RSPCA e-petition: Have you signed?

D

Dry Rot

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 May 2010
Messages
5,847
Location
Scotland
Visit site
I am a bit surprised this hasn't received more prominence on here. I am a member of another forum which has already gathered over 1,000 signatures.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807

OK, it is badly worded, not entirely legally correct, but the point is the RSPCA is coming in for a lot of criticism and needs looking into. Or maybe it is the Charities Commission that needs looking into? Anyway, it seems to be generally agreed that something needs to be done! "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Maybe you should take a moment to sign up?
 
I have just signed. I have no personal issue with the organisation and where I have seen them involved in cases, I have only seen positive results, however, I know of so many conflicting stories and also believe that any large charitable organisation should be subject to review on a regular basis.

Signed.
 
Signed. I've only ever had bad dealings - when I had to call the police because of a situation they put us in I vowed never to use again.

I appreciate there are great officers out there and commend their work but in two different counties they've caused us hell. Unfortunately I've only dealt with the bad ones in the RSPCA.
 
Signed. I'm also not a fan of how they operate. Plus how is it that if mistreating animals is a criminal offence that the body with the power to act is a charity?
 
TrasaM said:
Signed. I'm also not a fan of how they operate. Plus how is it that if mistreating animals is a criminal offence that the body with the power to act is a charity?
Click to expand...

Anyone can bring a private prosecution - it just so happens that the RSPCA has the funds to enable it to do so. It has absolutely no special powers.
 
PandorasJar said:
I think the point was that it shouldn't be anyone... if criminal it should be a government/legal body.
Click to expand...

i absolutely agree! It really shouldn't be necessary for any other person/organisation to have to prosecute but the sad truth is that it is. I was trying to correct the popular misconception that the RSPCA have some sort of special authority to do so.
 
I will sign as I think the RSPCA needs a review of some sort

TBH though it sounds like a bitter rant by an aggrieved person and while the underlying meaning may be there I dont think the wording is very good. Its emotionally worded and I'm not sure thats the best way to get the point across but I guess its a start and enough signatures will get the point raised at least!
 
Toby_Zaphod said:
I think the petition is worded badly & does not really express what it wants to achieve. I haven't signed & won't sign this petition.
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware, these govt e-petitions never produce exactly the result being petitioned: they merely flag up an issue as being one that voters care about enough to vote. If the number of signatures exceeds the threshold of 100,000 then the issue "will be considered for debate in the House of Commons" - that's all.

In this case, I think the petition was poorly and emotively worded. This may actually help to gain the signatures needed to reach the threshold. If it does that, MPs and civil servants will ensure it is interpreted sensibly. So, because I believe the RSPCA should be subject to review just like any other large organization, I have signed.
 
Pale Rider said:
I haven't and won't be signing. I think they do a job as best and those that want their activity curtailed don't have the welfare of animals at heart.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

What I find irksome is the ignorance about what the RSPCA actually do and the reason why they have to bring about prosecutions. It certainly isn't due to any failure on their part, with a 98% successful conviction rate. they are experts at doing the legal ground work to present a case with a high chance of securing a conviction.

Perhaps those who feel the RSPCA should not seek protection for vunerable animals through the law, should lobby the CPS instead, so they do the job they are paid for, instead of saving their money at the expense of a charity.

Tell you what, lets not prosecute the thugs who microwave kittens and lock dogs in sheds to starve, so they can go and get a replacement pet when they miss having something to bully.
 
I don't want their activities curtailed - in fact, it would be nice to see more money going into animal care work. However, I would also like to see full transparency (they are a charity after all) and proper scrutiny of what they do. To suggest that anyone who wants this is ignorant is unreasonable, imo.
 
You misunderstand me. It isn't ignorant to want transparency or accountability, but it is ignorant to criticize the work of an organisation without taking the time to find out what they actually do.


The four or so, very recent RSPCA bashing threads have been a good example of the myths circulating the forums.
 
Agree to a point horserider. But I will happily criticise them for their handling of two situations with me regardless of what they do. One of which the police were called due to the officer stepping well over the line. This resulted in a very nasty situation which we never should have had.
The other they caused criminal damage.

I would complain whether it was the rspca or the prime minister. Either way both situations were appallingly dealt with and they acted like they had all the rights in the world.

I also disagree about not having animals welfare at heart. There are many organisations who do a great job. The ones I know are more specialised though.

Personally I think that the rspca needs to be able to work with other organisations with experience in the right areas and think that perhaps some of the money spent prosecuting should go towards better training. They should be able to win a case with facts, not by throwing money at it.

They seem to have a scatter gun approach right now and i think they'd do more good if they were up front with what they were doing. They are funded by donations... Which many people were not aware would be put towards a 300k case which could have provided resources to help far more animals.
 
From what I can gather, and I am no expert in these things, if the petition can gather 100,000 signatures, the RSPCA will be discussed in parliament.
IF (and it is a huge "IF"), they are investigated, it will be by suitably qualified people, for example a high court judge or two, qualified professionals, vets, lawyers, etc.

Whatever their findings, it will do no harm for independent qualified people to have a look at how the RSPCA conducts its affairs.

What is wrong with that? There has been a lot of criticism aimed their way recently. Some will be unjustified. Are they so beyond scrutiny that no one may have a look, on behalf of the general public who support them by way of donations, to make sure everything is done correctly?

I do not understand those who are opposed to scrutiny.To me, it smacks of totalitarianism. "We know best. We are accountable to no one. He who opposes us is against animal welfare!" Yeah, right. I'm not questioning anything and I believe all you say, therefore I care for animals.:rolleyes:
 
The RSPCA as with any charity is accountable to the charities commission, as such has to have their accounts available annually. What people seem to be under the impression is they want this petition, not for transparency but to curtail some of what the RSPCA do, I do wonder if some of these people even know what the history of the rspca is, for those that don't a quick history is here http://www.rspca.org.uk/in-action/aboutus/heritage now personally, other than moving with the times and becoming such a big organisation I don't think their role has changed much??? Yes of course there are going to be alot of disgruntled people out there, over the decades they've held a lot of people accountable for abusing and neglecting animals! If people have had issues with how an individual behaved or acted with them, did they actually address this with the head quarters? I know if I went to a shop and had bad service to the extent half the people on here are upset by, I'd be contracting the head quarters of that company!!!??? If they didn't well how can you expect things to change? Whilst the RSPCA don't get it right always (what big company does!!!?) Without them I fear hundreds of thousands of animals would suffer. Do you really think the cps would suddenly take on all those cases, you think they could afford the likes of the Jamie gray prosecution? They've already proved that if the case is costly and the offence not 'severe' enough to warrant the expense they won't take it!!! Regardless of the evidence and the animals that suffered due to the offence. No other charity takes prosecutions because of the cost, even when you call bhs or whw if a prosecution is needed it's the rspca that picks up the tab, also consider this, the RSPCA are around 98% successful in the prosecutions they bring, a figure the cps could only dream of unfortunately. I'm not looking to change anyone's opinions, just want people to stop and think especially when there seems to be so much 'heresay and make believe and old wives tales' around some of the stories I hear on these forums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top