AmyMay
Situation normal
Actually Alec, it was the RSPCA that footed the bill for the prosecution.
RSPCA asking for urgent donations yet in court case against the Heythrop?
- Thread starter Luci07
- Start date
Luci07
Well-Known Member
Would they be interested if the Heythrop didn't happen to fall into David Cameron's constituency? You cannot possibly compare the Spindles case ( and btw, the RSPCA supporters are not acknowledging the huge support they received from other charities...they did NOT deal with this on their own). I am involved, in a minor way with a small rescue and help fund raise. Talk to a lot to people involved with rescues such as Stafford Welfare etc. these rescues are overwhelmed with the sheer number of unwanted dogs they are trying to deal with and are completely relying on donations and volunteers. Depending on what you read, anything between 30 - 70 dogs are being PTS each day..and a huge number are really young dogs. So no! The RSPCA cannot justify this kind of money in this case. This is blatantly political. Leave that to the CPS, show support and put that money back where it should be. Caring for animals.
Alec Swan
...
I take it that you mean the case against Gray? If that's so, then I fail to see why the CPS didn't act, with such irrefutable evidence, and presumably, the rspca are expecting, what would be their substantial costs, to be returned in the event that the Grays ever hand over the £400k penalty.
I didn't, or haven't actually followed the ramifications which were subsequent to the original case, but the chances of him ever handing over the awarded money are slim, I would think, considering the appeal process, and that staggeringly, he seems to have had some success in that department. I don't know, to be honest.
Alec.
joeanne
Well-Known Member
The other thing to bare in mind is that the RSPCA will only take on and act on a case they are almost certain to win.
So that 96/98% conviction rate is not all that impressive.
A few years back there was a huge fundraising campaign...."we need your help"......
Is that possibly because they had just refurbed their HQ at a staggering cost of 4 million pounds?
Yet several RSPCA shelters STILL have kennels/runs not really fit for purpose!
So that 96/98% conviction rate is not all that impressive.
A few years back there was a huge fundraising campaign...."we need your help"......
Is that possibly because they had just refurbed their HQ at a staggering cost of 4 million pounds?
Yet several RSPCA shelters STILL have kennels/runs not really fit for purpose!
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
The RSPCA has since its conception, sought to bring animal abusers to justice when all other means failed. This is one thing that they do well and other charities rely on their expertise in bringing about prosecutions as the organisation has a prosecution service. This enables smaller charities to save their own meagre resources.
Don't forget that costs for expenses and legal fees are usually awarded otherwise not even the RSPCA could finanically do the work it does.
I don't think they did claim that the credit for the Spindles Farm rescue was theirs alone. It was a multi agency rescue with the RSPCA gathering the evidence to bring about the prosecution.
If your gripe is that the RSPCA should not bring about private prosecutions, fair enough.
If its because you disagree with huntsman facing prosecution, then perhaps you are the one being political.
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
Completely agree with you re high profile charities. Having been a lifelong supporter of Save The Children and the NSPCC it is saddening to see career executives taking over these societies.
However, much as I can find fault with the RSPCA, until the CPS stops using the RSPCA to do its work, I'll give them credit for doing a very effective job.
Alec Swan
...
I've thought further about this. I am certainly no fan of the rspca, and have always viewed them with a great deal of suspicion, BUT, in the face of the overwhelming evidence against the Grays, how on earth did the CPS, which is a State run body, hand over the costs to a charity? Was it because no matter the award, the chances of actually receiving any money, were slim, OR was it because the rspca not seeing or grasping the severity of this recession, spent money which they didn't have, or thought that such a high profile case would promote them in the fund raising race?
The problem with some of these charities is that they are run by accountants and fund raisers. What they need is someone who's run their own business for a lifetime and has a realistic grasp upon simple common sense. They are still running a business like a charity. They've got no chance, in my opinion.
Alec.
marmalade76
Well-Known Member
Yes, they manipulate people into believing they have more powers than they actually do.
