RSPCA asking for urgent donations yet in court case against the Heythrop?

Luci07

Luci07

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 October 2009
Messages
9,380
Location
Dorking
Visit site
Completely taken aback when I read this in this weeks horse and hound. I am not interested in the hunting aspect, I just can't understand why they don't leave this (with costs quoted at being nearly £1 million) to someone like the LACS. I know first hand that they have heavily cut down on taking animals in, leaving the lesser known smaller charities to pick this up. I know they are also picking and choosing which dogs they take in, so have seen a lot of the areas will ignore the Stafford or Stafford cross. Freely admit I am 100% biased here as I have 3 rescue staffords, all via rescue but can not understand how they can justify this waste of money. Their campaigns focus on rescue, not politics.

Oh and the article also states they are about to make 130 redundancies. Thoughts? And please not interested in the hunting debate...
 
I think its disgusting. I used to be a big supporter but have lost any faith in them in the past few years.

I wish I could tell you a story from this week. A friend of mine asked for help with what she described as "one of the worse abuse cases she had seen". The animal in question needed to be put down on the spot as it could not move and was in agony and starving.

Urgent appeals to the RSPCA have met with no response, even though they have seen it. She has taken it further so I cant give any details, dont worry she has not given up.

The big problem is the RSPCA have ways and means to seize, other charities find things much harder.
 
I absolutely agree with you. Whilst they have the power to prosecute, I think that they should leave it to the CPS who are better placed to prosecute cases as they have more money and more resources.

It seems that they have diversified too widely and need to decide what they want to achieve. Do they want to rescue animals primarily? Investivate and remove animals? Provide facilitates for short and long term housing? Prosecute? It seems that they are not doing any of the above things very successfully.

I can't help but think that the money it is costing to bring this prosecution would be better spent on reducing the number of redundancies they are having to make.
 
I won't have anything to do with the RSPCA because of their political stance on hunting, jump racing, etc. And I, too, know people who have had problems getting the RSPCA involved when horses needed help. In one case, people at a yard were feeding neglected horses as they couldn't contact the owner, who never came up. The RSPCA told them they couldn't do anything because the horses looked fine and they would have to stop feeding them and let them deteriorate before they could take action. And let the horses suffer in the meantime.
 
combat_claire said:
The League have even less money than the RSPCA and are already making huge cuts and are attempting to sell off bequeathed property to raise funds.
Click to expand...

Still do not agree with the RSPCA taking this on. Not when they are actively turning away animals which need their help. Fact not a Daily Mail opinion
 
Perhaps these previously wealthy charities should do as the rest of us, and downsize. The RSPCA, could start with selling off their HQ which they bought for a staggering £6 million!

If the LACS are in similar trouble, I wonder if they'd accept my offer on Baronsdown Wood. ;)

Alec.
 
Lets hope the rspca and lacs (NOT WORTHY OF CAPITAL LETTERS SOON GO BUST) as organisations thy have meddled in politics to suit their managements aims and are not well meaning genuine Animal charities I Hope they Fail Sooner rather than Later.
 
wont donate to RSPCA lost faith in them when they were left money in the 70's and spent the money on personal things . then a few other things . RSPCA don't get my money
 
rockysmum said:
The big problem is the RSPCA have ways and means to seize, other charities find things much harder.
Click to expand...

No, the RSPCA are no different than any other charity, they do not have ways and means to seize, they just know the law...

At the end of the day there is evidence that the law was broken, law made by parliament. Just because the accused are the 'high and mighty' does this mean they should not be prosecuted? CPS very rarely take any prosecutions on animal welfare legislation etc, though I do agree that they should be taking this rather than leaving a charity to do so.

Regarding the headquarters which yes cost alot to build, but at the time the charity had the money and had outgrown their old headquarters.
 
competitiondiva said:
No, the RSPCA are no different than any other charity, they do not have ways and means to seize, they just know the law...

At the end of the day there is evidence that the law was broken, law made by parliament. Just because the accused are the 'high and mighty' does this mean they should not be prosecuted? CPS very rarely take any prosecutions on animal welfare legislation etc, though I do agree that they should be taking this rather than leaving a charity to do so.

Regarding the headquarters which yes cost alot to build, but at the time the charity had the money and had outgrown their old headquarters.
Click to expand...


That interesting, does anyone know how you would go about it.

There is a reason for my question. I know of a horse in dire condition at the moment that the RSPCA wont do anything about.
 
competitiondiva said:
No, the RSPCA are no different than any other charity, they do not have ways and means to seize, they just know the law...

At the end of the day there is evidence that the law was broken, law made by parliament. Just because the accused are the 'high and mighty' does this mean they should not be prosecuted? CPS very rarely take any prosecutions on animal welfare legislation etc, though I do agree that they should be taking this rather than leaving a charity to do so.

