RSPCA need to be controlled

[Dry Rot]

There is clear public concern over the activities of the RSPCA which is a very wealthy organisation supported by public donations gathered in response to highly emotive advertisements in the media.

That alone should be enough for the authorities to take a closer look at their activities which would clear up the speculation, once and for all, one way or the other.

There is no doubt that from here on in, Clwyd Davies's activities will be closely scrutinised and monitored. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This is not yet a totalitarian state but meant to be a democratic one (I think!) and organisations and people are answerable to society. That's you and me!

 

[Hairy Old Cob]

RSPCA Officers have NO Right to Caution you or Rewad you Your Rights I once told one I would prosecute him for impersonating a Police Officer he soon changed his aproach.

 

[Countryman]

Exactly. They have no powers to do anything - at least, no more powers than you or I do. They are just ordinary people like you and me, they are not sworn constables, they are nothing to do with the government or authority, they have just as much right to seize animals from you/caution you/take statements as I do, or you do.

 

[Moomin1]

RSPCA Officers have NO Right to Caution you or Rewad you Your Rights I once told one I would prosecute him for impersonating a Police Officer he soon changed his aproach.

I bet he got back in his van and pissed himself laughing at you!

He was hardly wearing a police uniform, it's an RSPCA uniform!

And, just for you information (try not to feel too silly) anybody who takes a private prosecution (including yourself if you wished and paid to do so, as it is your full right) must abide by PACE rules and law, which means that you would have to afford the defendant the opportunity to give their version of events. To do so, you would have to read them their rights, as if it was taken to court, then if you hadn't done so, you would be breaching PACE and would not have acted in a fair manner. So you would have basically broken human rights and the law.

You, Joe Bloggs, Elmo, The Abominable Snowman, whoever, CAN and are bound by law to caution if you take a private prosecution.

Sorry to pee on your fire.

 

[Goldenstar]

I bet he got back in his van and pissed himself laughing at you!

He was hardly wearing a police uniform, it's an RSPCA uniform!

And, just for you information (try not to feel too silly) anybody who takes a private prosecution (including yourself if you wished and paid to do so, as it is your full right) must abide by PACE rules and law, which means that you would have to afford the defendant the opportunity to give their version of events. To do so, you would have to read them their rights, as if it was taken to court, then if you hadn't done so, you would be breaching PACE and would not have acted in a fair manner. So you would have basically broken human rights and the law.

You, Joe Bloggs, Elmo, The Abominable Snowman, whoever, CAN and are bound by law to caution if you take a private prosecution.

Sorry to pee on your fire.

So remember you have the right to take advice BEFORE speaking to them you dont have to let them on your property you CAN ask them to leave but be aware they may well return at once with a police officer who does have the right to enter with out a warrant if they have a reason to think an offence is being committed.
However if you have well cared for horses you have nothing to fear from them , in my time vexatious calls where surprisingly common it was one of the things that really surprised me.

 

[milesjess]

I recently spoke to a dog rescue (very well known, but not naming for obvious reasons). A member of staff confided in me regarding the RSPCA and their tactics... I was horrified.

She stated that they take in alot of dogs as we all know. These animals are looked at, if they aren't fitting the rehome bill they are PTS... Not shocking right? Well until she said, if the dog is old, ugly, wrong breed (staffies mainly including puppies), too loud/ boisterous they are PTS!!!

She literally said they'd que up waiting for their turn. Her company try to take as many as possible and rehome them but they can't help them all

I thought a healthy dog was never PTS, aggressive dogs I can understand and even elderly but ugly?! Puppies?!

I don't have many dealings with them luckily and I plan to keep it that way.

Something definitely needs to change.

IMO I like the amercian version, they are police officers with full powers dedicated to animal cruelty dept. They seem much more clued up then the UK.

 

[lastchancer]

You do realise of course that the reason why the comment 'you are not under arrest' is read out in a caution is because it is a legal requirement under PACE?

Don't suppose that matters though does it? RSPCA bashing is far too fashionable these days so anything goes, whether it's a legal requirement or not!

But why on earth would the RSPCA be giving a caution out?
They are not police officers, thats the whole point.
Also, I have noticed in many of your RSPCA related posts you use you rolling eyes smiley, it's condescending and does nothing to endear your cause to anyone.
Just saying.

