RSPCA - hidden agenda?

[meleeka]

Judge cites RSPCA witnesses’ ‘hidden agenda’ after innocent owner’s horses put down - Horse & Hound

A judge has accused witnesses for the RSPCA of having a “hidden agenda”, as he cleared an owner of “impeccable” character of welfare charges her vets said throughout should never have been brought. Judge Pattinson found Kirsten Fock innocent of all four charges brought against her by the RSPCA...

www.horseandhound.co.uk

Does anyone know of this case? If this is the full story it's pretty shocking!

 

[southerncomfort]

Made worse by the arrogant statement they issued after the case, refusing to admit that they'd been in the wrong.

 

[Trot_on]

Wow that's awful - it's insane that the RSPCA didn't listen to her vets. That poor lady - how horrific for her. And how infuruating that they waste all that time and money getting her into court when there are people actually causing suffering to animals without consequence.

 

[Peglo]

That was such a tough read. The whole thing is just inexcusable. The RSPCA should hang their heads in shame for this when starving neglected horses are suffering and they won’t take action to save them.

 

[ester]

What a mess, they make some really weird decisions some times, owner defended not just by any vet but by liphooks director too.

 

[dorsetladette]

I read this this morning. If this is the full story it's shocking! The poor woman has lost 15 animals during the process of this case.

I hope she goes on to sue for defamation of character and/or whatever else her legal team can think of.

But what was the hidden agenda? apart from covering their own backsides, but that is further down the line. Sounds like she had a target on her head for some reason.

 

[PurpleSpots]

Sounds like she had a target on her head for some reason.

I was thinking along the same lines - I wonder why they went to assess the horses in the first place.

 

[ester]

It’s one of those instances where it seems wild that decisions are made about horses futures almost instantaneously (see also peel case) when they’re not in such an acute state that that is required. I didn’t see anything in the report that suggested they’d visited before and I can well imagine she is traumatised if they’re on her own and English not as first language.
‘Difficulty in rehoming’ really shouldn’t factor into euthanasia decisions at that point l.

 

[dorsetladette]

I was thinking along the same lines - I wonder why they went to assess the horses in the first place.

I tried googling her name to see if she was a campaigner or anything, but I can't see anything. Did 'someone' want her land to build on? could be anything but I smell a rat somewhere in it all.

 

[Parrotperson]

Well she should sue them. I would. They need teaching a lesson.

 

[The Xmas Furry]

I cannot type what I think of their 'equine' inspectors in the SE, utterly unprintable. Even traffic police seem to have more horse sense.


I'd call WHW or even fire film to my vet to discuss, would never call the under educated eejits to equids.

 

[blitznbobs]

Now she will sue them but seeing it’s money from donations rather than people’s salary that will be used it’s not
Much of a deterrent to the rspca.

They are and have been an abhorrent organisation for many years and should be deemed a political party rather than a charity… they need to be investigated properly.

A huge percentage of the money that people give to rescue animals goes on prosecuting people that don’t fit their political views … I think it’s charitable status should be removed

 

[Sealine]

I suspect there are alot more of this type of case but most people don't have the finances or strength to fight the RSPCA in court. I knew someone who was coerced into signing a document admitting her supposed guilt to avoid prosecution. The RSPCA said they would drop the case for now but they would throw the book at her and prosecute for the slightest thing in the future. She was elderly and didn't have the money or the energy to fight them in court. She spent the rest of her life in fear of the RSPCA.

I don't trust or respect the RSPCA as a charity and I refuse to donate to them when there are many more animal charities doing good work.

 

[dougpeg]

Made worse by the arrogant statement they issued after the case, refusing to admit that they'd been in the wrong.

My thoughts too. Horrifying story. I can't imagine what the owner went though to lose so many horses in that way.

 

[dorsetladette]

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0123/

Rspca's power to prosecute has been debated recently in house of commons.

 

[Cloball]

If she has been found innocent surely she should be able to get all the horses back and the signing should be void or at the very least considered coercive. Is there a reason why the article refers to the defendant as ms rather than Dr?