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
The Spindles case brought an overwhelming response from the general public with donations given to both help the rescued horses and to get justice for them and to prevent Mr Gray from continuing his business in horse misery.
Not only did the RSPCA recieve massive public donations, other equine rescues involved in the case did too.
Costs of £400,000 were awarded in their favour.
Why would the CPS want to take over the RSPCA's role when they have the expertise in gathering evidence ? The CPS guards its own budget and it suits them very well to let a charity bear the brunt of the work, time and expense.
Is it right that alleged criminals only face justice because a charity funds it ?
Would you prefer your taxes paid for these cases rather than a voluntary funded public service charity ?
Or would you prefer no animal abusers faced justice because of the cost ?
Read this and see if you still feel the RSPCA is wrong;http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2010/05/086.shtml
Not only did the RSPCA recieve massive public donations, other equine rescues involved in the case did too.
Costs of £400,000 were awarded in their favour.
Why would the CPS want to take over the RSPCA's role when they have the expertise in gathering evidence ? The CPS guards its own budget and it suits them very well to let a charity bear the brunt of the work, time and expense.
Is it right that alleged criminals only face justice because a charity funds it ?
Would you prefer your taxes paid for these cases rather than a voluntary funded public service charity ?
Or would you prefer no animal abusers faced justice because of the cost ?
Read this and see if you still feel the RSPCA is wrong;http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2010/05/086.shtml
Last edited:
Luci07
Well-Known Member
did you read my original post? I stated quite clearly I was not interested in the hunting aspect. It is about the RSPCA funding this case when there is so clearly a greater need with basic animal welfare. And see you completely ignored my points about the huge numbers of dogs being PTS every day.
I have to prioritise my budget. So should they. This is an animal charity. I just want them to go back to what they should be doing and a high profile political court case is not the answer. I have also stated there is no comparison between a case like Spindles and the case against the Heythrop.
competitiondiva
Well-Known Member
What I don't understand is:
Heythrop case expected to cost millions
James Gray case cost millions,
Why should one be prosecuted and the other not??? Or because they are in financial difficulties this time should they say no to the Heythrop, but if another spindles case was identified tomorrow say, would your answer be the same???
People who are seeing a political agenda here, I think are seeing it because they want to see it.
Regarding all the staffies, yes it's a minefield and a very sad state of affairs. As you say it could be as much as 30+ dogs a day being PTS, what is the answer, spend millions on building more and more kennels to be filled by these dogs, when there aren't enough homes out there for them? No the only answer here is to legislate and try to stop it at it's source, not mop up.
Heythrop case expected to cost millions
James Gray case cost millions,
Why should one be prosecuted and the other not??? Or because they are in financial difficulties this time should they say no to the Heythrop, but if another spindles case was identified tomorrow say, would your answer be the same???
People who are seeing a political agenda here, I think are seeing it because they want to see it.
Regarding all the staffies, yes it's a minefield and a very sad state of affairs. As you say it could be as much as 30+ dogs a day being PTS, what is the answer, spend millions on building more and more kennels to be filled by these dogs, when there aren't enough homes out there for them? No the only answer here is to legislate and try to stop it at it's source, not mop up.
Last edited:
marmalade76
Well-Known Member
How on Earth can you compare what James Grey did to those horses with foxhunting, illegal or otherwise??
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
I thought you were critcizing the RSPCA for prosecuting those breaking the law as you clearly said you are not interested in the hunting aspect.
Clearly you meant hunts should be exempt.
Isn't that just a tweeny weeny bit political ?
Luci07
Well-Known Member
No.
But if you really do believe that it is perfectly acceptable to put healthy animals to sleep because you truly think going to court over this is a better use of the charities money, then that is your choice. It is not mine, but then I do get to see what is really happening on the rescue coalface..
Luci07
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately you are making a very sweeping statement which will just not happen. Focus keeps being placed on the actions of some dogs, rather than this hugely irresponsible breeding. And it is a minimum of 30 per day. Other sources quote 70 at least. The RSPCA has publicly said it is reducing its rescue efforts as well...
competitiondiva
Well-Known Member
Not sure I follow, (yes it is late!!) Where or what is my sweeping statement????
