RSPCA are to STOP Hounding Fox Hunters.....

Yes too little too late with me and to be honest I don't like their attiude and nobody likes being talked down at by people who no very little about horses or wild animals. :(
 
cptrayes said:
RSPCA were prosecuting people who were breaking the law. They were not hounding anybody.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Their prosecutions were and still are biased and without moral stance. The rspca are morally bankrupt in that they've targeted high profile cases, not in an attempt at achieving justice but with only the thought that the higher profile the case, so the greater the levels of subsequent donations.

High Court Judges have questioned their levels of integrity, but you think that they're fine. Perhaps you're right and perhaps the bulk of those who consider our World, our Countryside and our Justice System, are all wrong.

The rspca have no more interest in animal welfare than they have in Justice. Fail to see that and you are as blinkered as they are.

Alec.
 
its about time the rspca went back to dealing with the huge amount of animal cruelty we have in this country , dog fighting, badger baiting, puppy farming to name a few... recently I have had rspca call at my door looking for donations and I told them the reason I wouldn't donate was that they were too political, and that is how I feel. I used to support the rspca but now I donate by d/d to 2 other animal charities and the rspca wont get me back even if they do a turn around.
 
Alec Swan said:
The rspca have no more interest in animal welfare than they have in Justice. Fail to see that and you are as blinkered as they are.
Click to expand...
That's an exaggeration. Unfortunately, the higher echelons of this much loved charity have gone somewhat astray in recent years, but there are still many foot soldiers doing valuable work under the RSPCA banner.

Let's all hope that the organisation can rally and regroup. If it falls, who do you suggest takes its place?
 
Tiddlypom said:
........

Let's all hope that the organisation can rally and regroup. If it falls, who do you suggest takes its place?
Click to expand...

I've had this conversation with an rspca official who is a forum member, and it's long been my view that were the rspca to revert back to its previous precepts and focus on animal welfare, and were the question of Court proceedings handled, as they should be, by the CPS, then the charity may regain a level of the respect which it once had.

I want the current incumbents who administer to the rspca to be dismissed, and a group put in place whereby we can again have The RSPCA who I want to respect.

Alec.
 
The RSPCA prosecuted thousands of animal cruelty cases in the last twelve months and had a 98% conviction rate, which is phenomenally higher than that achieved in the rest of the criminal justice system.

I do not understand how anyone, no matter how they feel about prosecuting people who are illegally hunting fox, can say that they are not looking out for animal welfare in this country.
 
Alec Swan said:
The rspca have no more interest in animal welfare than they have in Justice. Fail to see that and you are as blinkered as they are.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Can you really call me blinkered at the end of a sentence like that? I've lost a lot of respect I had for you Alec.
 
cptrayes said:
Can you really call me blinkered at the end of a sentence like that? I've lost a lot of respect I had for you Alec.
Click to expand...

I understand, but having sufficient respect for myself, that there are those who are disappointed in me, is an irrelevance.

Alec.

ps. and yes, I'm arrogant too! a.
 
Tiddlypom said:
That's an exaggeration. Unfortunately, the higher echelons of this much loved charity have gone somewhat astray in recent years, but there are still many foot soldiers doing valuable work under the RSPCA banner.
Click to expand...

I am NOT an RSPCA 'fan' but you're right (although I wouldn't say in 'recent' years - it's been run by AR nutters since the '70s!) But most of its work is good. The hunting issue they have handled badly since the '70s - and they do love it if they get the 'dirt' on a big hunt.

But I doubt very much if they'll stop acting against hunts - they may just be a bit more diligent about the available evidence. I also doubt very much if their 2013 drop in income has anything to do with the hunting debate - we HAVE had a recession and their departed CE wasn't 100% sound!
 
Problem is... even if the RSPCA stop funding the prosecutions against hunts it still won't stop the actions of other "charities" whose supporters seek to verbally abuse the riders, physically abuse the horses and commit criminal damage. No blame to the police - it takes 10 - 15 policemen to keep control for us some days. Stopping the prosecutions - for which they have been rightly criticized - is a step forward. But it will not stop the harassment of those going about a fully lawful pursuit.
 
The people who are going about a fully lawful pursuit are continuing to be harassed because of the number of hunts openly (amongst their ranks) hunting fox illegally. I have been invited to go out with four in the last two seasons drag hunting. When I ask if they hunt fox they tell me they do, and I tell them that in that case I can't go. If hunts stopped hunting fox the harassment by antis would stop.

And they'd move on to bird shooting, but that's another thread!
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
The RSPCA prosecuted thousands of animal cruelty cases in the last twelve months and had a 98% conviction rate, which is phenomenally higher than that achieved in the rest of the criminal justice system.
Click to expand...

I think many (such as myself) lost a lot of respect for the RSPCA when you consider how much money they spend on prosecuting hunts - £326,000 to bring the Heythrop to court is a ridiculous amount of money that could have otherwise been invested into equipment and salaries of those who work for the charity and genuinely care about welfare - to me the hunting trials have all been a political movement which the RSPCA should not have been involved.

cptrayes said:
The people who are going about a fully lawful pursuit are continuing to be harassed because of the number of hunts openly (amongst their ranks) hunting fox illegally. I have been invited to go out with four in the last two seasons drag hunting. When I ask if they hunt fox they tell me they do, and I tell them that in that case I can't go. If hunts stopped hunting fox the harassment by antis would stop.

