RSPCA fail again !!

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of emotion on this thread, with scant regard for reality.

The RSPCA is merely a charity. It is NOT a government department, or a part of the UK legal system. Like any other charity, it is responsible to those who fund it, not to the general public. I suspect a lot of those criticising the RSPCA contribute nothing to it, but oddly, feel they can dictate how it should spend its income - the money donated by others.

Prosecutions under the Animal Welfare Act are brought by Local Authorities, not the RSPCA.

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 Inspectors and constables can legally enter premises if they suspect an animal is suffering. RSPCA officers cannot. (Unless they happen to have been appointed Inspectors by the relevant Local Authority.)

Perhaps the RSPCA had informed the Local Authority of their suspicions long ago, in which case they had done all they legally can.

Have you not noticed that the RSPCA does not respond to the rantings; simply because those who rant usually have little regard for the facts, just uninformed opinions.

I suggest you read the Animal Welfare Act 2006 before getting hot under the collar.

Then you will realise that it is your Local Authority you should approach, NOT the RSPCA, if you suspect a case of animal cruelty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you really believe that then why dont we ALL CANCEL donations to them, because what your claiming means everybody is wasting their money, we would be better paying more rates and local authorities having their own "legal" animal welfare dept and empowered inspectors, lets scrap the rspca now, or will you have a reason to keep them, you said they cant do anything, so whats the point.
 
have just been reading thier website closly , came across this statement

Combating cruelty
2006 was a busy year for our prosecutions department. Animal cruelty case files received for consideration were up by more than 10 per cent and the RSPCA obtained convictions against more than 95 per cent of the defendants tried at court.

Preparing for the Animal Welfare Act meant a substantial amount of extra work for the prosecutions department. This included extensive internal training for members of the inspectorate by the prosecution case managers, and briefing as many as 80 firms of solicitors that are used to prosecute for the RSPCA. www.rspca.org.uk/cruelty

so , having read this it seems that the rspca are saying that they do prosecute offenders againts the 2006 animal welfare act
 
I've just emailed Lee Hackett at the BHS to get his views on this.

Maybe those who have developed links with the press during the Operation Esther publicity drive would be able to get this in the Nationals??

Or HORSE AND HOUND!!!???????????
 
by the way big scarey haynet , this thread is about animals already seized by the authorities but the lack of any prosecution for the individual involved , perhaps you should learn to read threads a little more closely before you comment?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Like any other charity, it is responsible to those who fund it, not to the general public

[/ QUOTE ]

The general public fund the RSPCA - it is a charity, not a government organisation
wink.gif


I would therefore say that their actions are very accountable to the general public
mad.gif
 
I can't even begin to put into words what I, personally, think about this, let alone a small struggling charity like EMW Sanctuaries UK that work on a purely voluntary basis, week in week out trying to combat such awfulness as what is being let go of by the biggest and highest funded animal charity in the UK- disgusts me.

emw.
 
I'm not for a moment disputing that this should not have happened and is incredibly sad, BUT..

Have any of you considered that these horses may well have been in the care of an elderly person who could not, would not accept that he could not cope any more? (Former Senior Police Officer, former RSPCA welfare officer...) The RSPCA may well have been trying to persuade the owner for months to sign them over to him but were powerless to take matters into their own hands until this latest tragic event.

Some old people can be incredibly stubborn and difficult as many of us will know from within our own family and friends
 
[ QUOTE ]
The RSPCA may well have been trying to persuade the owner for months to sign them over to him but were powerless to take matters into their own hands until this latest tragic event.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately for the foal - the RSPCA were not powerless. It is a misconception that the RSPCA are happy not to correct.

Either way - again - questions need answering.
 
This has really made my blood boil, I bloody hope that this does make national news!
The RSPCA cannot be trusted not to c*ck up where there are smaller charities that actually want to help the animals and do what they can, but they get overlooked!
 
Big Scary Haynet, Do you have a contact for an organisation that we Should then write to to express our disgust at this man not being punised if we shouldn't write to the RSPCA?
I for one would be more than happy to write a strongly worded letter. Perhaps every one on here should write to them demanding action.
Why do the RSPCA seem to need a dead body before they react? Maybe they think the effect of having a dead pony will make the case seem more dramatic. If they had been working with this guy for eight months, they should have been able to monitor this pony.
 
