RSPCA originally formed by pro hunt Conservative MP

[Hunters]

It is confirmed that the independent Charities Commission have written to the RSPCA regarding their concerns for the amount spent prosecuting a hunt.

The RSPCA seems to have come a long way from it's conception 189 years ago formed by Conservative MP Richard Martin. I should imagine he'd be non too impressed..,?

 

[Moomin1]

Where have you been the last week? The CC wrote and said they had NO concerns over what was spent.

 

[Alec Swan]

....... The CC wrote and said they had NO concerns over what was spent.

Presumably you have evidence to support your claim. If you have, would you care to provide it? By evidence, I don't mean the rspca's response to being interviewed and cautioned, but the Charity Commission's written response.

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

Interviewed and cautioned?! Alec you are priceless! Did you listen to the debate? The details were in there. The CC said they had NO further need to investigate and were satisfied with the rspca's actions.

 

[Moomin1]

And on that note Alec, given that you appear so sure of yourself, do you have the written response?

 

[SarahColeman]

And on that note Alec, given that you appear so sure of yourself, do you have the written response?

I guess given what little I have seen of Alec's posts it will be a long wait with nothing at the end of it. I thought all of the Dinosaurs had died out!

 

[Alec Swan]

....... Did you listen to the debate? The details were in there. The CC said they had NO further need to investigate and were satisfied with the rspca's actions.

Before you point the finger of ridicule, I'd first consider your claims. The Commons debate was a different matter. It was a debate. Prosecuting authorities rarely debate.

"The RSPCA was reported to the Charity Commission by MPs and peers last month for controversially funding the successful prosecution against the Heythrop Hunt. Mr Cameron is a local MP in the area where the Heythrop hunts.
Now it has emerged that the charity's senior executives have been called in by William Shawcross, the Commission's chairman, for "an early meeting" to discuss its "prosecutions in general and the case in particular".

Again, and whilst your understanding of the English language may be lacking, I'd point out the use of the word "Summoned". It's a world away from the word "Debate".

"RSPCA summoned to meet head of charity watchdog after controversial David Cameron hunt prosecution
Senior figures at the RSPCA have been summoned to see the charity watchdog to defend their decision to spend £326,000 on prosecuting David Cameron’s local hunt,".

The ethics and standing of the rspca have been heavily criticised by a Judge and called to account by the Charities Commission. Could you explain why?

Despite your wistful claims that there is no case to answer, I'd suggest that you'd best wait for the CC's report, before you crow too loudly.

It would be highly unlikely that a High Court Judge, the Charities Commission, or a substantial and respected group of MPs would be so quick to denigrate a charity, which currently enjoys royal patronage, were there not sufficient grounds, for such criticism. That isn't how you see, obviously, but then from your apparent and all admiring stance, any criticism of a body which is simply not fit for purpose, would have little by way of substance to support it.

SarahColeman, I apologise for the delay.

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

Oh Alec I actually feel a bit sorry for you! Bless

 

[Moomin1]

You are as bad as the daily fail Alec. Now would you like to post the rest of the article? You know, the bit which says the CC found trustees HAD NOT breached rules by prosecuting the heythrop? Ta.

 

[Springy]

FFS not another bliddy RSPCA post.....

 

[combat_claire]

Where have you been the last week? The CC wrote and said they had NO concerns over what was spent.

Sam Younger, the Charity Commission’s chief executive, told RSPCA chief executive Gavin Grant in a letter today that his trustees had to review the charity's prosecution policies “given the amount of adverse publicity and the allegations of political bias that the charity has attracted as a result of the case”.

 

[combat_claire]

Incidentally I am waiting for Moomin's response to the Panorama film and Gavin Grant's incitement to harass farmers and those involved in any badger cull. I have posted a link to the video on the other thread, but here it is again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p03qh/Panorama_Badgers_Dodging_the_Bullet/

 

[Moomin1]

He said that the charity should bear in mind that they may face criticism when taking on sensitive subjects. They said no breaches were made. The rest is purely generic advice pointing out what every charity who prosecute should consider before prosecuting. It is not a warning, it is advice. No more, no less. The simple fact is, they are taking no further action with the rspca.
It may smart a little folks, but I'm sure you will get over it soon enough.

 

[Hunters]

Interesting article in The Spectator - 'Is the RSPCA the new FBI?' by Melissa Kite 'The RSPCA seems to have become a political animal.'

Who was it once said, 'There's no such thing as bad press.'

I suppose one will just have to wait to see the accounts before anyone can tell whether the costs of the Heythrop prosecution & subsequent press reports caused the RSPCA any serious loss in donations.

 

[4x4]

IMO they should stick to rescuing sea birds from slimy sticky substances!

 

[MillyMoomie]

Also in the spectator. By Rod Liddle. "The law doesn't change just because you're on horseback".

