RSPCA and legal aid.

I'm sorry but what a load of twaddle. ' PTS reflex'?? What utter ****. You know absolutely NOTHING of what you are talking about and your vet is misinformed.

I suggest you contact RSPCA and ask to go out with an Inspector for the day and learn the truth. Or better still go and look at all the equines in the centres or private boarding or specialist equine hospital. Oh NO they are all PTS.

It is YOUR horse. If someone complained about you but you are obviously taking reasonable steps to care and protect YOUR horse from suffering... AND on the advice of a registered vet. There is NOTHING you would have to hide. This is UTTERLY ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I find the ongoing statements about people who have done no wrong having nothing to fear entirely laughable. They are trotted out everytime there is another encroachment on our civil liberties. There are processes in place, which do allow for animals to be inspected etc, but to follow them can be tedious and time consuming, therefore some organisations will try and use unlawful means to obtain their 'evidence'. There is never any excuse for using illegal methods, when entirely lawful ones are available, even if the lawful ones require more expertise and time. The arguements about pragmatism and only the guilty will hide behind the law are baseless and shallow and feed the bullying tactics of a quasi-official organisation.
 
*rudeness alert*

YorksG oh do please be quiet. Your misguided torrent of idiocy does nothing but encourage the hysterics.

If someone wishes to have a sensible chat with me then they are welcome to do so. Meanwhile I'm off to try and illegally prosecute some poor innocent person with my 'statement of fact' and 'bullying' methods because I have 'no time'.

Really ? REALLY???


Am I the only half sane person on here?!!!!!!!
 
I should probably add that this was a vet who was at my house within 10mins of a call at 9.30pm on a Sunday evening, and stayed for several hours stitching a horse in the pitch dark by the light car headlights on the lawn, whilst keeping him just alert enough to stand, and calm enough to stitch with a well judged mix of anaesthetic.

He was back again first thing in the morning to do very careful and repeated X-rays, and insisted on coming back the following day to do more for free, to make double sure we hadn't missed anything. He then helped me to find a way of managing an open wound the size of a dinner plate.

I would recommend him to anyone.
It shocked me that he was frightened by the RSPCA.
 
MillyMoomie said:
You are all so ignorant it's actually laughable.

The CPS which goldenstar refers to as 'the state', is a government department responsible for criminal prosecutions that are investigated by the POLICE. It is for the POLICE only. It was originally set up because it was decided (quite rightly) that a police officer investigating an offense should not be the one deciding if to prosecute. It was also to standardise the prosecution procedures and standards used in police criminal prosecutions... as different forces throughout the country were maintaining different standards. As the CPS is the principal prosecuting body it has a right to look into and take over other organisations prosecutions if necessary. Although this obviously comes straight out of the public purse.

The RSPCA takes private prosecutions as anyone of us can and it is considered to be an animal welfare specialist prosecutor, because well, IT IS!!
The RSPCA prosecutions works in a similar smaller way to the CPS, the Inspectors don't make the ultimate decision, they investigate and present a casefile to case manager who has legal qualifications who then makes a decision. Then a separate solicitor takes over. The solicitor is not employed solely to the RSPCA. All this is done in accordance with PACE, the same as the CPS.

The RSPCA inspector is not considered an expert witness. It not ' a statement of fact' as one poster put. The Inspector will provide their own statement and evidence which is presented to the court. Any vet or specialist involved would be the expert witness. Everybody can be cross examined by the defense. If the Inspector or the expert witness statement or evidence is wrong they are in for a hard time.

If somebody's vet is not prepared to give their professional opinion in court I would suggest they were not entirely sure they were correct!!
The reason the RSPCA do hold weight in a court room is because MOST cases have the evidence to back it up and there are no holes.

The RSPCA have no powers and HAVE to state that to anyone investigated. They will and do get criticised if they don't and the case will often not even get to court on that.

Quite simply if you are a responsible animal owner who adheres to the animal welfare act there should be nothing to stop anyone proving that.
Click to expand...

There is apsolutly no reason except lack of will that the police and the CPS ( who is an instrument of the state ) can not investigate and prosecute animal welfare cases it's disgusting they do not do so.
 
