RSPCA being investigated

[Achinghips]

For improper use of funds to persue prosecutions. Noticed this on news today.

 

[Equi]

Yep. The proverbial is hitting the fan for them!

 

[crabbymare]

about time. lets hope something is done about them and its not just a gesture

 

[ihatework]

Couldn't happen to a nicer organisation 😛

 

[Queenbee]

oh whats that I hear???? Its karma knocking at their door!! About damned time!!

 

[Alec Swan]

There is a growing resistance to the rspca, their ethos, tactics and apparent dismissal of the requirements and proprietaries of Court regulations, in short their arrogance. Various well written and accurate press articles are gathering pace, as are those in the legal profession who are demanding change. It seems that the rspca are unable to set their own house in order, and even if they do then they will obviously only restrict their changes to meet with the barest minimum of the demands.

The simple fact is that there needs to be an acceptance by the governing bodies, DEFRA, the CPS and the Charities Commission to install unambiguous legislation which will force the rspca to abide by their charter and to comply with the Laws of this land. This is assuming that the right to prosecute isn't removed entirely. The Courts also need to be made fully aware that contrary to their previous belief and acceptance, that the charity concerned are as open to trickery and dishonesty as are those who are charged.

To achieve change, there needs to be, it seems to me, an umbrella under which all the dissatisfied stand. There are demands within Parliament that the charity concerned also have the power of prosecution looked in to. I suspect that a full Public Enquiry would be of far greater effect and that whilst the rspca are called and asked to justify their conduct, so those who would refute their claims will also be given a voice. The growing 'voice' should also be heard and from those defending solicitors who have been subjected to smear campaigns, evidence of which is there for all to see.

The rspca need to be forced back to the conditions of their charter, and the only way to achieve that will be to curtail their already limited, but hugely damaging influence.

Alec.

 

[Goldenstar]

We need to stump and pay for this area of criminal behaviour is dealt with by the state not a charity with it's own agenda taking private prosecutions .
The present situation is bad for everybody and illogical we would not think it ok that we got the NSPCC to take private prosecutions for child abuse .
I have been banging on about this for years however it would really destabilise the RSPCA and that could badly impact the some of the good stuff they do.
But they are like a secret police force and appear to act in some cases in a way that would be completely unacceptable for the police and the CPS.
Light is the best disinfectant I think it would be good to shine a light at them however I think they will fight with everything they have got to maintain the status quo.

 

[JillA]

I'm no fan but there will be a big hole if they stop working. Hopefully some of the other charities (Blue Cross, WHW, Dogs Trust, RSPB etc etc) will step up and fill the gap if they go under.

 

[Alec Swan]

I'm no fan but there will be a big hole if they stop working. Hopefully some of the other charities (Blue Cross, WHW, Dogs Trust, RSPB etc etc) will step up and fill the gap if they go under.

It isn't a case of 'going under' or disbanding as I see it, it's case of the charity under discussion returning to the roots of their charter, and working towards animal welfare, and having the power of prosecution returned to the former bodies, the Police, Trading Standards and the CPS.

We need an rspca, now perhaps more than ever, it's just that we need an effective rspca with a counsel which focuses on their charter rather than their sense of self promotion. We need an rspca who will engage with those interested parties who will help and support them. We need an rspca which listens to its informed and well intentioned critics.

Alec.

 

[fatpiggy]

I'm no fan but there will be a big hole if they stop working. Hopefully some of the other charities (Blue Cross, WHW, Dogs Trust, RSPB etc etc) will step up and fill the gap if they go under.

I don't know about others, but would NEVER call the RSPCA as my first choice to look at a neglect case. When I came across one I called WHW. They attended then returned with the RSPCA as it was a serious case and the owner needed telling very strongly. It is fairly common knowledge these days that the RSPCA can't be bothered much unless there is a camera crew behind them so I don't think that even if their processes were cut back it would really impact on the other charities. I saw how useless they were when I was under 10 years old and I'm 50 now.