 

[FionaM12]

But why on earth would the RSPCA be giving a caution out?
They are not police officers, thats the whole point.

On the RSPCA website it says:

Every member of the public (in England and Wales) has a common law (i.e. non-statutory) right to bring a private prosecution in respect of a breach of the criminal law. It is on this basis that the RSPCA brings private prosecutions for cruelty to animals. If RSPCA inspectors find that an offence does appear to have been committed they will caution the suspect in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

As I understand that, they have to tell people their rights where they believe an offence has been committed, Lastchancer.

 

[Moomin1]

But why on earth would the RSPCA be giving a caution out?
They are not police officers, thats the whole point.
Also, I have noticed in many of your RSPCA related posts you use you rolling eyes smiley, it's condescending and does nothing to endear your cause to anyone.
Just saying.

Because they are taking a private prosecution.

Simple.

 

[CorvusCorax]

Here's an idea. If you don't like them and don't wish to fund their court cases and advertising campaigns, don't donate. If you do like them, donate. If you work for them, or support them, respect the right of those who choose not to donate, and vice versa.

But please don't accuse those who do not donate or support, of not being animal lovers, because that is an overly simplistic and insulting argument.

 

[Moomin1]

Here's an idea. If you don't like them and don't wish to fund their court cases and advertising campaigns, don't donate. If you do like them, donate. If you work for them, or support them, respect the right of those who choose not to donate, and vice versa.

But please don't accuse those who do not donate or support, of not being animal lovers, because that is an overly simplistic and insulting argument.

Works both ways I suppose.

 

[FionaM12]

But please don't accuse those who do not donate or support, of not being animal lovers, because that is an overly simplistic and insulting argument.

Has someone said that? I'm not arguing, I'm just asking because I hadn't seen a post accusing people of not caring about animals. That would be a very unfair thing to say IMO.

 

[CorvusCorax]

It's been said on here before, yes. Not during this current incarnation of the argument (that I have seen) but it does come out when people apparently feel backed into a corner.

 

[Moomin1]

Has someone said that? I'm not arguing, I'm just asking because I hadn't seen a post accusing people of not caring about animals. That would be a very unfair thing to say IMO.

It was actually said to me on the other thread that got locked - even though I am an RSPCA supporter!! Because of my opinions on the matter my ability to care for my own horse got questioned!

 

[FionaM12]

It's been said on here before, yes. Not during this current incarnation of the argument (that I have seen) but it does come out when people apparently feel backed into a corner.

It was actually said to me on the other thread that got locked - even though I am an RSPCA supporter!! Because of my opinions on the matter my ability to care for my own horse got questioned!

I know people get worked up and lash out, but it's quite nasty when accusations like that are made, from either side. "You don't have the same view as me so you must neglect your horses/not care about animals" is an unpleasant and actually rather silly thing to say.

 

[orionstar]

I used to work next to a few car sales garages (Hyundai dealers etc), and they had a fenced area where I parked with a German Shepherd in it, protecting the cars. It was very thin, patchy, and couldn't walk very well, never had any water in the dish beside it's bare kennel, so after feeding it what I could for the first couple of weeks, through the fence, then being told by someone from the garage it would have my arm off (yes, it probably would, it's starving) and noticing that it still wasnt getting any food or water I called the RSPCA, who assured me they would send someone out. Another two weeks went by, and I heard nothing, and I was still pushing my saved sandwiches through the fence, I got out of the car one morning to find it dead, and at lunchtime, all trace of the dog being there at all was gone. This, but not only this, is the reason they should be investigated.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

IMO I like the amercian version, they are police officers with full powers dedicated to animal cruelty dept. They seem much more clued up then the UK.

Are you sure about that? In America, they have the powers of the police AND they are responsible for their own fund raising. A conflict of interests? Without question.

In New York, the ASPCA is directed by a serious property developer who's campaigning to have a large City Equine Yard closed down. He's made countless offers to buy the property, and been turned down. That's the problem with these plebs, they just don't recognise a good deal when it's offered to them.

When any charity is run as a business, there is going to be a huge conflict of interests. Follow the American example? God NO, things are bad enough here now, without that.