 

[Moomin1]

Also in the spectator. By Rod Liddle. "The law doesn't change just because you're on horseback".

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnis...oesnt-change-just-because-youre-on-horseback/

 

[Hunters]

4 x 4 Totally agree

 

[Alec Swan]

Before you point the finger of ridicule, .......

The ethics and standing of the rspca have been heavily criticised by a Judge and called to account by the Charities Commission. Could you explain why?

.......

Alec.

Oh Alec I actually feel a bit sorry for you! Bless

How kind, thoughtful almost, though probably the response of someone with no reasoned or responsible repost. None the less, would you care to answer the question?

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

How kind, thoughtful almost, though probably the response of someone with no reasoned or responsible repost. None the less, would you care to answer the question?

Alec.

Yes Alec.

They were called for a meeting with the charity commission because PEOPLE ASKED FOR IT, namely the pro hunt supporting Tory MP's. Therefore (if you can get your head around this concept), the CC have a duty to look into it. The outcome was that the RSPCA HAD acted within it's rights as a prosecuting charity, and that trustees had not broken rules.

Seemingly, of course, the pro hunt anti-RSPCA are not content with the CC's findings however.

 

[Alec Swan]

Yes Alec.

They were called for a meeting with the charity commission because PEOPLE ASKED FOR IT, namely the pro hunt supporting Tory MP's. Therefore (if you can get your head around this concept), the CC have a duty to look into it. The outcome was that the RSPCA HAD acted within it's rights as a prosecuting charity, and that trustees had not broken rules.

Seemingly, of course, the pro hunt anti-RSPCA are not content with the CC's findings however.

So we're to assume from your claim, that both a High Court Judge, AND The Charities Commission, have been swayed because "PEOPLE ASKED FOR IT", are we? Nonsense.

I can assure you, that neither of those two august bodies would drift with the breeze of any form of flimsy public opinion. They asked valid questions, questions, which despite your claims have yet to be answered, with any degree of honesty. History will show, I feel certain, that considering the massive sway of public opinion, that your favoured charity may well be a little more circumspect in the future, when they consider how they fritter away such huge amounts of public donations, and upon such political and worthless aims.

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

So we're to assume from your claim, that both a High Court Judge, AND The Charities Commission, have been swayed because "PEOPLE ASKED FOR IT", are we? Nonsense.

I can assure you, that neither of those two august bodies would drift with the breeze of any form of flimsy public opinion. They asked valid questions, questions, which despite your claims have yet to be answered, with any degree of honesty. History will show, I feel certain, that considering the massive sway of public opinion, that your favoured charity may well be a little more circumspect in the future, when they consider how they fritter away such huge amounts of public donations, and upon such political and worthless aims.

Alec.

Seriously Alec, you really need to get out more.

 

[Alec Swan]

Seriously Alec, you really need to get out more.

Attempt to insult me in a puerile fashion if you wish, such thoughts are of little consequence. I was hoping for a constructive response. Never mind.

a.

 

[Moomin1]

Attempt to insult me in a puerile fashion if you wish, such thoughts are of little consequence. I was hoping for a constructive response. Never mind.

a.

Quite frankly, I can't be bothered anymore.

 

[Alec Swan]

Quite frankly, I can't be bothered anymore.

Nor I dear, nor I!!

See? Common ground, at last!

Alec. x (not that it's welcome!)

 

[Moomin1]

Nor I dear, nor I!!

See? Common ground, at last!

Alec. x (not that it's welcome!)

Does that mean I can get back to drinking my red wine now then?

 

[Alec Swan]

Wine is the cure of many ills, but perhaps the start of a few others, too!

Of course, enjoy your wine and your evening.

Alec.

 

[Hunters]

Bravo - And so whilst wine is consumed, do we wait the outcome.

 

[SarahColeman]

Alec Swan, you accuse the RSPCA of 'frittering away', money. I would like to ask you a simple question please if I may. The RSPCA was handed video evidence of illegal hunting by hunt monitors. Whenever the RSPCA is provided with evidence of lawbreaking regarding the welfare of animals it will investigate and if evidence proven it will prosecute. This started out as an every day situation for the RSPCA so what do you suggest they should have done as I will be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter unless you believe laws in this land should not be enforced?

 

[oakash]

SarahC, I come at this from a slightly different perspective. We all agree(probably) that cas4es such as Spindles farm were justified. But where hunting is concerned, those of us 'in touch' with wildlife and the natural world, KNOW that hunting is not 'cruel' in any real sense of the word. Many years ago the veteran left winger Tony Benn made a speech in which he pointed out that most progress in this country has been made by people deciding to break absurd laws. Well, I know nothing about the Heythrop case,and it does seem extremely unlikely that they were breaking the law, knowing, as they did, that a bunch of fascist 'monitor' thugs were filming them, but the Hunting Act most certainly comes under the category of 'absurd law'!