MM. This is supposed to be a polite forum.

We are all entitled to our opinions, especially where we have personal experience. I have had dealings with the RSPCA personally, and found them to be ill-educated and officious. I'm sure some are great, but the one who demanded to see me about my ponies some years ago (off the back of an anonymous call) knew nothing at all. Couldn't tell a shetland from a NF, let alone judge condition, age or soundness.

I'm not intimidated by the uniforms, but many people are, and I don't agree with their methods. Unfortunately the saintly halo doesn't quite go with the quasi-official, uniformed, litigious behaviour.

They should not be the political wing of the animal rights movement, and they should help, not intimidate the weak and vulnerable. They need reform.
 
pennyturner said:
MM. This is supposed to be a polite forum.

We are all entitled to our opinions, especially where we have personal experience. I have had dealings with the RSPCA personally, and found them to be ill-educated and officious. I'm sure some are great, but the one who demanded to see me about my ponies some years ago (off the back of an anonymous call) knew nothing at all. Couldn't tell a shetland from a NF, let alone judge condition, age or soundness.

I'm not intimidated by the uniforms, but many people are, and I don't agree with their methods. Unfortunately the saintly halo doesn't quite go with the quasi-official, uniformed, litigious behaviour.

They should not be the political wing of the animal rights movement, and they should help, not intimidate the weak and vulnerable. They need reform.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that and more besides if the RSPCA got back to the grass roots of helping educating and protecting animals from harm it would go a very long way
Even when they succeed in prosecutions they dont make sure that the court orders are adhered to and animals continue to suffer at the hands of the down right cruel but the misguided and ignorant are hounded. Ignorance is no excuse but a helping hand a a modivum of knowledge would be far better than the silly rants we get in the newspapers
Friend was accused of cruelty when she turned her youngsters out rugless in a huge river bank field with bank and hedges as shelter Numpty RPSCA Officer decided they should all be rugged up they were provided with 3 big bales of haylage a week and were as fat as butter with thick wooly coats. Needless to say she didnt do it and they persisted with threats and abuse until she moved them back to her yard where they had to stand in for hours on end
That to me was a much bigger welfare issue

RSPCA officers need training and a full knowledge of every animal so in fact the only ones that should be allowed to make comment on welfare should have a degree in animal welfare akin to a veterinary degree taking well over 6 years to complet. Then they may approach the subject with some authority
 
MillyMoomie said:
*rudeness alert*

YorksG oh do please be quiet. Your misguided torrent of idiocy does nothing but encourage the hysterics.

If someone wishes to have a sensible chat with me then they are welcome to do so. Meanwhile I'm off to try and illegally prosecute some poor innocent person with my 'statement of fact' and 'bullying' methods because I have 'no time'.

Really ? REALLY???


Am I the only half sane person on here?!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Where is the idiocy in my post? There are legal methods of ensuring attendance to inspect animals at risk, the RSPCA surely are aware of these and so to not use the legal route is either from ignorance or from intention to circumvent the legal process, or because the legal route is too tiresome and inconvenient for the inspector. I see nothing 'idiotic' in my post.
 
MillyMoomie said:
You are all so ignorant it's actually laughable.

The CPS which goldenstar refers to as 'the state', is a government department responsible for criminal prosecutions that are investigated by the POLICE. It is for the POLICE only. It was originally set up because it was decided (quite rightly) that a police officer investigating an offense should not be the one deciding if to prosecute. It was also to standardise the prosecution procedures and standards used
Click to expand...

The CPS is a governmental agency, not a charity. It administers general, not specific, aims, and is subject to the governmental scrutiny that all governmental agencies in a democracy are. The RSPCA is not. It is a charity, and benefits from its constitution as such from charitable funding and tax status, but prosecutes as a private citizen (although a private citizen bringing a prosecution would not generally be availed of the charitable funding that the RSPCA does).

Yet in Scotland, the equivalent Procurator Fiscal service and SSPCA operate entirely effectively with the former bringing prosecutions for the latter.