OH and I am a little confused. Please correct me if I am being totally blonde, but I was reading the SWHP website, and noticed that the mother of the 7 month old foal was pregnant and due in March. Apparently she was sent to stud in April 07.
Firstly, if the foal was 7 months old when it died, it would have been born in July time. if the mare was sent to stud in april, then when the foal which died was born, she would have been 3 months pregnant with the foal she is carrying now. Also this would mean that at the time she was sent to stud, she was 8 months pregnant with the foal that died. Some one please explain or have I got myself in a pickle?
confused.gif
 
how about starting a photo gallery of evidence where people have phoned the RSPCA in regard to a malnourished horse/donkey/foal/pony and the RSPCA have sat on their hands and done nothing

we've got PG - and lots of phones have cameras - and there have been a lot of posts about horses that HHOs have contacted the RSPCA about and nothing has been done.

Without something like this then we have no evidence that the RSPCA is failing equines. I concede that generally they are OK with cats and dogs cases but fail miserably in regard to equines

The RSPCA publicity machine is very good at pictures of all the neglected horses they have supposedly helped in order to get more donations in from Joe Public.

A few real pictures of the horses they refused to help.........would be interesting to say the least.
 
[ QUOTE ]

The RSPCA is merely a charity. It is NOT a government department, or a part of the UK legal system. Like any other charity, it is responsible to those who fund it, not to the general public. I suspect a lot of those criticising the RSPCA contribute nothing to it, but oddly, feel they can dictate how it should spend its income - the money donated by others.

Prosecutions under the Animal Welfare Act are brought by Local Authorities, not the RSPCA.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. The RSPCA brings prosecutions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 as private prosecutions in exactly the same way as it did under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

What you mean is that Local Authorities have the right to appoint "Inspectors" under the Act (who should NOT be confused with RSPCA "Inspectors!) and the Local Authority "Inspector" will have all of the powers created by the Act.

Horribly confusing for everyone, especially as so many wrongly believe that the RSPCA have police type powers and the RSPCA themselves do nothing to correct that fallacy.

On the subject of funding, we are all funding the RSPCA whether we support them or not. The whole point of being a charity are the financial benefits it brings:

Tax on bank deposits is no longer payable. Charities do not normally have to pay income/corporation tax, capital gains tax or stamp duty.

Subscriptions or money donated can be classed as a charitable gift and so tax paid by the donor is reclaimable. They only pay 20% of business rates on charity shops and buildings. They are exempt from inheritance tax.

That is an awful lot of government money that goes towards RSPCA funding.

Remember that the RSPCA is one of Britain's wealthiest charities, and the more money and property a charity has the more it receives via this indirect government funding.

Since we are all contributing one way or another I suggest that we all have a right to speak out when the RSPCA fails to live up to the objects that entitled it to so much income from the public purse, i.e. the promotion of kindness and the prevention of cruelty.
 
I rang the RSPCA and the ILPH the other day to advise about some horses in a field upto their bellies in mud, barbed wire everywhere, stock fencing collapsing (by a busy road) no clean water, no shelter at all, no rugs although one mare is very elderly, rotten hayledge in a feeder. Place is next door to a strange little place with all sorts of animals. Guess what? no call from RSPCA, however, the ILPH rang the same day and visited the site the next day.
 
Couln't agree more with you. A neighbour had a visit from the RSPCA about her cats (2) chasing and killing a rat! They did not respond however to a call I made to them about 2 starving horses.
 
Fenris – thanks for the elucidation.

I misinterpreted Section 30 in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 as implying that ONLY a local authority may prosecute proceedings. At the risk of being sued and loosing my all for infringing copyright, I append the relevant bit of the Act, and the RSPCA’s explanation of its position (Both are freely available on the Internet.): -

Prosecutions
30 Power of local authority to prosecute offences
A local authority in England or Wales may prosecute proceedings for any
offence under this Act.

Private prosecutions
The RSPCA has no special powers to help it do this. Everyone in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution against someone who they believe has committed an offence. This right exists in common law and is preserved by section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The Law Commission reporting in 1998 said "The right of private prosecution is an important element in the rule of law".
 
Has anyone seen the program RSPCA the front line??

Well watched it today about a case with a horse who had an absess in its neck...These inspectors thought it had strangles as well as the vet.... NONE of them even suited themselves up, disenfected nadda nought.....Well that nade the blood boil...
Then one admited when joining the RSPCA she had NO experience in dealing with any sort of animal, dogs scared her!!!!....Blood boils even more
THEN to top it all they are wanting the vet that delt with the horse and absess (which was not strangles in the end) to find something that could be condoned as cruelty (well left in a field for weeks and weeks with puss pouring out of its neck, is not a form of cruelty?????) as she admitted they have no powers to remove horses or report an owner or do anything about it unless a vet can say YES it is cruelty...

This to me sums this farce of an orginization up!!!
 
You could try the Local Authority, where the incident occured, or your own MP, or how about a Private Prosecution yourself?