 

[JillA]

I don't know about others, but would NEVER call the RSPCA as my first choice to look at a neglect case. When I came across one I called WHW. They attended then returned with the RSPCA as it was a serious case and the owner needed telling very strongly. It is fairly common knowledge these days that the RSPCA can't be bothered much unless there is a camera crew behind them so I don't think that even if their processes were cut back it would really impact on the other charities. I saw how useless they were when I was under 10 years old and I'm 50 now.

I think that's true of most of us in the horse world, but the man in the street who finds a swan caught in a fishing line or a cat up a tree will only ever think RSPCA. I've been trying for years (ever since Spindles Farm) to find some sort of feedback forum for them but there is nothing, they aren't interested, which is hugely arrogant for an organisation which relies on public goodwill.

 

[marotelle]

Yep. The proverbial is hitting the fan for them!

Good; its about time and perhaps remove the 'Royal' from them.

 

[Foxhunter49]

Some years ago the RSPCA was 'governed' by a committee of retired business people, ex army officers and the likes.

Members were just the general public wanting to help neglected and cruelty cases, much as they do now,

As with most committees after a certain period of serving members have to retire, they can stand for re election and as with a lot of clubs and societies, when th AGM is coming up members are sent notification of committee members retiring and those standing for election.
Most of these forms end up in the rubbish bin and few members turned up to the AGM so with careful agenda the bunny huggers voted themselves onto the committee and took over.

The original committee gave there time for free or, minimal expenses. Now they are all paid large salaries and have a free hand to do what they want.

Only if the general masses get organised and do the same, become members take the trouble to vote for the people who are willing to give their time and experience will the organisation be changed.

 

[chillipup]

Quite right Foxhunter49,

But do you remember some while ago, the fox hunting fraternity trying to establish themselves as RSPCA members so they could change the Society's aims to promote fox hunting with dogs as opposing it? It didn't work.

I am led to believe that the present RSPCA Council Committee members still only claim for expenses and are not directly paid a salary. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If the "general masses" have the inclination to change the RSPCA they had better stand up now and be counted as soon as possible. If they are content with just sitting in the back row and whinging about it...I say, either put up or shut up!

Chillipup.

 

[chillipup]

Quite right foxhunter,

But do you remember some while ago, the fox hunting fraternity trying to establish themselves as RSPCA members so they could change the Society's aims to promote fox hunting with dogs as opposing it? It didn't work.

I am led to believe that the present RSPCA Council Committee members still only claim for expenses and are not directly paid a salary. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If the "general masses" have the inclination to change the RSPCA hadn't they better stand up now (as it appears to be just as good a time as any) and be counted. If however, they are content with just sitting in the back row, posting on forums and doing nothing but whinging about it...I say, either put up or shut up

"I don't know about others, but would NEVER call the RSPCA as my first choice to look at a neglect case. When I came across one I called WHW. They attended then returned with the RSPCA as it was a serious case and the owner needed telling very strongly. It is fairly common knowledge these days that the RSPCA can't be bothered much unless there is a camera crew behind them so I don't think that even if their processes were cut back it would really impact on the other charities. I saw how useless they were when I was under 10 years old and I'm 50 now.

"

So fatpiggy, you called World Horse Welfare because you came across a neglected horse. They attended but returned with the RSPCA "as it was a serious case and the owner needed telling very strongly" So who told the owners "very strongly?" WHW or the RSPCA????

Is it really common knowledge these days that the RSPCA can't be bothered much - unless there is a camera crew behind them? Do you really have any idea or in fact actually any reality about how many cruelty cases are taken to court every year by the RSPCA??and without not one camera in sight??
RSPCA Inspectors who submit cruelty cases, just get on with the job in hand and as far as I'm aware, feel any camera crew is not only invasive but can be most compromising in their investigations. They are told to go out with a crew - they do not court it.

I would have thought at your age, you could distinguish between the medias' thirst for sensationalism and the relative truth. Forgive me if you find this far too personal but I am of a similar age to you and have always been told not to believe everything you read in the papers! (especially the Daily Fail).

Chillipup.

 

[chillipup]

Sorry guys, duplication there.........how does this intranet thing work again?

Chillipup....trying my best after a couple glasses of wine.

