RSPCA prosecuting the Heythrop hunt

[Brontie]

Hey all;

Don't want to go into a debate about whether hunting should or should not be illegal, I just need to conduct a poll and use the results in a piece of college work I'm doing.

The question is; Was the RSPCA right to use over £326,000 in public donations to prosecute the Heythrop hunt?

Thanks all!

 

[indie999]

Hey all;

Don't want to go into a debate about whether hunting should or should not be illegal, I just need to conduct a poll and use the results in a piece of college work I'm doing.

The question is; Was the RSPCA right to use over £326,000 in public donations to prosecute the Heythrop hunt?

Thanks all!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/rspca-job-to-sue-heythrop-hunt

A few years ago and I have never forgotten what I saw..absolute tradegy. Cruel. I witnessed a deer toren to bits by pack of hunting dogs and it screamed for a good 10 minutes I was out riding, it was eaten alive and shredded. Sport er no. Some households 200meters heard the commotion too. So unfortunately I was probably the only person who voted yes! RSPCA damned if they do damned if they dont. In ideal world they shouldnt have to use their funds to do this in the first place???? It could then be better spent on saving animals etc.

 

[megwan1]

100% should not have used that money to bring a private prosecution.

Willing to be corrected but....

The money was collected from people who intended it to go to care for sick/stray animals and it was not advertised that it would be used to bring prosecutions under the hunting act, if it was collected for that purpose then it would a different story.

also the fines handed to each defandant totalled way less than £20k so how on earth well over £300k is justifiable is crazy!!!

also if the CPS didnt think it was worth bringing a prosecution for then the RSPCA should not have used the donations to bring a prosecution.

I do not donate to the RSPCA they have been using money donated, against hunting for years including to lobby government before the ban. If you tell this to their street collecters they have nothing to say and dont bother you again... its ideal.

 

[indie999]

Quite often the CPS dont pursue a prosecution due to the large cost involved doesnt mean to say there wasnt enough evidence. Imagine its frustrating for the police when it isnt pursued by CPS due to huge costs involved, that is probably quite common. Animal cruelty end off.

 

[Luci07]

No. Absolutely NOT. So it's alright for local branches to be struggling for funding and field officers being made redundant while the powers that be spend funds on this? I know how stretched rescues are, and how many animals are being dumped and destroyed. RSPCA, get your priorities right.

 

[Quantock-cob]

Brontie, The first rule of doing research for surveys is to ask the questions to an unbiased audience, to prevent the results being skewed. If you wanted the results to be predominately "no", then fine carry on with your survey. If however you actually want to get a true picture of the general public's feelings on this case, then go ask somewhere that isn't called "horse and hound" - where quite obviously the majority of readers support hunting.

FWIW, I voted yes as I believe they were right to prosecute. Hunting is in my eyes a form of animal cruelty and if the RSPCA won't stand up for foxes and deer, then who will? It is within their powers to bring prosecution against the illegal hunting of animals and I am proud that they did. The fact the hunt was found guilty by the court proves they were correct to proceed with the case. The ridiculous fine was not set by the RSPCA, but was the maximum that the judge could impose.

 

[cptrayes]

also if the CPS didnt think it was worth bringing a prosecution for then the RSPCA should not have used the donations to bring a prosecution.

The RSPCA prosecute the vast majority of animal cruelty cases that are heard in English and Welsh courts.

 

[Hairy Old Cob]

Pseudo Political organisation that should lose its Royal Patronage.

 

[Pale Rider]

Of course they should, hunting with dogs for sport is cruel, and they are supposed to prevent cruelty, no brainer really I'd it.

 

[Pale Rider]

Is it.

 

[Polos Mum]

I would have thought a lot more cruelty could have been prevented by utilising that sort of money elsewhere.
I doubt the hunt will really do anything different because of the case. Where as £300k+ could rehabilitate a lot of sick/ stray/ injured animals.

My view on whether it was right or wrong morally is irrelevant - if I gave to this charity I'd expect them to do the most good possible with every £1 I gave them.

 

[Brontie]

Brontie, The first rule of doing research for surveys is to ask the questions to an unbiased audience, to prevent the results being skewed. If you wanted the results to be predominately "no", then fine carry on with your survey. If however you actually want to get a true picture of the general public's feelings on this case, then go ask somewhere that isn't called "horse and hound" - where quite obviously the majority of readers support hunting.