Regarding the headquarters which yes cost alot to build, but at the time the charity had the money and had outgrown their old headquarters.
Click to expand...

the question over whether the Heythrop should be taken to court is for another time. However as the CPS clearly felt it was not a good use of time and money, I still do not see how the RSPCA can justify this ....and advertise that they are desperate for funds on national television. There are a lot of animal charities (Blue cross, PDSA etc) and you do not see them taking such a stance. Wish the RSPCA would get overhauled at the top and go back to being the animal charity we all want them to be.
 
The RSPCA last year had a successful 98% conviction rate, pretty impressive by anyone's standards.
Those who think they shouldn't waste money prosecuting, just take a look at the case studies where horrific abuse has been inflicted.

Where they wrong to prosecute Jamie Gray and save the lives of scores of horses at Spindles Farm ?
Were they wrong to save the life of my dying cob and succeed in sending his then owner to prison ?

The RSPCA gets a lot of things wrong but prosecuting animal abusers isn't one of them.
 
Hunters said:
They RSPCA should stay out of politics and help unwanted or neglected animals. Shame on them putting politics first!!!
Click to expand...

Get your facts and statistics straight before making a comment like this. Fed up to the back teeth of uninformed statements on here. Have a look at Horserider's post.
 
Last edited:
horserider said:
The RSPCA last year had a successful 98% conviction rate, pretty impressive by anyone's standards.
Those who think they shouldn't waste money prosecuting, just take a look at the case studies where horrific abuse has been inflicted.

Where they wrong to prosecute Jamie Gray and save the lives of scores of horses at Spindles Farm ?
Were they wrong to save the life of my dying cob and succeed in sending his then owner to prison ?

The RSPCA gets a lot of things wrong but prosecuting animal abusers isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

^ Here, here ^

I am fed up with the amount of RSPCA bashing that goes on in this forum!
 
horserider said:
The RSPCA last year had a successful 98% conviction rate, pretty impressive by anyone's standards.
Those who think they shouldn't waste money prosecuting, just take a look at the case studies where horrific abuse has been inflicted.

Where they wrong to prosecute Jamie Gray and save the lives of scores of horses at Spindles Farm ?
Were they wrong to save the life of my dying cob and succeed in sending his then owner to prison ?

The RSPCA gets a lot of things wrong but prosecuting animal abusers isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

If gained, a 98% conviction rate of the 52 charges against the Heythrop hunt could be a lot of crimes punished and have a huge impact on the trail hunting 'charade'.
 
horserider said:
.......

Where they wrong to prosecute Jamie Gray and save the lives of scores of horses at Spindles Farm ?

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

I'm not contradicting you, but was it actually the rspca, or the CPS who prosecuted the Grays? From the little that I know of it all, I suspect that whilst charitable bodies have the ability, as we all do, to bring about a private prosecution, it's my belief that it's only State sponsored bodies who have the ability to prosecute directly. The State sponsored bodies being Trading Standards and the Police via the CPS.

I think you'll find that the rspca (and no, I'm not a fan) have very limited rights. They don't, for instance, have right of access to property or land, that is only given to State sponsored bodies, not charities.

Assuming that I'm right in what I say, then the point of my argument, and maybe others, is that if the CPS don't have enough confidence in achieving a prosecution, is a private prosecution such a good idea, with all the attendant costs, and considering their existing precarious state?

Alec.
 
The CPS have been without a backbone for some time now leading to many thousands of possible criminals never facing the legal consequences of crimes they may have committed.
 
1life said:
^ Here, here ^

I am fed up with the amount of RSPCA bashing that goes on in this forum!
Click to expand...



Well maybe its because the general public are not happy with them. I for one would never donate or call them again. :

How they respond to urgent calls (ie Jamie Gray case)

My cases with the RSPCA:


1 st case : In the 70's they were given £ 2000 by a old lady in her will , and the manager at the time brought a new car and carpet with the money (My dad and I watched this on Panorama)

2nd case : When you go to adopt you get some fat big rude woman who tells you
(after you have queued 1 1/2 hrs for a kitten)

" what do you want?? "
a kitten
"Fill this form in"
I was third in queue 1st wanted kitten second dog
form completed
" where is your boyfriend"
at work
" well you cant have one unless he is here*
I am 23 I am an adult
"you cant have one unless he is here"
but he works all week
" go away and come back another time when he can make it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


Never went back to them for kitten



3 rd experience went to Southall Market which I did every week for years and years buying tack bargains and feed/ carrots.

The RSPCA there sometimes usually sitting round chatting.


On this day A really sad dark bay almost black mare standing in the stalls behind the canteen place, head down thin as anything, given up on life. I watched her patted her she was so sad. About 12.30pm before auction for horses I went over the the RSPCA who was chatting as usual having his coffee .


I said "excuse me there is a mare over there who I don't think should be put through the auction she is weak and looks ill" . RSPCA looked at me nothing said carried on chatting , so I stood there then he said " yeh yeh yeh I will look after I finished my coffee. " Well I stayed there till 2.30pm and he NEVER looked at her:mad: sadly I couldn't wait as had to go back to yard.:(:(

These are just my cases dealing with them . I watch the ASPCA they put the RSPCA to shame.