 

[chillipup]

marotelle,

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was formed in 1824. Royal patronage followed in 1837 and Queen Victoria gave her permission to add the Royal R in 1840. I would suggest you either talk to her directly or call on the present patron Queen Elizabeth 11 to remove hers.

Chillipup.

 

[Jill Lloyd]

The history of the RSPCA is quite colourful and deeply entrenched in the politics and social class division of the time. As various charities were established the vast majority opted to offer help and education. Right from the start, the RSPCA opted to take a prosecutorial stance without the powers to fulfil that role.

They went bankrupt several times and their Chairmen were imprisoned.

And remember the quote of one of their founders "you shouldn't beat an animal any more than you would beat your servant"

 

[madlady]

There is a need for the RSPCA - I just don't think they should have anything to do with horses. They do not have the knowledge, experience or facilities to adequately deal with them - as has been quite clearly shown with the Arab horses.

They also should not be making the decisions on who does and does not get prosecuted - that should be left to the CPS.

They should concentrate on what they are 'supposed' to be all about - prevention of cruelty, welfare of animals and educating owners, they should also (I believe) be restricted to which animals they deal with and pass any calls about other animals to the relevant place - eg WHW or BHS for horses, Wildlife Trust for larger wild animals etc etc.

 

[ester]

totally agree madlady, primarily they should not be bringing private prosecutions on criminal matters, they should be forwarded to the CPS.

 

[millikins]

And remember the quote of one of their founders "you shouldn't beat an animal any more than you would beat your servant"

The nuances of the English language. I read that with the emphasis on "would" meaning it is wrong to do either.

 

[A1fie]

I think there is a need for the RSPCA I just do not think that they should prosecute cases. They can and should investigate cases but then when their investigation is complete, they should pass their file over to the CPS to prosecute. That is what the police do with other criminal cases. If the CPS had a policy that they would never prosecute animal cruelty cases, then there may be a stronger argument for the RSPCA to do so, but this isn't the case. The CPS do let the RSPCA prosecute but that practice has developed over time and not because the CPS refuse to prosecute.

The RSPCA is a charity with limited funds and there is (IMO) no good reason to spend money prosecuting when another agency will do so on their behalf, free of charge.

The money they spent on prosecuting hunts was misguided and a poor use of funds. Whatever your view on hunting ( I am pro-hunting) there is significant scientific evidence to show that it is not cruel. I think it was a political decision and they should be above politics.

 

[Jill Lloyd]

Possibly but given the links of some of the founders to the slavery reparation claims it's debatable. That coupled with the fact one of the key founders was frequently charged with hitting children and was stopped from being an MP due to his threats to voters, would seem to say otherwise.

 

[ester]

I'm not really sure how the behaviour of the founders is particularly relevant to the situation today.

 

[fatpiggy]

Quite right foxhunter,

But do you remember some while ago, the fox hunting fraternity trying to establish themselves as RSPCA members so they could change the Society's aims to promote fox hunting with dogs as opposing it? It didn't work.

I am led to believe that the present RSPCA Council Committee members still only claim for expenses and are not directly paid a salary. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If the "general masses" have the inclination to change the RSPCA hadn't they better stand up now (as it appears to be just as good a time as any) and be counted. If however, they are content with just sitting in the back row, posting on forums and doing nothing but whinging about it...I say, either put up or shut up

"

So fatpiggy, you called World Horse Welfare because you came across a neglected horse. They attended but returned with the RSPCA "as it was a serious case and the owner needed telling very strongly" So who told the owners "very strongly?" WHW or the RSPCA????

Is it really common knowledge these days that the RSPCA can't be bothered much - unless there is a camera crew behind them? Do you really have any idea or in fact actually any reality about how many cruelty cases are taken to court every year by the RSPCA??and without not one camera in sight??
RSPCA Inspectors who submit cruelty cases, just get on with the job in hand and as far as I'm aware, feel any camera crew is not only invasive but can be most compromising in their investigations. They are told to go out with a crew - they do not court it.

I would have thought at your age, you could distinguish between the medias' thirst for sensationalism and the relative truth. Forgive me if you find this far too personal but I am of a similar age to you and have always been told not to believe everything you read in the papers! (especially the Daily Fail).

Chillipup.