And they'd move on to bird shooting, but that's another thread!
Click to expand...

There are plenty of packs which do hunt within the law, it is not just bloodhounds who are resigned to sockhunting these days.

And then I suppose the whole point of foxhunting was to cull foxes, so shooting birds is not really relevant, although as most game birds exist for gameshooting it does make sense.
 
RunToEarth said:
I think many (such as myself) lost a lot of respect for the RSPCA when you consider how much money they spend on prosecuting hunts - £326,000 to bring the Heythrop to court is a ridiculous amount of money that could have otherwise been invested into equipment and salaries of those who work for the charity and genuinely care about welfare - to me the hunting trials have all been a political movement which the RSPCA should not have been involved.



There are plenty of packs which do hunt within the law, it is not just bloodhounds who are resigned to sockhunting these days.
Click to expand...


I know there are plenty which are legal and it must be incredibly annoying to be sabbed just because there are other hunts which are not :(

And the RSPCA could not have pursued their 'political agenda' unless people had been hunting illegally.

Whether the money was well spent or not depends on your point of view, but it was, let's not forget, a successful prosecution.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
I know there are plenty which are legal and it must be incredibly annoying to be sabbed just because there are other hunts which are not :(

And the RSPCA could not have pursued their 'political agenda' unless people had been hunting illegally.

Whether the money was well spent or not depends on your point of view, but it was, let's not forget, a successful prosecution.
Click to expand...

I completely agree - guilty as charged. However, they were required to pay damages of something like £5k. Whilst I agree that in principle justice was done, the charity have spent £326,000 of charity money to prosecute with such a small victory. IMO that trial made the charity look very foolish, and there were much more deserving cases begging for the money they threw at that trial.
 
cptrayes said:
And the RSPCA could not have pursued their 'political agenda' unless people had been hunting illegally.

Whether the money was well spent or not depends on your point of view, but it was, let's not forget, a successful prosecution.
Click to expand...

Of course it could - and has done. There have been a number of unsuccessful prosecutions because there was no evidence worth tuppence. And the reason this WAS successful was because the people charged couldn't afford the legal costs - the huntsman, for example - a family man on about £15,000 a year. A decent barrister would cost you £1,000 a day - for 4 weeks or more??

And this goes back YEARS! When I was with the CA in the lae '90s we were helping hunts and hunt staff fight stupid prosecutions - in those days hunting wasn't illegal so they kept bringing prosecutions under the Badgers' Act. And most of them were thrown out!
 
cptrayes said:
The RSPCA prosecuted thousands of animal cruelty cases in the last twelve months and had a 98% conviction rate, which is phenomenally higher than that achieved in the rest of the criminal justice system.

I do not understand how anyone, no matter how they feel about prosecuting people who are illegally hunting fox, can say that they are not looking out for animal welfare in this country.
Click to expand...




You have clearly never had to call them for assistance in a welfare case then!

Hunting totally aside.....not just their "hands tied" ie "can't help you as horse has access to water and grass" (despite looking poor and emaciated), many times I have needed assistance and they are simply not interested......
 
The whole situation of private prosecutions being brought against criminal matters doesn't sit well with me if honest.
 
The reason why there are so many convictions is because people cannot afford to defend themselves. The CPS is happy for the RSPCA to prosecute privately as it means that they don't have to review the cases and decide if there is enough evidence, this saving them work. It also means that as it is a private prosecution the defendent doesn't qualify for legal aid (again saving the government money). How many people can financially afford to take on the RSPCA and all their millions? Most will plead guilty because they cannot afford to defend themselves. The weight of evidence may not have been enough to gain a conviction (or even bring it to trial if it was a criminal proceeding) but who can afford to pay for a lawyer for 4 weeks? Even if there is a good chance you will win, it's the upfront costs that make people pleade.

My OH used to work for a firm that did RSPCA prosecutions and they will always do a private prosecution if the evidence is to shaky for a criminal one. Because they know people will have to pleade. THAT is the reason there are so many successful convictions, not because they have enough evidence to succeed in a proper trial
 
Legal aid is available to fight RSPCA cases, they are no different from CPS prosecutions. If an offence is imprisonable or the person cannot represent themselves, legal aid is available and the same for all prosecutions under criminal law.

The burden of proof is identical, and RSPCA prosecutions in a criminal court are identical in every respect to CPS prosecutions.

These prosecutions are not civil law, they are criminal law.
 
Last edited:
under what circumstances is it deemed that a person cannot represent themselves? I imagine a lot of the cases are not imprisonable so that does not apply.
 
They aren't mentally capable, for example.

The point is that legal aid for RSPCA prosecutions is no different than for any other prosecutions under criminal law.
 
No, apart from the fact that the CPS may not have taken them on and that they might therefore be proportionately more likely that other prosecutions to not meet what I have now googled as the interests of justice test, which I can imagine many do not meet the criteria for.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid...y/crime-eligibility/interests-of-justice-test

Also if RSPCA are spending several hundred thousand on a case I should think that many people who do not qualify for legal aid (limits here) http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legal-aid/eligibility/criminal-keycard-45-april-14.pdf could match that by way of defence. And if innocent what an awful lot of money to find until proven so for a prosecution that has not been through the usual CPS system.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top