As I read the press cutting, the RSPCA only said the RSPCA will not be "taking legal action". That doesn't rule out the Local Authority, or anyone else, prosecuting.
 
Well lets see how many of us have a spare few grand lieing round? the whole reason people give money to the RSPCA is so that they will bring those prosecutions because the small amounts of money collected from many people will easily cover it.

I for one have had 3 horrific experiances with the RSPCA. and wont have anything to do with them any longer.
In one case i phoned about 2 ponies died, one mare who was in foal had to be PTS by a vet as she was so emaciated it was amazing that she hadnt already aborted and she didnt have the energy to stand let alone go through a labour (a friend of mine managed to buy the mare about 3 days before she went into labour) and anouther was so skinny and malnourished that it took 2 years to get him well again and he still has a heart murmur (again a friend of mine bought the pony, he luckily made it). They refused to acnowlege there was anything wrong with them, and even with my vet (equine specialist) saying that there were clear signs of neglect and abuse, the rspca said there wasnt!

the second dealing i had with them involved a dog that they wouldnt take. I found it emaciated hanging round by the yard gate. took it to the RSPCA shelter myself (a mile down the road). they wouldnt take it and wouldnt give me the phone number of anyone who would (i couldnt take it) thier advice was to dump it somewhere quiet and hope it found its way home!
3rd case was when an RSPCA office actualy caused harm to my pony! they turned up whilst i was at school and removed his sweetitch blanket because apparently he was too hot! when i got home pony had scratched so badly that he was bleeding from his withers, tail and face. He was perfectly content in his boett and his sweetitch was perfectly manageable when the blanket was on. I had to get the vet up, had to put the pony on steroids (very worrying with a native pony as they can cause lammi) and antihystamines to control his reaction, and then i had to stable him 24/7 in summer for the next 3 weeks. Because of thier actions my pony ended up in pain, stressed and miserable!

I wont give them a penny and if they are ever lurking round my yard they are told to get lost sharpish!

Im not jumping on any bandwagon, i've been through this personaly and have formed my own oppinions about the ineptness of the RSPCA
 
Nope unfortunately i didnt and that incident was about 5 years ago now so i dont think i could I've also got no proof of it as i didnt take photos of him in that state (i was only 16).

I do however have photos of the first case ive stated if anyone wants to see!
 
"Few spare grand". In the horsy world? Maybe not you, but there are a lot of people with several grand they could choose to spend on horse welfare, rather than that new 4x4, or several thousand on another horse, or .... whatever. I take it that was a rather clever remark relating to taking out a Private Prosecution. If you are so sure you would win, with costs awarded to you it shouldn't cost you anything. Still leaves the Local Authority and MP avenues open to you, at very low cost.

[ QUOTE ]
“The whole reason people give money to the RSPCA is so that they will bring those prosecutions”

[/ QUOTE ] - Taking out prosecutions may be the whole reason you would donate to the RSPCA, but some of us would consider first whether there is a more efficient use of limited resources. Are you familiar with the Crown Prosecution Service requirements for taking out a prosecution? The RSPCA only spends a proportion of its income on prosecutions, and still has an income of £100M per year from donations and legacies, so there must be some people satisfied with its attitude to prosecutions.

What did the police say when you reported your first case of neglect to them? If you, and especially your vet, were so sure there were clear signs of neglect and abuse, then I take it they prosecuted?

I found a dog about a couple of years ago, wandering around, no collar. Shut it in my shed and phoned the RSPCA. They came about half an hour later, scanned it, and took it away. They phoned me about an hour later to say they had spoken to its owner. A couple of hours later he arrived at my door to thank me. Perhaps I spoke to them rather more appreciatively, and sympathised with their problem of people like me dumping stray dogs on them.

In your third case, you don't say which legislation the RSPCA used to come on to your premises and remove the blanket. Was it the Animal Welfare Act 2006? Did "they" just "turn up", or had someone reported your pony as being distressed? RSPCA Inspectors are well aware of their restrictions concerning being on private property, so was the RSPCA Inspector accompanied by a Local Authority Inspector, or a police constable? How did you get on suing them?

Your next sentence probably contains the clue to all your problems - surely not the best way to win friends and influence people? Do "they" really come "lurking round your yard"? If they do, they must have a reason! I haven't yet ever had an instance where telling someone to "get lost" sharpish has solved anything. On the other hand, buying people a pint, and listening to them, has made me a few friends, and helped me understand others' points of view.
 
