RSPCA BASHING !

E

ellamanamou

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 June 2009
Messages
82
Visit site
i would just like to say that i believe all of us on this forum agree with the rspca in principal. of course we do , however, i aso believe that they ought to have a long look at the way things are applied. to me its clear cut when an emaciated horse needs immediate action and when a poor old pensioner needs a kind word and perhaps help through the millions of funds that are available , instead of being bullied and prosecuted.. i expect we would all rather see a little less spent on hi - tec offices and huge wages which i personally find amazing considering its a charity. however , common sense is really all that is needed . the trouble is these days is it seems that common sense is not all that common ! maybe we should campaign for the return of common sense
wink.gif
 
Yup. Protocols, proper channels red tape as decreed by people issuing orders and administering directions from ivory towers.

Common sense? Never heard of it. Doesn't apply here. Why?

Because it's got too big for anything except management and response by numbers and ticked boxes. You can't hardly get through to them, they have revenue generating phone numbers - and guess what, you wait 20 minutes to get connected to a 'call centre' peep who reads from a flow chart whose final box reads 'I'm sorry but we can't do anything to help in this instance'.

That's absolutely what the problem is.
 
Unfortunatley the RSPCA along with many other organisations has lost the plot - i have to include many vet practices in this with the "is it insured question attitude" - both lots are in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

If the RSPCA charity wants to act as in as an "ivory tower enterprise" the best way of wakeing them up is to stop feeding there own self absorbed and self importance so we stop giving them the funds until they start to do what they are supposed to.

Apart from cancelling subscriptions and highlighting their faults to the general public i do not know what more we can do apart form asking on an area by area breakdown on what it receives and what it does with the funds and analysing a list of the "not us to attend" "nothing wrong" calls like a "proper buisness" would have to publish to its shareholders.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Apart from cancelling subscriptions and highlighting their faults to the general public i do not know what more we can do

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately by doing this the society will have less funds to take prosecutions and less staff to actually get to complaints! and with no-one else wanting to take prosecutions on, what will happen to the poor animals??? No other charity/organisation would have taken a case such as the amersham horses o in full. the cost of keeping 113 (or whatever) horses for getting onto 2 years now is astronomical... If there were no rspca (which is what will happen if people stop donating as that is all their income is, NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING WHATSOEVER), I feel the animals would be more likely to be left in situ or taken and euthanased due to no money to board/treat etc.....
 
How much have they spent in bringing the cases to court and in their Ban Foxhunting Campaigns and much more of the same sort of barking up the wrong tree stuff?

Bet it's more than enough to rehabilitate a few horses.

I still think they have lost sight of the goal - prevent suffering to animals and without unnecessary delay.
 
[ QUOTE ]
How much have they spent in bringing the cases to court and in their Ban Foxhunting Campaigns and much more of the same sort of barking up the wrong tree stuff?


[/ QUOTE ]

With a success rate of over 97% I don't think they are barking up the wrong tree!! Plus how do you consider bringing a prosecution a waste of money???!!!
 
The offenders in these high profile massive scale neglect or abuse cases generally feel they are above the law and repeatedly offend or are caught in pretty much a 'business as usual' scenario.

Does JG look bothered (sorry to coin that particular phrase)?

Is he running scared and repentant?

The North Wales case reportedly cost the RSPCA £130,000 to investigate (INVESTIGATE?????) and because the owner was bankrupt she was ordered to repay £250 (at 50p a week?) and banned from keeping horses for 10 years. Massive victory! I bet a summary removal and subsequently keeping a weekly eye on her activities would have cost peanuts. As it is they are going to have to do the latter anyway, aren't they?
 
(with) <font color="blue"> NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING WHATSOEVER </font>

I should bloodywell think not! They waste enough taxpayer's money already and I'm betting the top RSPCA bods are pretty much fatcats and not sleeves-rolled-ups.
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


With a success rate of over 97% I don't think they are barking up the wrong tree!! Plus how do you consider bringing a prosecution a waste of money???!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think their success rate IS over 97% when you take the successful appeals into account - appeals that succeed because the RSPCA "drove a coach and horses through PACE" - or just got it wrong! In Magistrates' Court - where MANY of the RSPCA cases are won, Magistrates often find for the RSPCA even when the case is shaky and the evidence more so! When the other party appeals, a judge is more likely to throw out dodgy cases - although they RARELY award costs against the RSPCA. Costs are awarded from 'the public purse' - in other words, you and me!