Where has the RSPCA publicly said it's reducing its rescue efforts???
DawnRay
Well-Known Member
It is mine. Especially in some breeds, uncontrolled breeding has produced a huge surplus of pets that cannot be re-homed. It is not a welfare issue putting them to sleep despite it being very sad for those involved. It is simply common sense until someone actually deals with the situation ie the government. The RSPCA are a welfare organisation and receive donations to deal with welfare issues they are not a control organisation.
Illegal hunting and killing foxes with dogs is a welfare issue and the RSPCA are correct to be spending their donated money on this issue.
perfect11s
Well-Known Member
Im fed up with the politcal meddeling, the fat salerys, the waste, and the way they have treated their core suporters, the top heavy bureaucratic slow response to welfare issues ..
Sorry but they need a regular kicking otherwise it will get even worse ......
Alec Swan
...
A broad and sweeping statement, I'll accept, but "generally", the bulk of animal charities are not fit for purpose. They start off with all the right intentions, but then through a combination of apathy, ignorance, and once they grow, accountants, they seem to lose their way.
Alec.
Alec.
siennamum
Well-Known Member
I think the problem with the RSPCA & their prosecution of the Heythrop is that it seems disproportionate.
We all make ethical choices, donate to children in 3rd World countries, whilst living unsustainable lifestyles. The RSPCA could redirect the £1m to closing puppy farming, stopping tethering and flygrazing - a number of acitivities which prevent cruelty to hundreds, if not thousands of animals. Instead they are directing the money to a prosecution towards preventing cruelty to a few individual animals. It may still be wrong to hurt those animals, but is it a proportionate use of the money. Personally I think not, and I think the RSPCA should be run along more agnostic lines, with no political agenda and just the desire to do the maximum good for the maximum number of animals.
We all make ethical choices, donate to children in 3rd World countries, whilst living unsustainable lifestyles. The RSPCA could redirect the £1m to closing puppy farming, stopping tethering and flygrazing - a number of acitivities which prevent cruelty to hundreds, if not thousands of animals. Instead they are directing the money to a prosecution towards preventing cruelty to a few individual animals. It may still be wrong to hurt those animals, but is it a proportionate use of the money. Personally I think not, and I think the RSPCA should be run along more agnostic lines, with no political agenda and just the desire to do the maximum good for the maximum number of animals.
competitiondiva
Well-Known Member
You could argue the same thing for every single case the RSPCA brings, it only affects the animals involved, and whilst it may not affect the world, it affects the world for those animals.........
From what you're saying it sounds like you would prefer for the RSPCA to become a campaigning body rather than an organisation that prosecutes? I don't agree, but then that's what makes the world go around, people put value in different things, which is why this thread was initiated.....
Also what would be the point in campaigning for law changes etc, if the RSPCA aren't there to enforce it?
Last edited:
1life
...
Damned if they do, and damned if they don't!
Many will feel that it is a worthy cause that has been a 'tradition' for many years and should not be allowed to continue in the modern world. That is not necessarily going to be the case on this forum as it used by people who generally love horses and most things associated with them - but it will be the view of others who will feel the money needs to be spent.
On the other hand, people may believe that any animal, no matter how indiscriminately it has been bred, whether for profit or love, should be entitled to a good life and should be able to expect a welfare charity to safeguard them.
The funds are not limitless and the distribution may seem unbalanced to some but will, of course, seem perfectly balanced to others.
I have personally had need to contact the RSPCA on two occasions and on both have been impressed and grateful for their rapid response.
Alec Swan
...
"Enforcement" is the work of Government authorities, not charities with political agendas.
Alec.
siennamum
Well-Known Member
The RSPCA does run campaigns. I think since a great deal of cruelty arises from ignorance, then they should be running campaigns to inform people. They could help stop the puppy farming trade for instance.
