RSPCA - hidden agenda?

meleeka

meleeka

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 September 2001
Messages
12,768
Location
Hants, England
Visit site
www.horseandhound.co.uk

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 www.horseandhound.co.uk

Does anyone know of this case? If this is the full story it's pretty shocking!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
PurpleSpots said:
I was thinking along the same lines - I wonder why they went to assess the horses in the first place.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
dorsetladette said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
PurpleSpots said:
I was thinking along the same lines - I wonder why they went to assess the horses in the first place.
Click to expand...
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 😢 😢
 
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
 
ester said:
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
Click to expand...

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. 😡
 
meleeka said:
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. 😡
Click to expand...
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.
 
dorsetladette said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :( .
 
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.
 
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.
 
I find it terrifying that the RSPCA can take someone's animals away from them like that, even against veterinary advice, and then take it all the way to court. It really is the stuff of nightmares (though I live in France, so it won't be the RSPCA knocking).

As @meleeka mentioned above that RSPCA officers don't actually have any rights to come onto your property unless invited or take away your animals unless they can persuade/bully/con you into signing them over. To do either of those things, they need the police to be involved. I suppose if they show up at any law abiding and caring animal owner's place, the first response should be to say you can't come in / have those animals and then seek legal advise. Though come to think of it, surely the uniforms and I highly suspect their failure to inform anyone that they don't HAVE to let the RSPCA in (as opposed to the police who have to tell you your rights) is deliberately misleading and probably shouldn't be legal either. It appears to me very similar to techniques used by shady door to door salesmen.

The article says 4 horses were PTS and 9 will be returned, but there is no mention at all of what happened to the 11 remaining horses and why they can't be returned. I assume/hope they were rehomed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top