 

[Exasperated]

I tried googling her name to see if she was a campaigner or anything, but I can't see anything. Did 'someone' want her land to build on? could be anything but I smell a rat somewhere in it all.

Reads like she was in the crosshairs alright, disgraceful, truly terrible experience for the owner and horses, also for the defence witnesses - it reads like Kafka.
But the RSPCA do have form, been spurious cases of prosecution against livestock farmers and hunt staff, simultaneously ignoring blatant animal cruelties and lawbreaking elsewhere, even following multiple alerts from the public.
Hope this story gets escalated to national media, they shouldn’t have statutory powers, and they won’t be getting any of my money, for sure.

 

[JoannaC]

I was thinking along the same lines - I wonder why they went to assess the horses in the first place.

To be fair it sounds like she had some elderly horses with issues so I can understand why someone may have seen them and thought they looked neglected but once the RSPCA had been given the facts why on earth would they continue. It really is disgraceful how they behave, poor poor lady and horses she must feel so sick to her stomach

 

[Peglo]

If she has been found innocent surely she should be able to get all the horses back and the signing should be void or at the very least considered coercive. Is there a reason why the article refers to the defendant as ms rather than Dr?

Unfortunately it’s too late for the 4 that’s been pts

 

[The Xmas Furry]

Unfortunately it’s too late for the 4 that’s been pts

Or the ones that have been rehomed already, despite the RSPCA's own regs - their own care or foster care only till court case completed!

 

[ester]

Yes the rest will have been rehomed already and we know the rspca sign over ownership so no control of them after that either.

A magistrate friend never liked the rspca, he said all the cases that came up before him were vulnerable often elderly people usually doing their best inc vet care who the rspca had essentially run rough shod over

 

[meleeka]

Yes the rest will have been rehomed already and we know the rspca sign over ownership so no control of them after that either.

A magistrate friend never liked the rspca, he said all the cases that came up before him were vulnerable often elderly people usually doing their best inc vet care who the rspca had essentially run rough shod over

Yet they don't trouble the sort of people that leave tethered cobs on the side of the road, or stabled for months on end then raced up an A road.

 

[dorsetladette]

Yet they don't trouble the sort of people that leave tethered cobs on the side of the road, or stabled for months on end then raced up an A road.

Or starving thoroughbreds like in the other thread.

It seems to be vulnerable people or perceived by them as vulnerable with property or assets that could be taken to recoup costs or in large fines. There isn't any point taking miss XXX to court when they are on universal credit, living in a rented property and keeping a pony in a cheap DIY yard down the road. Just my humble opinion obviously.

Think they more than met there match with this lady and her support network.

 

[PurpleSpots]

It seems to be vulnerable people or perceived by them as vulnerable with property or assets that could be taken to recoup costs or in large fines. There isn't any point taking miss XXX to court when they are on universal credit, living in a rented property and keeping a pony in a cheap DIY yard down the road. Just my humble opinion obviously.

This sadly makes alot of sense. I'd never thought of it this way before.

I know that there have been other cases where the RSPCA have seized and destroyed animals with (later proven) no justification. I don't think all have had wealthy owners though, so there must have been other factors too. But maybe the property aspect. Just awful .

 

[rabatsa]

A friend had her donkeys and mule taken away by the RSPCA, on stumped up charges as she had defended another person the same had been done to. They would not allow my friends vet to see them and two were on medication for EMS. Within a week they had put both down due to severe laminitis. Still not allowing my friends vet to look at them.

She did not have the money to fight them and never saw her animals again.

I lost respect for the RSPCA nearly fifty years ago and reafirmed when they got too political by giving a million pounds to get something to the top of a political agenda. Money that was raised for welfare purposes which donations to political parties, for any reason, is not what the majority of donors expected or wanted their money using on.

 

[meleeka]

These examples are why I'd never let the RSPCA on my property without the police present. Because of their uniforms, people think they have rights, when they do not.

I was once a witness in a prosecution case and saw first hand their arrogance when they got the bit between their teeth. Both myself and the council officer that pursuaded them act, eventually, weren't even told about the court case, or the result. In that case they got a conviction, for the wrong person, as they'd taken the blame, so the guilty person was free to carry on.