I think we all have to make value judgements, every life may count, but saldy we all decide every day that some lives count more than others. I think a body like the RSPCA should be doing the maximum good for the maximum number of animals, and that while I understand the importance of test cases for campaign value, there has to be a judgement call about the merit on welfare grounds. I think on welfare grounds the pursuit of a few foxes and death of some is less concerning than the export of live animals for slaughter for instance, or the rise in Halal slaughter. I fail to see the logic in the RSPCA spending £1m on this prosecution.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
Do you fail to see the logic in spending a huge sum of money on this then too?
http://www.signal1.co.uk/news/local/winsford-man-convicted/
Before anybody criticises, they should stop to think of the amount of work, heartbreak and sheer determination that each officer puts in to secure these convictions. If you walked in on this sort of case, I can guarantee you would be horrified at what you are greeted with. The officers in this case where out from 7am until 4am the following morning with no break whatsoever and sipping the odd bit of warm manky water from a bottle in their vans. This man inflicted SERIOUS cruelty and neglect on these animals and IMO every penny spent securing this sentence was worth the publics donations.
Now why should this man get prosecuted and an illegal foxhunter not? They are both committing serious crimes.
Incase people aren't aware of what is involved in cockfighting - two cockerels with sharp metal spurs attached to their legs are put in a ring and allowed to do what they would in the wild - savage each other to death. A wager is put on the winner as it would be in dog fighting. These birds suffer horrendous pain through the tearing injuries they recieve. Now, what is the difference between a fox being ripped to shreds by a pack of dogs (however 'quick' the death is - they still feel a level of pain and suffering before they finally die) and a cockerel being torn to shreds and suffering the same?
AmyMay
Situation normal
I most certainly don't.
But of course they are two different incidents. One worthy of the money being spent, the other not.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
That doesn't answer the question AmyMay - what is the difference between a cockerel getting torn to shreds, and a fox being torn to shreds? Does one feel any less than the other? Both of them are offences?
AmyMay
Situation normal
Yes, both of them are offenses in the eyes of the law.
However, as no other fail safe methods exist for managing fox's - i'll go with the hounds. Sorry.
EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
The rspca in the last few months announced it would no longer be helping strays UNLESS they were the subject of cruelty and a prosecution case in the offing. Meanwhile there is the Blue Cross and the PDSA doing sterling work with no political agenda whatsoever,not forgetting the Dog`s Trust.This last is actually getting it`s teeth into free neutering of Staffies in chosen rotating areas.Now THAT is a worthwhile step!
The rspca was behind the hunting ban,the banning of docking puppies..both these expensive moves have alienated thousands ,if not a million people.NO charity can afford to alienate anyone, donations tend to dry up if they do.
If they had stayed an ANIMAL charity ,then my fortune may have been left in part to them,as it is it will be anyone BUT the rspca. I detest them,they so often make nuisance calls on innocent people whose vile neighbours use them as a ploy against anyone they want to aggrieve.
The rspca was behind the hunting ban,the banning of docking puppies..both these expensive moves have alienated thousands ,if not a million people.NO charity can afford to alienate anyone, donations tend to dry up if they do.
If they had stayed an ANIMAL charity ,then my fortune may have been left in part to them,as it is it will be anyone BUT the rspca. I detest them,they so often make nuisance calls on innocent people whose vile neighbours use them as a ploy against anyone they want to aggrieve.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
Haha!!! So you expect an RSPCA Inspector to be psychic now too?!!! Yes they get hundreds and thousands of nuisance and malicious calls saying that next door's dog is emaciated and collapsed, which the officer clearly has to attend (sometimes they ARE emaciated and collapsed). It is nothing short of disgusting that people abuse the charity by trying to alienate their neighbours and cause trouble. I don't see those people offering a donation for the officer's time either. In the meantime, many other animals go suffering waiting. In short - it is the people who abuse RSPCA time and money that mean genuine people who donate and ring in get irrate because they are left waiting, and then the charity gets a bad name.