Armas
Well-Known Member
In a follow on from the Horse hoarder thread.
This is taken from alternative vet website.These bits stand out for me.
RSPCA
There are reports of bully-boy tactics in seizing animals, often illegally, from people who have no wish to hurt animals. These seized animals are sometimes reported to be inadequately kept and to end up dead, with no chance for their legal owners to collect defence evidence. On the question of illegal seizure, the RSPCA has long known the law and has apparently knowingly flouted it, according to its own statements, in the pursuit of prosecutions.
RSPCA Inspectors have intimidating, police-like uniforms and read out peoples rights, telling them that "you are not under arrest ". What does that do to a respectable lady of 70 years? The terror can only be imagined. There are many cases in which it could be argued that education and communication were needed, not the strong arm of criminal law. Animal welfare, not convictions, should be the objective. Can a body, with a clear and manifest vested interest in prosecutions and with no constitutional checks and balances in place, be safe with this right and capability?
Many small, private animal rescue centres have been the subject of prosecutions. These centres attract funding from the animal-loving public, albeit in a small way, which might otherwise go to the RSPCA. One hopes that there is no connection between these facts. There is talk of licensing such establishments and the RSPCA is angling for the inspecting duty for this. Can a competing body, with no checks and balances, safely be granted such a role?
It may surprise the reader to know that there appear to be no controls over the RSPCA. There is a Police Complaints Commission; there is an Insurance Ombudsman; there are watchdogs for telephone, electricity and gas suppliers. There is no such person or body to apply checks and balances to the actions and activities of the RSPCA. It operates outside the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Nonetheless, this organisation has been given even more powers, through the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (successor to the Protection of Animals Act 1911).
Some recent cases to highight what an incompent bunch of idiots they are,
In Norwich in January, Judge Philip Browning was critical of the RSPCA's conduct in seizing a much-loved pony, Florry, which had been with Martin and Gina Griffin's family for 20 years. The RSPCA held Florry in an animal sanctuary for over a year, claiming that she was "emaciated". The Griffins' vet, Charlotte Mayers, made it clear from the start that vets from her practice were treating the horse, which was laminitic and needed to be kept thin for that reason. Colin Vogel, the author of the RSPCA's own veterinaray manual on horse-care supported her views. At one point the RSPCA had wanted to put Florry down, but after 15 months she was finally re-united with her owners.
In February, after another five days in court, a cruelty case against Annette Nally, owner of Holly, a German shepherd, was called into question when it was found that RSPCA documents alleging her failure to treat the dog properly for ear and bowel conditions related to another dog. Holly died six months after the RSPCA had seized her (as Miss Nally only discovered five months later). In acquitting her on all charges, Judge David Chinnery praised her obvious care for her animals and her "impressive" evidence, and also that of her chief witness, Colin Vogel.
PC Bell was prosecuted for cruelty by the RSPCA and the case dragged on for two years, at a cost of £50,000. After his initial acquittal, the RSPCA appealed. Finally, in April 2006, the High Court threw out the case, prompting the Federation of Companion Animal Societies to comment that some of the RSPCA's prosecutions "seem to have a political agenda" rather than being concerned with "animal welfare". The growing number of people who fall foul of that agenda would heartily agree.
I think it is time that the RSPCA had a watchdog. Do you think it is worth a e-petition requesting the government look in to this ?
This is taken from alternative vet website.These bits stand out for me.
RSPCA
There are reports of bully-boy tactics in seizing animals, often illegally, from people who have no wish to hurt animals. These seized animals are sometimes reported to be inadequately kept and to end up dead, with no chance for their legal owners to collect defence evidence. On the question of illegal seizure, the RSPCA has long known the law and has apparently knowingly flouted it, according to its own statements, in the pursuit of prosecutions.
RSPCA Inspectors have intimidating, police-like uniforms and read out peoples rights, telling them that "you are not under arrest ". What does that do to a respectable lady of 70 years? The terror can only be imagined. There are many cases in which it could be argued that education and communication were needed, not the strong arm of criminal law. Animal welfare, not convictions, should be the objective. Can a body, with a clear and manifest vested interest in prosecutions and with no constitutional checks and balances in place, be safe with this right and capability?
Many small, private animal rescue centres have been the subject of prosecutions. These centres attract funding from the animal-loving public, albeit in a small way, which might otherwise go to the RSPCA. One hopes that there is no connection between these facts. There is talk of licensing such establishments and the RSPCA is angling for the inspecting duty for this. Can a competing body, with no checks and balances, safely be granted such a role?
It may surprise the reader to know that there appear to be no controls over the RSPCA. There is a Police Complaints Commission; there is an Insurance Ombudsman; there are watchdogs for telephone, electricity and gas suppliers. There is no such person or body to apply checks and balances to the actions and activities of the RSPCA. It operates outside the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Nonetheless, this organisation has been given even more powers, through the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (successor to the Protection of Animals Act 1911).
Some recent cases to highight what an incompent bunch of idiots they are,
In Norwich in January, Judge Philip Browning was critical of the RSPCA's conduct in seizing a much-loved pony, Florry, which had been with Martin and Gina Griffin's family for 20 years. The RSPCA held Florry in an animal sanctuary for over a year, claiming that she was "emaciated". The Griffins' vet, Charlotte Mayers, made it clear from the start that vets from her practice were treating the horse, which was laminitic and needed to be kept thin for that reason. Colin Vogel, the author of the RSPCA's own veterinaray manual on horse-care supported her views. At one point the RSPCA had wanted to put Florry down, but after 15 months she was finally re-united with her owners.
In February, after another five days in court, a cruelty case against Annette Nally, owner of Holly, a German shepherd, was called into question when it was found that RSPCA documents alleging her failure to treat the dog properly for ear and bowel conditions related to another dog. Holly died six months after the RSPCA had seized her (as Miss Nally only discovered five months later). In acquitting her on all charges, Judge David Chinnery praised her obvious care for her animals and her "impressive" evidence, and also that of her chief witness, Colin Vogel.
PC Bell was prosecuted for cruelty by the RSPCA and the case dragged on for two years, at a cost of £50,000. After his initial acquittal, the RSPCA appealed. Finally, in April 2006, the High Court threw out the case, prompting the Federation of Companion Animal Societies to comment that some of the RSPCA's prosecutions "seem to have a political agenda" rather than being concerned with "animal welfare". The growing number of people who fall foul of that agenda would heartily agree.
I think it is time that the RSPCA had a watchdog. Do you think it is worth a e-petition requesting the government look in to this ?
) and anyway there's always stuff contradicting every p.o.v.
