RSPCA Debate

S

Star_Chaser

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 June 2012
Messages
1,429
Location
Ashbourne
Visit site
It seems that there will be a debate on the role of the RSPCA:

Dear Supporter,

We need your help.

There will be a debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 29 January on the role of the RSPCA in taking private prosecutions in pursuit of our charitable objectives.

The RSPCA undertakes most of the work in England and Wales to investigate and enforce laws to protect animals from cruelty. From severe neglect to deliberate and sustained animal abuse, where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest, the RSPCA will seek justice for animals who have suffered at the hands of their abusers. If the RSPCA did not do this work, it would not happen and those who harm animals would go unchallenged.

This debate, sponsored by Simon Hart MP (ex-chief executive of pro-hunting lobby group the ‘Countryside Alliance’) is the latest attack in a campaign to undermine the RSPCA which has resulted in recent misleading and inaccurate media coverage, now the subject of a press complaints commission complaint. The attempt to discredit our name has been prompted by the recent successful prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt for breaking the law on hunting with hounds, which predictably upset those seeking repeal of the Hunting Act.

Take action now! Email your MP urging them to show their support for RSPCA prosecutions against animal abuse.

Make no mistake. This attack on the RSPCA is not motivated by concerns for animal welfare, but by enthusiasm for illegal fox hunting by those who seek the return of blood sports.

It is important that we get as much support as we can at the debate. Please email your MP and ask them to attend the debate to support the RSPCA.

Thank you for your loyal support, we and the animals need it more than ever.

RSPCA campaigns team
 
Already written to my MP. Had to laugh at Simon Harts latest attempt to prevent our national animal charity bringing animal abusers to court, all because he feels his love of blood sport is more important than protecting animals from criminals.


Hey, Simon, has anyone looked to see why your expenses come at the top end of the table since you became an MP ? You're certainly not cheap for tax payers to keep.:rolleyes:
 
This is a joke and a waste of Parliament's time. Ridiculous to accuse the RSPCA of being political when they aren't the ones raising the issue at Westminster. Whether you support them or not you have to agree some of the pro-hunt fraternity have influence and power and are trying everything to discredit (in the main) a very worthwhile organisation. The witch hunt is almost laughable. No point in writing to my MP - he's one of them.
 
I am neither for, nor against Hunting, but from what I have read in the press, and these are the only facts that I have access to, I feel that the point of concern is that so much Charitable money was wasted on one case. Especially in the current financial climate.

If the sums quoted are correct (in excess of 300k), surely, when local branches of the RSPCA are allegedly closing due to lack of funds, it would have made more sense to have saved that money in the interests of protecting the Welfare of many animals, rather than 'blowing' it on one high profile prosecution.

I accept that Hunting is a hot potato, But I don't think that in this instance, The RSPCA have done themselves any favours, as it comes across as being politically motivated rather than from genuine concern for animal welfare.
 
Mightymax said:
I am neither for, nor against Hunting, but from what I have read in the press, and these are the only facts that I have access to, I feel that the point of concern is that so much Charitable money was wasted on one case. Especially in the current financial climate.

If the sums quoted are correct (in excess of 300k), surely, when local branches of the RSPCA are allegedly closing due to lack of funds, it would have made more sense to have saved that money in the interests of protecting the Welfare of many animals, rather than 'blowing' it on one high profile prosecution.

I accept that Hunting is a hot potato, But I don't think that in this instance, The RSPCA have done themselves any favours, as it comes across as being politically motivated rather than from genuine concern for animal welfare.
Click to expand...

So instead leave the illegal fox hunters to get away with it, with no reprimand in any way, the only alternative since the CPS declined to take the case due the costs involved!! laughable that it falls to a CHARITY to have to uphold the law instead of the CPS which we all pay for! Thank god the RSPCA are here and do the job they do, if they weren't I fear life for hundreds of thousands of animals would be very bleak indeed.
 