Alec.

 

[JanetGeorge]

And, just for you information (try not to feel too silly) anybody who takes a private prosecution (including yourself if you wished and paid to do so, as it is your full right) must abide by PACE rules and law, which means that you would have to afford the defendant the opportunity to give their version of events. To do so, you would have to read them their rights, as if it was taken to court, then if you hadn't done so, you would be breaching PACE and would not have acted in a fair manner. So you would have basically broken human rights and the law.

Exactly right! And I remember an RSPCA case which went to Appeal (and was overturned). The Judge accused the RSPCA of "driving a coach and horses through PACE"! They learnt their lesson!

But - the RSPCA has NO power of entry or anything else - just like you or me! UNLESS they have a police officer with them and 'due cause'! It is the police officer who gives the RSPCA limited powers!

 

[joeanne]

But - the RSPCA has NO power of entry or anything else - just like you or me! UNLESS they have a police officer with them and 'due cause'! It is the police officer who gives the RSPCA limited powers!

Absolutely.
Its hard though with land as you cannot "shut the door" as it were to keep them out.
Many RSPCA officers can be seen scaling walls/fences etc to snoop on someones land......land they have no place to be without invite or a policeman!

 

[FionaM12]

Absolutely.
Its hard though with land as you cannot "shut the door" as it were to keep them out.
Many RSPCA officers can be seen scaling walls/fences etc to snoop on someones land......land they have no place to be without invite or a policeman!

To be fair though, if I reported appalling cruelty and an animal's life was at risk or it was suffering terribly, I'd want the person I'd reported to to take any possible measures to see the animal for themselves.

As I say, I'm neutral here, I'm not for or against the RSPCA, just considering all the pov.

 

[joeanne]

To be fair though, if I reported appalling cruelty and an animal's life was at risk or it was suffering terribly, I'd want the person I'd reported to to take any possible measures to see the animal for themselves.

As I say, I'm neutral here, I'm not for or against the RSPCA, just considering all the pov.

That's when they are supposed to have police attendance to secure access to the animal in question.
Nobody wants to ever see a suffering animal, but by the same token, just as we have to abide by the law.....so should they.

 

[Moomin1]

That's when they are supposed to have police attendance to secure access to the animal in question.
Nobody wants to ever see a suffering animal, but by the same token, just as we have to abide by the law.....so should they.

Right.

So what do they do, when they have a call by one of you lot, to say that a horse is collapsed and dying from neglect, and yet the police are too busy to send an officer out for three hours?

Similarly, if you were at a horse show, let's say, and you saw a car parked with a dog in it laying collapsed in 40 degree heat inside the car with no windows open...would you wait for the police, or would you simply just smash the window and get it out?

 

[showley1]

Not always the case rspca do a job and i am sure there are many thousands of firstly animals and secondly owners grateful for there help, but what happens when the cases come out of spite? 2 years ago i had to fight to keep my elderly st Bernard bitch (14 years), she had lost weight and condition due to her age, we had spoken to our vet who had advised us to carry on while ever she had a quality of life, but a neighbor (hasten to add we had had issues with earlier in the year) reported us for neglect. It did not matter to the first inspector that attended that we had 2 other healthy dogs and good facilities all he could talk about was prosecution unless he removed Lady (he called her "the animal" for me that was not the case) he had contact with my vet so he knew she had been seen but still insisted this was his only course of action, both us and our vet raised our concerns over his actions the same day and the re visit 2 days later was a young woman who could see lady was an elderly(very for a st Bernard) girl who needed to finish her days peacefully with the only family she had know.She died peacefully in our arms 2 weeks later at the vets as her quality of life diminished. From that day to this i will not contribute to the rspca as they should have to answer to someone or have some sort of governing body to stop this? he had to answer to no one and did not care 1 bit about my beautiful lady, just what he had been told.