MillyMoomie said:
The RSPCA takes private prosecutions as anyone of us can and it is considered to be an animal welfare specialist prosecutor, because well, IT IS!!
The RSPCA prosecutions works in a similar smaller way to the CPS, the Inspectors don't make the ultimate decision, they investigate and present a casefile to case manager who has legal qualifications who then makes a decision. Then a separate solicitor takes over. The solicitor is not employed solely to the RSPCA. All this is done in accordance with PACE, the same as the CPS.
Click to expand...

True, the RSPCA increasingly views its role as a prosecuting agency, and this is at the crux of the matter. It has never been constituted in this role democratically, but is self-appointed and self-regulating. Most of the cases it prosecutes would be deemed not to be in the public interest if taken to the CPS. It has never been answered by parliament whether we need a specialist animal cruelty prosecuting agency. It is however self-interested and probably not independent enough for such a role.

Its failure to act against its own franchised brand, Freedom Foods, is an example. Freedom Foods is a wholly owned brand of the RSPCA, launched in 1994. Yet in the 19 years since the scheme was introduced, the RSPCA has not brought a single prosecution against a Freedom Food member, despite several members of the programme having been prosecuted—not by the RSPCA—for seriously compromising animal welfare standards.

It is analogous; there are many areas of life where a specialist prosecuting agency would be useful, but it would causes chaos if one area of prosecution was effectively taken out of the remit of the CPS without legislative authority and regulation to do so.

MillyMoomie said:
The RSPCA inspector is not considered an expert witness. It not ' a statement of fact' as one poster put. The Inspector will provide their own statement and evidence which is presented to the court. Any vet or specialist involved would be the expert witness. Everybody can be cross examined by the defense. If the Inspector or the expert witness statement or evidence is wrong they are in for a hard time.
Click to expand...

In reality, the RSPCA uses the same specialist barristers again and again, who are very well practised in prosecuting their cases. As a charity, they have funds to enable this, whereas self-funded defendants will most likely be represented by their local, non-specialist solicitor. In fact, the one barrister I can think of who specialised in defending RSPCA accused defendants (including the former RSPCA inspector-turned-whistleblower, Dawn Aubrey-Ward who committed suicide), Jonathon Rich, has stated that he feels unable to continue acting as such due to the number of unfounded complaints made against him by the RSPCA to the Bar Council.

MillyMoomie said:
If somebody's vet is not prepared to give their professional opinion in court I would suggest they were not entirely sure they were correct!!
Click to expand...

In practice, it can be very difficult to get a vet to take time off work, away from practice, to go to court.

MillyMoomie said:
Quite simply if you are a responsible animal owner who adheres to the animal welfare act there should be nothing to stop anyone proving that.
Click to expand...

What you have said in this statement shows bias. It is of course not the duty of the accused to prove they are not guilty, but of the prosecution to prove that they are guilty. The onus of proof rests on the accuser (except in some civil cases where the doctrine res ipsa locquiter might apply).

When acting as a prosecuting agency, the RSPCA has been heavily judicially criticised a number of times for bringing misadvised prosecutions:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...off-Hunting-Act-prosecution-at-11th-hour.html

and in RSPCA v. Nally 2008 (unrep but in media sources), and in:

RSPCA v. Langley and RSPCA v. Spoor (Hansard, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130129/halltext/130129h0001.htm), and many others.

The RSPCA has also been rebuked by the Charity Commission for the way in which it brings prosecutions (failure to disclose evidence to the other side has been a feature).

Lets not forget also the civil cases brought by the RSPCA. There appears to have been a particular readiness to go to court over legacies and wills (one wonders where the pressing animal welfare need is in such cases):

RSPCA v. Gill [2010] EWCA 1430, CA, (a daughter left out of her parent's will in favour of the RSPCA successfully had it declared invalid), and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...eaved-family-to-court-over-disputed-will.html

These are cases where the claimants had the funds to pursue the RSPCA. Not all will do so.