If you had read properly then you would realise that no they didnt prosecute the owners of the 1st case. They didnt even go up to the house to talk to the people (we think they were scared of the owners) or leave an advice sheet. The police were absolutely useless as well, but thats nothing new either it took 3 years to get the people above evicted from the house they were squatting in. they were not pleasent people to deal with, but thats the type that the RSPCA are supposed to deal with even if they do have to get police back up! Animal abusers dont tend to be nice people who welcome you in and offer you a cup of tea.

This is the pony in question, can you honestly say that there was no neglect or abuse?
abuse2.jpg



2nd case, well thats all very well for you, but i took the dog to them as they are only a mile down the road as i didnt want my dogs to come into contact with it incase it had something and they told me to take it away and dump it, i didnt have time to waste waiting for the inspectors as i was already late for school and mum was in a business meeting at the opposite side of the country so she couldnt come and deal with it. If they had given me the number or address of the local dog warden or of anouther shelter i would have take the dog there quite happily. As it was I was left with this dog, i was 17 years old and didnt have a clue what to do with it. I took it home, locked it in a stable and locked my dogs in the house, went to school and was going to deal with it when i got home. Luckily mum arrived back before i did and she delt with it. Your story cant change what they said or the fact that they couldnt give me the number of someone who would have delt with the dog even if they couldnt. A phone number isnt much to ask now is it?

And no in the 3rd case i am not sueing the RSPCA. It didnt occur to me at the time to do it and as i said it was at least 5 years ago, possibly more so it certainly cant be the 2006 legislation as it was well before then. I just presumed that the people on the caravan site next to the field they were in at the time called them and they were just being well meaning busybodies. that was the first timw i delt with them. I came back from school to find the rug neatly folded by the gate with a note on top of it. I sent them a letter saying that they might want to educate their inspectors about sweet itch blankets that are on for medical grounds, and i wrote on the side of the rug, "this rug is on for medical reasons on the advice of a vet, do not remove" and left it at that. Never got a reply to my letter (and yes it was a polite letter), i probably wouldnt be half as pissed off at them if i had recieved a reply to my letter, even one saying something like " thankyou for bringing this to our attention, we will look into it" at the time i wasnt looking for an apology, just for them to educate inspectors about medical blankets so that it didnt happen again. a reply saying that they had recieved my letter would probably have been enough to show me my concerns were not being completely ignored.

No the RSPCA do not make a habit of lurking round my yard, I was saying that if they were ever spotted near it i'd tell them to get lost. I dont have time for the RSPCA and thier hypocritical policies.

As for winning a case and haveing costs awarded, thats all very well having costs awarded but youve got to be able to put the money up first. there is no firms that prosecute animal abuse on a no win no fee basis so you would have to find several thousand pound first, pay lawyer and court costs, then hope that you get costs awarded and then Pray that the other party actualy pay up (which quite often they never do) because if they dont pay up, youve then either got to write off the money or spend more money getting bailiffs in.

I think you will find that the very rich who can afford to do that are few and far between, the majority of people scrape together enough for their horses each month and there is very little to spare. and even those who do seem very rich and may have money to spare dont always have the money when it is needed. You say they could do without the new horse? thats all very well if they happen to be looking for a new horse at the time, but if they arent they dont have that sort of money lieing round.
 
Interesting that the newspapers posted photos of the dead foal.

I would guess that either the RSPCA had no evidence on which to proscecute this man, or he may well have been able to do them damage if they had....
 
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting that the newspapers posted photos of the dead foal.

I would guess that either the RSPCA had no evidence on which to proscecute this man, or he may well have been able to do them damage if they had....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people would happily forego the prosecutions in favour of the wretched animals being removed..........
frown.gif
 
Trouble is, who is to say that the RSPCA are right in removing some horses?

What about that case a couple of weeks ago where the RSPCA removed a horse which they claimed was being starved, when it turned out that the horse was under veterinary care for laminitis. The RSPCA took the horse, tried to proscecute the owner and lost because their "expert" (the same expert I believe, who is dealing with the Amersham horses) was wrong.

It's a thin line...
 
[ QUOTE ]
What about that case a couple of weeks ago where the RSPCA removed a horse which they claimed was being starved, when it turned out that the horse was under veterinary care for laminitis

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point - however, the mare you refer to did look like a bloomin negligence case, I don't really care what anyone says........
 
Colin Vogel MRVCS didn't seem to think so though. I believe Colin testified in that case, on the side of the owner. Nic de Brauwere was the RSPCA's "expert", the same "expert" who is being used for the Amersham horses. In the Griffin's case he was judged to be wrong.

The horse in question may have looked poor but all of the others who were not under veterinary care, did not. Surely the RSPCA should have taken a closer look at the whole picture before stomping in there and removing the horse?

I am very liberal-minded about the RSPCA, so I have no axes to grind with them.....however I do not think they are infallible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top