Firstly i do not go hunting, so have no interest from that point of view however i agree with a previous post that they could have spent the money more wisely.
As hunting is illegal already there are others who could have brought a case to court,the police or more to the point the cps would have been able to do this so there was no need for the rspca to get involved. The other way of looking at it is did the cps look at the case and decide not to prosecute based on the evidence brought before them and not waste the public purse on a case that may have been iffy.
Anyway the rspca could have done alot more with that money elsewhere
 
The RSPCA could have used the money elsewhere, had the Heythrop not wilfully broken the law.
The RSPCA could have saved the money if the CPS had done the job its supposed to do, instead of using a charity.

The argument that the CPS decide not to prosecute because of a lack of evidence is untrue as the RSPCA have a 98% conviction success rate with private prosecutions.

Its time that the hunts stopped breaking the law and their lackeys stopped trying to slander an animal welfare charity.

Simon Hunt should remember he's an MP to work for the people of his constituency,76% of whom are opposed to fox hunting, he is not there for his hunting chums.

Keep your private life out of work time Mr Hart, and stop wasting parliamentary time and money.
 
Well well well the fat cats of the government facing the fat cats of the RSPCA - they should all rot in hell - they are greed through and through and are using animals as a licence to line their own pockets - they make me equally as sick !

£120,000 k for a senior member of the RSPCA wages plus expensises - they would not know one end of a dog or cat from another.

At least the Royal should be dropped - they are a sick joke, they turn blind eyes at every opportunity and unless they are going to get money out of the press coverage they do a really poor job.
 
GW,you're out of touch with wages if you think the RSPCA pay senior executives too much. Last time I checked, the RSPCA was way down the list. You should see what the RSPB pay, now that's shocking, but they are an incredibly rich charity.
 
Gingerwitch said:
Well well well the fat cats of the government facing the fat cats of the RSPCA - they should all rot in hell - they are greed through and through and are using animals as a licence to line their own pockets - they make me equally as sick !

£120,000 k for a senior member of the RSPCA wages plus expensises - they would not know one end of a dog or cat from another.

At least the Royal should be dropped - they are a sick joke, they turn blind eyes at every opportunity and unless they are going to get money out of the press coverage they do a really poor job.
Click to expand...

Dear me, all that bed rest getting to you GW?!

You sound far too aggressive lately..:rolleyes:
 
The RSPCA spent £300,000 of charity money on attempting to bitch slap a fox hunter.

THEY are the ones making this politcal, not Simon Hart!

Who is probably quite considerably cheaper to keep than those bunch of morons..

Oh I do hope people write to their MPs... I suspect the RSPCA will be unpleasantly surprised how the animal loving public respond... They're not the RSPCA anymore, they're an unpleasant front for the animal rights agenda and people know it!
 
Serenity087 said:
The RSPCA spent £300,000 of charity money on attempting to bitch slap a fox hunter.

THEY are the ones making this politcal, not Simon Hart!

Who is probably quite considerably cheaper to keep than those bunch of morons..

Oh I do hope people write to their MPs... I suspect the RSPCA will be unpleasantly surprised how the animal loving public respond... They're not the RSPCA anymore, they're an unpleasant front for the animal rights agenda and people know it!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

I am sure people are quite aware of the cost of the Heythrop prosecution by now dear..no need to repeat it..

Money very well spent IMO..
 
Gingerwitch said:
Well well well the fat cats of the government facing the fat cats of the RSPCA - they should all rot in hell - they are greed through and through and are using animals as a licence to line their own pockets - they make me equally as sick !

£120,000 k for a senior member of the RSPCA wages plus expensises - they would not know one end of a dog or cat from another.

At least the Royal should be dropped - they are a sick joke, they turn blind eyes at every opportunity and unless they are going to get money out of the press coverage they do a really poor job.
Click to expand...



Oh honestly - £120K is not a huge wage for someone high up in a national organisation. Would you rather someone with no management experience was at the top of an organisation like this because of their devotion to the welfare of puppies and kittens?

Unless you pay wages like that you won't have people with the right skills or experience in place. You can't expect good people to be altruistic and work for nothing. Would you do your job for nothing just because it gave you a warm glow of satisfaction?
 