 

[Moomin1]

Not always the case rspca do a job and i am sure there are many thousands of firstly animals and secondly owners grateful for there help, but what happens when the cases come out of spite? 2 years ago i had to fight to keep my elderly st Bernard bitch (14 years), she had lost weight and condition due to her age, we had spoken to our vet who had advised us to carry on while ever she had a quality of life, but a neighbor (hasten to add we had had issues with earlier in the year) reported us for neglect. It did not matter to the first inspector that attended that we had 2 other healthy dogs and good facilities all he could talk about was prosecution unless he removed Lady (he called her "the animal" for me that was not the case) he had contact with my vet so he knew she had been seen but still insisted this was his only course of action, both us and our vet raised our concerns over his actions the same day and the re visit 2 days later was a young woman who could see lady was an elderly(very for a st Bernard) girl who needed to finish her days peacefully with the only family she had know.She died peacefully in our arms 2 weeks later at the vets as her quality of life diminished. From that day to this i will not contribute to the rspca as they should have to answer to someone or have some sort of governing body to stop this? he had to answer to no one and did not care 1 bit about my beautiful lady, just what he had been told.

Why would the RSPCA Inspector have reason to 'spite' you?

I understand you say you had spoken to your vet at the time she had lost weight, did they have all the records etc of seeing her and weighing her at the surgery?

I am not disputing what you say, just interested a little further into the facts?

 

[showley1]

Was not the RSPCA who had the spite it was the neighbour who i would not let park on my land 6 weeks before and reporting

 

[showley1]

Yes vet had full records as she had been visiting for 4 weeks prior due to weight loss, which she had indeed lost from when she was there 6 months before for her jabs.

 

[Moomin1]

Was not the RSPCA who had the spite it was the neighbour who i would not let park on my land 6 weeks before and reporting

That is quite common - malicious calls on those sorts of basis.

So I take it your girl had seen a vet very recently prior to the first inspector coming around, and that she was in the very same condition as when the vet saw her?

Sorry, just saw your last post. If that is the case (and I only say that because I am on a public forum and never fully believe anything coming from anyone!!) then it sounds like either the officer involved the first time was very new and inexperienced (I would think this is the main reason) or yes, may need more training or guidance from their line manager.

All inspectors are trained to check with vets who are purportedly involved with animals on the owner's behalf, so that they obv don't get hoodwinked. Sometimes, so I believe, this is difficult because not all vets may be willing to give any information at all, so the inspector has to take it at face value because they cannot do anything else.
I am sorry to hear of your loss.

 

[showley1]

She had been seeing the vet for around 4 weeks before the inspector came, and steadily lost weight, blood tests were taken but as the vet said she was too old for anything else , and if i had been advised to put her to sleep earlier i would have,maybe the first inspector was a newbie i just found him rude and unwilling to listen to anything, i am sure it was the call from my vet that day to the rspca that changed the inspector.

 

[showley1]

As i said in my first post i do see the need , unfortunatly, for the rspca but in my case they made sure i will not support financially .

 

[Moomin1]

She had been seeing the vet for around 4 weeks before the inspector came, and steadily lost weight, blood tests were taken but as the vet said she was too old for anything else , and if i had been advised to put her to sleep earlier i would have,maybe the first inspector was a newbie i just found him rude and unwilling to listen to anything, i am sure it was the call from my vet that day to the rspca that changed the inspector.

Not sure if this was posted at the same time as my last post!
I do think that if this is genuine, then you should have written to the RSPCA hq and pointed out your concerns. It does sound like maybe the first inspector was a newbie, which of course are bound to get things wrong, but I know that doesn't make things better in the minds of people involved. My guess is that this was the case by the fact that a different inspector was sent around the next time.

I understand your disappointment if that is the case, however I would hope that people realise that newbies will get things wrong, and in this instant it was addressed and a different officer sent around.

Also, whilst I certainly don't condone or try to justify the example, it surely indicates that the inspector wanted to ensure that your dog wasn't suffering unnecessarily and leave it in that situation, rather than thinking it and walking away and doing nothing, as people have suggested so many times on here. Yes, maybe he judged wrong, but he acted in the best interest of 'the animal' to his own knowledge.

On the topic of 'the animal', that is just a sign of someone that deals with things daily in and out, just like the NHS doctors etc. Yes it may sound clinical, and insensitive, but when someone is dealing with numerous animals daily with different people, either cooperative or not, and different animals, cooperative or not, plus their own personal worries, etc it can get quite confusing remembering the names of animals or even sexes of the animals! They certainly wouldn't have meant it in a hurtful way, though I can see how it would be taken that way.