I don't believe the RSPCA is constitutionally suited by acting as an appointed prosecuting agency, and I don't believe that any charity is. Such a role should be created by legislation only, not as it suits. The increasing amount of judicial criticism shows that it is not operating well in such a role, and I think parliament will probably tackle the problems being caused by the RSPCA's current modus operandi sooner or later, as it is entirely absent from the sort of checks and balances such an increasing role should be. The Charity Commission as it stands, is inadequate to deal with such an important departure.

What type of managers the RSPCA attracts, when in charge of an organisation which has large funds but is not subject to the type of scrutiny and control a public limited company or governmental organisation is for instance, is something I couldn't comment on.
 
Whether there is any truth or not in the idea that the RSPCA hound people and put undue pressure on them to give up their animals their actions and prosecutions the effect effect is not what they perhaps intended.
Six weeks ago I took on a rescue pony from Wales, thin, lice ridden and full of worms. He was hidden for a least two weeks whilst he was wormed, treated for the lice,had a chance to gain some weight,and be chipped and passported. Now I am educated articulate and no longer in the first flush of youth so if I am intimidated by an RSPCA uniform turning up even if I have no reason to be they are obviously doing the animals they want to help protect a disservice.
In 30years I have twice called the RSPCA for advice and for a referral and the service was non existent, so by the methods we choose every other service be gas, electric phone etc in my eyes they have failed and their should be a government body/charity taking up the position they are trying to fill.
Just because someone is criticising them doesn't mean people do not think the work they should be trying to do is not valid, but like the NHS is a body that is there to support people with their health needs, if its not fit for purpose it is scrutinised, criticised and the out comes reviewed.
In health care prevention is always more cost effective and better than allowing people to become sick in the first place. All you see of the RSPCA is how wonderful they are at taking 'abused' animals away, so if one turns up at your door you are viewed as an abuser, not as a person who could need help with a problem you may have.
They should be handing over their horse work to someone far more qualified and ditch the police style uniform, even the police are more approachable than them and I would certainly ask a policeman for help, if the CPS do not think a case is worth the taxpayers money leave it
 
MillyMoomie said:
You are all so ignorant it's actually laughable.
.........

The RSPCA takes private prosecutions as anyone of us can and it is considered to be an animal welfare specialist prosecutor, because well, IT IS!!

.......
Click to expand...

Two entirely contradictory statements, and both from the same post! Well done. :rolleyes:

Alec.
 
Mithras said:
.......

In reality, the RSPCA uses the same specialist barristers again and again, who are very well practised in prosecuting their cases. As a charity, they have funds to enable this, whereas self-funded defendants will most likely be represented by their local, non-specialist solicitor. In fact, the one barrister I can think of who specialised in defending RSPCA accused defendants (including the former RSPCA inspector-turned-whistleblower, Dawn Aubrey-Ward who committed suicide), Jonathon Rich, has stated that he feels unable to continue acting as such due to the number of unfounded complaints made against him by the RSPCA to the Bar Council.

.........
Click to expand...

So effectively denying the defendant access to qualified counsel.

Overall, one of the best reasoned, cogent and well argued posts which I've read since joining this forum. Well said.

Alec.
 
I like the RSPCA and am glad someone is doing something rather than nothing at all. If it means an animal case is investigated etc good. Am guessing they are overwhelmed with cases. They still have their Royal patronage HM Queen (or whatever you call it). Perhaps write to the queen if you are not happy. I have rang them about 3 times and each time they have come and told me how they got on. Plus my relative has had them visit a horse because someone locally complained and it we thought it was really good they came out to see. What if we had been bad neglectful owners? At least they bothered. So I will support until the queen removes her patronage. Clearly she thinks its a good organisation and is an avid horse person.
And yes "if you have nothing to hide............."? You have nothing to hide.
 
indie999 said:
I like the RSPCA and am glad someone is doing something rather than nothing at all. If it means an animal case is investigated etc good. Am guessing they are overwhelmed with cases. They still have their Royal patronage HM Queen (or whatever you call it). Perhaps write to the queen if you are not happy. I have rang them about 3 times and each time they have come and told me how they got on. Plus my relative has had them visit a horse because someone locally complained and it we thought it was really good they came out to see. What if we had been bad neglectful owners? At least they bothered. So I will support until the queen removes her patronage. Clearly she thinks its a good organisation and is an avid horse person.
And yes "if you have nothing to hide............."? You have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...