Bedlam said:
Oh honestly - £120K is not a huge wage for someone high up in a national organisation. Would you rather someone with no management experience was at the top of an organisation like this because of their devotion to the welfare of puppies and kittens?

Unless you pay wages like that you won't have people with the right skills or experience in place. You can't expect good people to be altruistic and work for nothing. Would you do your job for nothing just because it gave you a warm glow of satisfaction?
Click to expand...

Quite. These people are so quick to form biased opinions.

What does make me chuckle so much, is the fact that the pro hunt, anti RSPCA are screaming and shouting that the RSPCA have acted 'politically' with regard the Heythrop (who clearly hunted illegally), yet they all call for government intervention and investigation..I don't even need to say anymore..
 
Oh good news, bring on the debate in H o C.

More press coverage too. RSPCA get on with your job of looking after sick or neglected animals, being seen as an animal activist group does you no favours :(
 
If upholding animal welfare law and making those who break it accountable for their actions, whilst campaining for law changes that improve animal welfare makes them animal activists, then what is wrong with this?

As far as getting on with caring for the animals, in 2011 they:

rescued and collected 119,126 animals

found new homes for 60,551 animals

microchipped 61,903 animals, helping them to stay safe

investigated 159,759 cruelty complaints

I think they do a lot of that too!! Of course if less people actually broke the law and they had more resources available they'd be able to do even more!!!!

And once again for all those that say they only do something when cameras are there, did you seriously see 119,126 different stories of animals collected or 159,759 stories about complaints dealt with by the RSPCA in the press in 2011??????? Of course not, because a basic injured animal collection or complaint that doesn't lead to a conviction either isn't news worthy as far as the papers are concerned or data protection prevents release of details of the complaints that are solved with advice etc.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/media/facts
 
I think most of these comments are missing the point. Whether or not you agree with hunting, it is wrong to spend 300K, when you can do it for 100K with your own in-house lawyers.
 
competition diva maybe you could also quote the RSPCA's PTS statistics too. Oh yes the little old dears that happily write huge sums of cash in their wills to be left to RSPCA in order that they will find 10 year old fluffy a loving caring home after they have passed away have also succumbed to the excellent PR job of the RSPCA too.
 
People talk about in house lawyers, would paying for lawyers full time to cover the whole country cost less than hiring a lawyer in an area when needed?
 
OOh another RSPCA debate on the forum.... Surely not :confused:

I think most of the points from both sides have been raised over and over and over again :mad:

I am not a fan of the RSPCA but come on... how many debates:confused: maybe there should just be 1 RSPCA thread running permenantley rather than everyone repeating themseves most days :rolleyes:
 
Mmm well interestingly I just recieved me letter back from the MP and it would appear they tend to agree with the RSPCA's actions with regard the Heythrop Hunt!:)
 
Moomin1 said:
:rolleyes:

I am sure people are quite aware of the cost of the Heythrop prosecution by now dear..no need to repeat it..

Money very well spent IMO..
Click to expand...

But if only £3 a month ensures that Fluffy and Jack can be garunteed a safe place, free from harm, how many Fluffy and Jack's have suffered and died because the RSPCA didn't like a guy's accent?

It's disgusting...
 
Serenity087 said:
But if only £3 a month ensures that Fluffy and Jack can be garunteed a safe place, free from harm, how many Fluffy and Jack's have suffered and died because the RSPCA didn't like a guy's accent?

It's disgusting...
Click to expand...

Seriously, don't be ridiculous!

They committed an offence. It was nothing to do with their accent or what class they are.
 
harveysmom said:
Firstly i do not go hunting, so have no interest from that point of view however i agree with a previous post that they could have spent the money more wisely.
As hunting is illegal already there are others who could have brought a case to court,the police or more to the point the cps would have been able to do this so there was no need for the rspca to get involved. The other way of looking at it is did the cps look at the case and decide not to prosecute based on the evidence brought before them and not waste the public purse on a case that may have been iffy.
Anyway the rspca could have done alot more with that money elsewhere
Click to expand...

The CPS never saw the evidence. The monitors took it to the RSPCA who have a duty having been provided with suspected evidence of a crime against animals to investigate and if needs be then prosecute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top