OK, in reply. I'm not going to rise to your obvious attempt to bait me. I speak as I FIND, not what is says in the Daily Mail. I know that rag never lets the truth get in the way of a good story and deliberately provoke racism, homophobia, discrimination of all sorts and general public insecurity with their inflammatory statements. When I reported the horse I found ( a mare with foal at foot, foal looked fine but mare was about 2 on the body condition scale) I knew for a start, that WHW would attend immediately, the RSPCA might or might not attend at all. WHW by its own admission does not have the legal right to remove animals and/or prosecute and have to call in the RSPCA - they can only advise. Since I wasn't there I couldn't possibly know who actually told the bloke to pull his finger out and look after the mare properly, but I'm guessing that WHW gave him the practical advice and the RSPCA officer, the warning of what would happen to him if he didn't comply. Going back to my experience when I was a child, our neighbours, townies who had a family member and had won the Pools and bought a small holding for them, had a small herd of pedigree Jersey cows, a horse, some pigs and assorted chickens plus two dogs, a GSD and a JR terrier. Oh yes, and some cats too. They were a young couple and used to invite little me to go and play with the endless litters of kittens since nothing was neutered, and a litter of pups from the GSD. Even at that age I thought it odd that they didn't clean up after the pups and the carpet had wet patches and stains all over it. One time they went out for the day but we could hear the milking machine running, so we went over and found a cow still attached to the cluster. We let her out in the field and left a note to say we had done so. Being townies, they didn't realise that grass doesn't grow in the winter, even in Cornwall, and you need to supplement with fodder. Over one weekend, there was no-one there again, and my parents had to call the knacker man on both days to come and remove 3 dead (starved) cows from outside our kitchen window. We called the RSPCA and they left a note giving advice to feed the animals. On another occasion we found a mostly drowned starved pig wedged under the roadbridge in the stream. My dad pulled it out and seeing it was beyond help, sent for the knacker man who shot it and took it away. One day we realised that we hadn't seen or heard the dogs out in the yard for a while. Neighbours were out and in those days no-one ever locked anything so my father went and had a look in the barn. He found the dogs in a very poor state with dry water bowls. So he called the RSPCA again, and they were told to ensure the dogs had access to water at all times. A few months later there was no sign of the dogs at all, so we had another look around in the barn again. My father found what he suspected and called the RSPCA AGAIN. The terrier was alone and like a hatrack, neighbours were rarely there by that time, despite the livestock, and where was the GSD? RSPCA said it must have been got rid of. My father then produced a large dog skull and showed the officer a pile of what looked like brush bristles. The skull had tooth marks on it. The dog had obviously starved to death and the terrier had eaten the body. And STILL the RSPCA wouldn't accept what was staring them in the face and did nothing whatsoever. Shortly after that the animals were disposed of and the house was sold. Go forward 35 years and there were two ponies on the farm where I kept my mare. We were told they were both elderly and had to be stabled because of arthritis (??) The owner only came down 2 or 3 times a week and they had either empty buckets or rancid water that they had dirtied. Their bedding was a thin layer of shavings from the local sawmill and was only cleaned out (at all) once a week so they lay in their own filth all week. The reason they could both barely walk because they had at least 6 months growth of hoof each. One "elderly" pony was about 9 in my opinion, having looked quickly at its teeth. We complained to the YO who told us to mind our own business, so one livery who was leaving and had nothing to lose, called the RSPCA. They visited the animals, left a note about getting the farrier out etc but didn't come back to check. The farrier was called - once- and so after a while they were back to square one. RSPCA was called again and left the identical note, didn't seem aware they had seen these animals before and didn't ask the owner to contact them. The one pony which was elderly was in a very poor state and had sores because its rug wasn't being reset, and didn't fit it anymore anyway. Both ponies were practically feral by this time since no-one was handling them. At this point my horse was PTS so I don't know what the outcome ever was for them.

As for your comment about the camera crews - they didn't exactly turn them away did they? They considered it good FREE publicity for them. Interestingly, since the story of these arabs came to light, I have seen more TV adverts for the RSPCA than I have in a very long time. I'm happy to give my money to quite a few charities but I wouldn't give them so much as a penny. It isn't good enough to claim that officers don't know much, if anything, about horse welfare. They should EDUCATE themselves, if they don't get formal training. It isn't as if there isn't much information available in the public domain.