The Royal term is nothing to do with the Queen. It was Queen Victoria who allowed them to use it.

Nothing to hide is not the same as nothing to fear. History teaches us that much. For current issues see

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/11/australia-personal-information-accessed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2339142/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-If-hide-prove-it.html

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22857062
 
YorksG said:
I find the ongoing statements about people who have done no wrong having nothing to fear entirely laughable. They are trotted out everytime there is another encroachment on our civil liberties. There are processes in place, which do allow for animals to be inspected etc, but to follow them can be tedious and time consuming, therefore some organisations will try and use unlawful means to obtain their 'evidence'. There is never any excuse for using illegal methods, when entirely lawful ones are available, even if the lawful ones require more expertise and time. The arguements about pragmatism and only the guilty will hide behind the law are baseless and shallow and feed the bullying tactics of a quasi-official organisation.
Click to expand...

Quite right, which is why the RSPCA success rate in court is 97% and why most of the time people complain that the RSPCA isn't doing anything, because they ARE doing it by the book!
 
pennyturner said:
I should probably add that this was a vet who was at my house within 10mins of a call at 9.30pm on a Sunday evening, and stayed for several hours stitching a horse in the pitch dark by the light car headlights on the lawn, whilst keeping him just alert enough to stand, and calm enough to stitch with a well judged mix of anaesthetic.

He was back again first thing in the morning to do very careful and repeated X-rays, and insisted on coming back the following day to do more for free, to make double sure we hadn't missed anything. He then helped me to find a way of managing an open wound the size of a dinner plate.

I would recommend him to anyone.
It shocked me that he was frightened by the RSPCA.
Click to expand...

Probably because he was misinformed by reading the internet!!!!! And in turn passes his misunderstanding onto you, in turn making you turn against an organisation you by your own admission actually have no experience first hand of, only what you've heard!
 
honetpot said:
They should be handing over their horse work to someone far more qualified and ditch the police style uniform, even the police are more approachable than them and I would certainly ask a policeman for help, if the CPS do not think a case is worth the taxpayers money leave it
Click to expand...


Am only going to pick you up on these two points firstly, the 'police style uniform' was actually adopted by the RSPCA BEFORE the police! and secondly, IF they don't always apply the test the CPS do, I would imagine it's because they need the person banned from keeping animals, to prevent any more animals suffering further, and taking them to court is the ONLY way to do this....
 
Fenris said:
The Royal term is nothing to do with the Queen. It was Queen Victoria who allowed them to use it.

Nothing to hide is not the same as nothing to fear. History teaches us that much. For current issues see

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/11/australia-personal-information-accessed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2339142/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-If-hide-prove-it.html

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22857062
Click to expand...

Excellent referencing.Must be true then?
 
The fact that the weight of opinion on every forum you read is one of bad practice would demonstrate volubly that there is a severe problem with the RSPCA and if it was the wonderful organisation it was meant to be the praise would have them polishing halos sadly there is far more negative comment than positive and far more people who are intimidated and upset by their officiousness .

I would heartily support the original aims of the RSPCA to relieve suffering, to educate the animal owners and to provide a service of such a standard that there would rarely if ever need to be a prosecution. I would prefer them to supply food and water to the sick and starving that pursue politically expedient prosecutions

They sadly are so lacking in knowledge in the main they cannot even catch a horse or pony much less know what is the correct way to treat or deal with one.
 
competitiondiva said:
Am only going to pick you up on these two points firstly, the 'police style uniform' was actually adopted by the RSPCA BEFORE the police! and secondly, IF they don't always apply the test the CPS do, I would imagine it's because they need the person banned from keeping animals, to prevent any more animals suffering further, and taking them to court is the ONLY way to do this....
Click to expand...

If the RSPCA had retained their original uniform or had implemented their own changes then the complaints about the 'police style uniforms' would not fly. However, as they have changed their uniforms to mirror changes in police uniforms they have given credence to the claims.