And there are many prosecutions that are plain potty. I remember years ago a case where the RSPCA took some horses that were definitely neglected and suffering - but the owner was in a Nursing Home - and in her 80's - and quite ga-ga! She had been paying someone to care for the horses and THAT person was the 'guilty' one. But she disappeared so RSPCA went after owner because the old lady wouldn't sign the horses over. In the end, the BHS persuaded the old lady to sign horses over to BHS - and also persuaded RSPCA to drop the prosecution on that basis. (Of course, the fact that RSPCA KNEW the poor old girl was unfit to be tried made it a bit more co-operative!)

The RSPCA does a lot of good, valuable work. But it makes FAR too many cock-ups for our 'premier welfare organisation' (and our richest!) And it's not because the 'staff' are low paid - or volunteers either.

In 2008, the highest paid RSPCA staff earned.

9 staff - between £60- 70,000
4 staff - between £70 - £80,000
2 staff - between £80 - £90,000
1 staff - between £90 - £100,000
1 staff - over £100,000

With 17 staff earning more than £60,000, I think one should expect a higher level of commitment and competence!!

Many of the inspectors do an excellent job - and of course on considerably less money - as do the volunteers in the branches. But RSPCA 'politics' have been up sh*t creek without a paddle for MANY years - there are still several well-known animal 'rights' nutters on the Council who have been there on and off for YEARS, although at least they no longer have a known ALF activist!

There is something VERY wrong with a large charity that attracts SO much bad PR!
 
I challenged the local RSPCA over the amersham horses and asked directyl if they had been aware of the problems for over a year. They would not answer the question by phone, fax, letter or e-mail - infact i have not recevied ANY response to my questioning of them.

The cost of the amersham horses was negated by the huge swell of public dontations - that is why they probably did something - it kept the good old RSPCA in the good books of the public - and eart them a tidy few quid into the bargin - SOMETHING THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPEND AS THEY HAD BEEN AWARE OF THE ISSUES FOR A YEAR !!!!!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much have they spent in bringing the cases to court and in their Ban Foxhunting Campaigns and much more of the same sort of barking up the wrong tree stuff?


[/ QUOTE ]

With a success rate of over 97% I don't think they are barking up the wrong tree!! Plus how do you consider bringing a prosecution a waste of money???!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Just plucking a figure out of the air actually indicates a lot of what is wrong with the RSPCA. What does that figure actually mean? The don't pick the cases likely to fail, do they? They don't prosecute the hard cases. How many of their "victories" are overturned on appeal? How many cases are dropped before they reach court because they are unlikely to succeed? And who actually cares about figures and reaching targets, other than their Chief Executives and marketing officials? Do you think the ill-treated animals, being "assessed" by the RSPCA over a period of months to enable them to gather evidence to reach this headline grabbing figure, comfort themselves with this thought when they are shivering, being eaten by lice, deteriorating, have bad feet, etc.?
 
[ QUOTE ]

In 2008, the highest paid RSPCA staff earned.

9 staff - between £60- 70,000
4 staff - between £70 - £80,000
2 staff - between £80 - £90,000
1 staff - between £90 - £100,000
1 staff - over £100,000

With 17 staff earning more than £60,000, I think one should expect a higher level of commitment and competence!!

There is something VERY wrong with a large charity that attracts SO much bad PR!

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunatley, that sort of staff structure is pretty standard for the leading British charities. I wonder what the background, qualifications and experience of these 17 staff are. You would hope to see perhaps a couple of vets, several very experienced people involved in breeding or competing in the past, etc.. But I have a horrible feeling you will find a large number of them are PR, marketing and fundraising professionals with little or very basic experience of animals.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Apart from cancelling subscriptions and highlighting their faults to the general public i do not know what more we can do

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately by doing this the society will have less funds to take prosecutions and less staff to actually get to complaints! and with no-one else wanting to take prosecutions on, what will happen to the poor animals??? No other charity/organisation would have taken a case such as the amersham horses o in full. the cost of keeping 113 (or whatever) horses for getting onto 2 years now is astronomical... If there were no rspca (which is what will happen if people stop donating as that is all their income is, NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING WHATSOEVER), I feel the animals would be more likely to be left in situ or taken and euthanased due to no money to board/treat etc.....

[/ QUOTE ]


Call me an old cynic but I rather suspect that getting involved with high public profile cases ( such as Amersham) pulls in a huge amount of donations for the rspca.
 
You old cynic!
grin.gif


They'll stop coming up smelling of roses one of these days. Jesus, even one of their former officers was the subject of some dreadful mare and foal neglect case, weren't they? That got nicely buried...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top