 

[Jill Lloyd]

The relevance of the founders is that it explains the overriding culture and working practices.

The Society never has had the wherewithal to do its self appointed role but the culture was such that the organisation has not adjusted it's conduct.

If, as many (including myself) believe, they are prevented from being investigator and prosecutor then so much the better. The quality of their animal (horse) knowledge is on a par with their evidential procedures knowledge - well intentioned but ultimately useless and very dangerous.

 

[chillipup]

Possibly but given the links of some of the founders to the slavery reparation claims it's debatable. That coupled with the fact one of the key founders was frequently charged with hitting children and was stopped from being an MP due to his threats to voters, would seem to say otherwise.

Good grief...I'm outraged, when did this all happen? Why weren't the public informed? How come I missed it? This must be investigated but first Lets get our burning torches and march en-mass to RSPCA HQ, anyone with me?

 

[ester]

If it has not adjusted it's conductor I they still going round hitting children!?

 

[Jill Lloyd]

It happened in 1840. Have they changed? There are laws to stop them committing physical violence but their unrelenting targeting of the vulnerable and the damage caused to families is just as devastating. People are left homeless and broken - not the people who committed the offence but their families. Making children suffer as a consequence of their actions is just as reprehensible in my opinion.

At one Court recently, a child welfare case took 2 days and at the same Court an animal welfare case took weeks.

The current officials are ex (or maybe not) animal rights activists. They are opposed to keeping pets and want the law changing so that animals are ascribed the same emotions as humans.

No, I don't think they have changed.

I support wholeheartedly the work they do to educate and prevent but I absolutely, 100% do not think they should take the role of either investigator or prosecutor. They are ill equipped for both and the complete PR fiasco and backside covering in this case just highlights that.

 

[cbmcts]

One of the reasons that the RSPCA is losing so much respect is the fact that they are acting like judge and jury, often with very shoddy theories behind their pronouncements. There is no facility that I can find to even register a formal complaint with them let alone a right to have any complaint investigated. The only way that I could see that you could try to hold them accountable would be to sue them through the courts for either defamation of character, trespass or financial losses if you were prosecuted and found innocent. That is unachievable both financially and mentally for 95% +(guess!) of the people they target so they are never called to account.

The cases they bring generally go through magistrates courts - magistrates by definition are lay people with minimal or no legal training who have only a Clerk of the Court to advise them - and traditionally will tend to side with the prosecution especially in emotive cases like animal abuse. No disrespect to magistrates, most do a wonderful job but they are not judges and do not have the knowledge and resources that the higher courts have. The CPS do not have overview or decision making powers over the prosecutions that are brought by the RSPCA so that is another check and balance that is missing. Really, when you lay out like that, the one thing that is missing is open justice which is the basic tenet of a fair legal system.

There is no other authority in this country that is unanswerable in the same way. If I have an issue with the police, I can complain and insist that procedures, set in stone are followed and the result of my complaint is communicated to me.
In the 80s it was decided that the police forces had too much power as investigators and prosecutors so the CPS who no doubt also have their faults was set up to decide what cases are prosecuted.
Even if I have an issue with energy, communication or financial services - private companies all - there is a statutory Ombudsman to hold them to account with the ability to impose penalties for wrongdoing.

But a charity can drag me to court with no proper oversight from anybody, possibly because my animals are not kept in their proscribed way and I'm left to try and clear my name even if found not guilty? Something as emotive as animal welfare will always bring out the 'no smoke without fire' naysayers. I won't get compensation for travel, anything other than basic legal representation, time off work etc as costs are not usually awarded in the lower courts but the real damage of course is the stress and the loss of good name. The opposite problem is that the real animal abusers can point the finger at a rapidly being discredited organisation and claim innocence/victimisation and have a real chance of being believed. That's not right either.

There are quite rightly laws that protect animals. Since those laws were passed by Parliament I strongly believe that the responsibility of enforcing them lies with the State, not a charity even if it was better run and a lot more transparent than the RSPCA.