The only way to obtain a ban is to prosecute the sick and the dying? Really? how many animals are worth someone's life or health?
 
windand rain said:
The fact that the weight of opinion on every forum you read is one of bad practice would demonstrate volubly that there is a severe problem with the RSPCA and if it was the wonderful organisation it was meant to be the praise would have them polishing halos sadly there is far more negative comment than positive and far more people who are intimidated and upset by their officiousness .

I would heartily support the original aims of the RSPCA to relieve suffering, to educate the animal owners and to provide a service of such a standard that there would rarely if ever need to be a prosecution. I would prefer them to supply food and water to the sick and starving that pursue politically expedient prosecutions

They sadly are so lacking in knowledge in the main they cannot even catch a horse or pony much less know what is the correct way to treat or deal with one.
Click to expand...

I can't quite believe what I am reading there.

You SERIOUSLY would prefer the RSPCA to go around every single 'sick and starving' OWNED animal and provide them with food and water?!! And then what?! Shall they just provide a 24 hour care service free of charge for all owned animals. Perhaps the inspector that dealt with the Jamie Grey case should still be going in daily and feeding/watering/paying for his vet bills, whilst allowing him to sit on his backside and do nothing?

You actually think that animal neglectors/abusers should have this service provided to them, or should they be prosecuted and banned from keeping animals altogether?
 
Only ever had good experiences of RSPCA and am still not convinced. If all the equine charities want to take over the equine related prosecutions thats fine. In all walks of life specialists become specialists and experts in their field through practice, hence they are successful within the law. Why are some of the RSPCA bashers not trying to get the RSPCA to hand over equine area of practice then to other Equine welfare charities than trying to negatively portray them? Are other equine charities appalled at RSPCA results then? Or join the RSPCA and become equine advisors if you dont agree with their advice and believe it to be incorrect?
 
indie999 said:
Only ever had good experiences of RSPCA and am still not convinced. If all the equine charities want to take over the equine related prosecutions thats fine. In all walks of life specialists become specialists and experts in their field through practice, hence they are successful within the law. Why are some of the RSPCA bashers not trying to get the RSPCA to hand over equine area of practice then to other Equine welfare charities than trying to negatively portray them? Are other equine charities appalled at RSPCA results then? Or join the RSPCA and become equine advisors if you dont agree with their advice and believe it to be incorrect?
Click to expand...

That's the thing Indie999 - despite all of the moaning and complaining, I have yet to EVER see any evidence of anyone attempting to get any other charity or even the CPS to take any of the prosecutions which the RSPCA take.

Why, instead of moaning about the RSPCA, don't people actually do something to encourage the likes of WHW, BHS etc etc to prosecute instead?
 
indie999 said:
Only ever had good experiences of RSPCA and am still not convinced. If all the equine charities want to take over the equine related prosecutions thats fine. In all walks of life specialists become specialists and experts in their field through practice, hence they are successful within the law. Why are some of the RSPCA bashers not trying to get the RSPCA to hand over equine area of practice then to other Equine welfare charities than trying to negatively portray them? Are other equine charities appalled at RSPCA results then? Or join the RSPCA and become equine advisors if you dont agree with their advice and believe it to be incorrect?
Click to expand...

Because a great many of us don't what to see charities being the only way that people get brought to justice in animal welfare cases in this country.
I believe it's the job of the state to do this work we expect the NSPCC to prosecute child abuse cases so why is animal welfare different.
 
Goldenstar said:
Because a great many of us don't what to see charities being the only way that people get brought to justice in animal welfare cases in this country.
I believe it's the job of the state to do this work we expect the NSPCC to prosecute child abuse cases so why is animal welfare different.
Click to expand...

So do something about it?

Have you actively done anything about it?
 
Moomin1 said:
So do something about it?

Have you actively done anything about it?
Click to expand...

Why exactly should I answer you.
I feel present situation is unjust and undemocratic unfortunatly I am not in charge if I was things would not be as they are.
Do you think all the press coverage of the RSPCA Is good for it at the moment ? Do you not perhaps think perhaps these things are being often discussed and perhaps the public begins to question the status quo as it stands.
Unfortunatly the government has a lot more on it's plate than this but in time who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top