So yes I will bash the RSPCA these are just the main experiences I have seen and heard with MY ears and eyes!!
 
Last edited:
horserider said:
Where they wrong to prosecute Jamie Gray and save the lives of scores of horses at Spindles Farm ?
Click to expand...

No, once they actually pulled their heads out of their backsides and decided to support the rescue organisation they did an excellent job.

It's just such a shame that over two years worth of calls and concerns went completely un-acted on........
 
RSPCA Officer have you got what it takes to be one??? TV program



Yes I have , RSPCA Criteria;

I can wear a headset
I can answer phone
I can drive a vehicle
I can sit around having coffee and chatting


Yes I have what it takes to be one !!!:rolleyes:
 
Alec Swan said:
I'm not contradicting you, but was it actually the rspca, or the CPS who prosecuted the Grays? From the little that I know of it all, I suspect that whilst charitable bodies have the ability, as we all do, to bring about a private prosecution, it's my belief that it's only State sponsored bodies who have the ability to prosecute directly. The State sponsored bodies being Trading Standards and the Police via the CPS.

I think you'll find that the rspca (and no, I'm not a fan) have very limited rights. They don't, for instance, have right of access to property or land, that is only given to State sponsored bodies, not charities.

Assuming that I'm right in what I say, then the point of my argument, and maybe others, is that if the CPS don't have enough confidence in achieving a prosecution, is a private prosecution such a good idea, with all the attendant costs, and considering their existing precarious state?

Alec.
Click to expand...

No it was the RSPCA that prosecuted the grays and that cost millions! All RSPCA prosecutions are private prosecutions paid for by the charity. The CPS yes have guidelines on whether to take prosecutions or not and not always based on whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a successfull result.
 
Alec Swan said:
I'm not contradicting you, but was it actually the rspca, or the CPS who prosecuted the Grays? From the little that I know of it all, I suspect that whilst charitable bodies have the ability, as we all do, to bring about a private prosecution, it's my belief that it's only State sponsored bodies who have the ability to prosecute directly. The State sponsored bodies being Trading Standards and the Police via the CPS.

I think you'll find that the rspca (and no, I'm not a fan) have very limited rights. They don't, for instance, have right of access to property or land, that is only given to State sponsored bodies, not charities.

Assuming that I'm right in what I say, then the point of my argument, and maybe others, is that if the CPS don't have enough confidence in achieving a prosecution, is a private prosecution such a good idea, with all the attendant costs, and considering their existing precarious state?

Alec
.........................................................

Yes,anyone can ring a private prosecution but it was the RSPCA that brought a private prosecution against Jamie Gray. Their prosecution department gathers evidence and presents it to the CPS. I think they work with other charities like the WHW etc but its the RSPCA that brings the case. They've been doing this ever since the charity began a 100 plus years ago.
With such a high conviction rate, I suspect legal costs would be awarded so it would seem to be a pretty effective use of their resources.

Why doesn't the state prosecute ? I really don't know. Perhaps their priorities lie with accusing people of fly posting for putting up lost pet posters. (I kid you not.)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
horserider said:
.......

.........................................................

Yes,anyone can ring a private prosecution but it was the RSPCA that brought a private prosecution against Jamie Gray. Their prosecution department gathers evidence and presents it to the CPS. So the reality is that they DIDN'T prosecute, they left that to the CPS, and that's my point. If the CPS looses the case, then the costs will be laid upon the State. If the rspca take out a PRIVATE prosecution, and they loose the case, then the costs (certainly theirs) will be theirs. Do you see what I mean?

I think they work with other charities like the WHW etc but its the RSPCA that brings the case. They've been doing this ever since the charity began a 100 plus years ago. The reality is that most charities, certainly those which have parallel focus, actually view other charities as opposition, and there is a deal of in-fighting, even though that's denied!!
With such a high conviction rate, I suspect legal costs would be awarded so it would seem to be a pretty effective use of their resources. The conviction rate, achieved by the CPS is achieved by quite simply, only moving forwards on cases which are on safe ground. (Now see below!)

Why doesn't the state prosecute ? I really don't know. Perhaps their priorities lie with accusing people of fly posting for putting up lost pet posters. (I kid you not.) The CPS decides upon prosecution, on two main points; Firstly, "Is success likely?", if it isn't, then why waist public funds. and then Secondly, "Is it in the public Interest to proceed?" and as I've already said, it seems that as the CPS don't have the confidence to bring a prosecution, should the rspca be taking this on? If they fail, then this could prove to be incredibly costly, suicidal some might say.
Click to expand...

Alec.

Ets, another point for you to consider; all the high profile charities employ highly skilled and very highly paid senior fund raisers. By carefully targeting a minority interest, in this case hunting, they are presumably working on the basis that their massive advertising costs will be dwarfed by the response, and that they will again have sufficient funds, and it all smacks, to me anyway, of the gambler putting his shirt on the last horse. I wish them luck, but with the exception of the odd individual, the country has neither the funds not the taste for it, in my view. a.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top