left just over a year ago after a turbulent tenure which saw the RSPCA accused of pursuing an overly aggressive prosecution strategy and becoming “political”.
The charity said there had been no change in prosecution policy and that the drop in convictions reflected greater success by its officers in stepping in early and persuading pet owners to take advice on caring for their animals.
Gavin Grant
But the figures show a striking decline in cases brought to court by the RSPCA . Just 1,029 people were convicted of animal welfare offences last year compared to 1,552 in 2012, Mr Grant’s first year in charge.
Figures show prosecutions jumped by 15 per cent after his arrival.
The charity faced calls for it to be stripped of its role in prosecutions amid claims it had become too “political” in the wake of the prosecution of David Cameron’s local hunt and suggestions that farmers who supported the Government’s badger cull should be named and shamed.
Another Daily Fail or Telegraph story I suspect.
Fine. If you think that the CPS can secure prosecutions for around 2,000 offences a year for £125 per case, you are dreaming.
If you are arguing that money will be saved because fewer people will be prosecuted, then I think that is still unlikely, though potentially possible, and that many animals will suffer badly because of it.
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.
You must be very happy with that news. Why, then, are you so vehemently against the RSPCA on this thread. (Can I remind you I signed the petition).
Why should more animals suffer , My argument is their efforts should be more targeted do you really think that however many extra prosecutions they secure that it will stop people abusing animals
. Clearly from the figures since 2012 thats not happening.
Can you really put your hand on your heart and say everybody taken to court is an animal abuser as such .
There are plenty of cases that in my mind should have gone to court however never were pursued for what ever reason. I have very personal experience of one of those. when I asked the inspector why it didnt go to court his exact words were its not valuable enough for us. I still have the horse at home totally unrideable 8yo now never has got over what he was put through.
Yes.
Is that where you get your information from to make the outrageous allegation that the RSPCA take prosecutions in order to make a profit? I dare say you either misheard him/her or misconstrued what s/he meant, but of course I wasn't there, so I don't know.
No that comes from doing expert witness reports for them and being asked to put certain things in and leave others out thats why we fell out. I still support their aims . I heard him very clearly by the way
but of course you only have my word for it so its bound to be wrong!
Well, yes, expert witnesses are produced to support the side they are representing And subject to cross examination too, of course.
/QUOTE]
Still have to tell the truth though ,but thats a different matter!
Still have to tell the truth though ,but thats a different matter!
Can you please explain to me how the RSPCA makes a profit out of prosecuting anyone? I'm not talking about using a high profile case to make PR to raise donations, that just good sound business sense. How does it make a profit from a prosecution?
..
Can you please explain to me how the RSPCA makes a profit out of prosecuting anyone? I'm not talking about using a high profile case to make PR to raise donations, that just good sound business sense. How does it make a profit from a prosecution?
I wonder if you haven't just answered your own question! Good business sense? Do you not consider that any authority with the power to prosecute should be focused upon 'justice', rather than 'profit'?
The whole idea of a charity which is wholly dependent upon fund raising having responsibility for prosecution work is corrupt, in the extreme, and it seems that Parliament and our entire judicial system, are slowly reaching the same view.
Alec.
I wonder if you haven't just answered your own question! Good business sense? Do you not consider that any authority with the power to prosecute should be focused upon 'justice', rather than 'profit'?
The whole idea of a charity which is wholly dependent upon fund raising having responsibility for prosecution work is corrupt, in the extreme, and it seems that Parliament and our entire judicial system, are slowly reaching the same view.
Alec.
I have seen a great deal of inflammatory hyperbole on this thread but precious little evidence to suggest that RSPCA prosecutions are not focussed on justice.
I think the situation is regrettable but it was cost saving by governments over decades which allowed it to happen. I don't think there is the slightest justification for calling it 'corrupt in the extreme'.
I'm with chillipup now, I am tired of attempting to obtain any basis for their claims from people making hysterical statements against the RSPCA, who on the whole, in my opinion, do a great job.
I was going to reply but quite honestly I'm can't be bothered to put my point across anymore. No body is interested in another point of view. What will be will be. It's just a shame you call people out on their remarks but ignore when the tables are turned.
So claiming keep expenses and worming expenses for long since dead horses is not corruption??