Diagree with you here, a lot of the forum here isn't pro hunting, as shown in the hunting forum which has very few members within. Hound also applies to the forum section of dogs, not just hounds that hunt.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Yes, it was money well spent. The offence is likely to be replayed by this hunt and others unless they are stopped. Animal cruelty should not be ignored no matter who the offender is.


My criticism is with the CPS who should hang their heads in shame at doing nothing, safe in the knowledge that a charity will pick up the cost.

 

[Mrs B]

Complete and utter disgraceful waste of money.

As was the time and money spent banning hunting. Foxes are still 'controlled', but in a far less humane way than before. A fox hunted by hounds either lives or dies. A shot or poisoned one can have an awful death.

THAT'S the no-brainer for me.

 

[Brontie]

My criticism is with the CPS who should hang their heads in shame at doing nothing, safe in the knowledge that a charity will pick up the cost.

But they haven't, all the members of public that donated have..

 

[AmyMay]

God no. Total waste of money.

 

[Brontie]

Bump.. Need 100 votes!

 

[FinnishLapphund]

I voted No, ditto Megwan1, if people give their money believing that it will "go to care for sick/stray animals and it was not advertised that it would be used to bring prosecutions under the hunting act," then I feel that it is dishonest that they then use a so big sum of donated money on prosecuting a hunt.

And I agree with Brontie, I've seen too many posts being anti-hunting on HHO to say that HHO:ers in general supports hunting.

 

[Holly Hocks]

But they haven't, all the members of public that donated have..

But the members of the public who donate to the RSPCA will predominantly not support hunting so I would imagine they supported the prosecution. Let's face it, if you support hunting then you're unlikely to donate to the RSPCA.

 

[FinnishLapphund]

Bumping the thread, in case just a few more would open it and vote.

 

[Shutterbug]

Opinions on hunting rights or wrongs or ban rights or wrongs aside - if the hunt had not broken the law, money would have not had to have been spent by anyone prosecuting them. The alternative is that a crime goes un-prosecuted surely?

 

[Pale Rider]

The overwhelming number of people who are against prosecuting hunts, wouldn't donate to a charity against cruelty, so their opinion is irrelevant. If your hobby is being cruel for fun and sport to some species of animal you can hardly be called an animal lover, can you? The doings of the RSPCA, is nothing to do with this sort of person.

 

[Pale Rider]

Unless they are in the dock of course.

 

[armchair_rider]

I voted no because I believe that the RSPCA should be using money for the greatest possible good. The prosecution of hunts should be a matter for specific anti-hunting organisations and the police. Or the RSPCA should set up a separate fund for anti-hunting activities to whcih people would be free to contribute to or not as they desire

 

[indie999]

http://www.rspca.org.uk/home

Protection of ALL animals.

As to hunting its not a sport its a blood lust. The word Hunting? gives a clue. Guns are better than ever it can be shot clean. I dont do the it will be maimed and hop around to die(I hear that all the time). Same as Bull fighting, cock fighting. Its medieval and the fox is much persecuted. Years ago when most people grew their own food for survival ie chickens then fine it needed to be culled but most people now buy from intense farming/fences/sheds. I can understand a poultry farmer culling a fox with a gun but not chasing it around on the back of horse. I always thought hunting was the thing of upper crust etc and do believe it gives horse industry a bad name(people assume that as I did have a horse that I would be a supporter of hunting, its the toffy association of it).

But RSPCA did a good job here and the money is given to protect ALL animals. Funny they got prosecuted so it was a good outcome. I am sure most of the other cases they bring to court run into similar figures. Its a deterrent. People are not above the law as proven.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Some interesting views. When is cruelty not cruelty ?

Would be ok for a group of yobs from a council estate to corner a fox and encourage their bull terriers rip it to shreds then ?

Would it be ok for them to rip a rabbit/cat to shreds or just a fox ?

Is it only cruelty if you're not wearing a red jacket and blowing a horn ? Burberry caps are out then ?

What animal abusers should be prosecuted, knowing that the CPS won't ? None ?

 

[Clodagh]

The hunt was commiting an illegal act under the current legislation so yes the RSPCA were right. If they were prosecuting a dog fighting ring no one would object and what is the difference?

 

[Natch]

Brontie I agree with the person who said that this forum's users are biased. As a whole demographic we ate more than likely to be positively biased towards pro hunting than the average population. But, your choice

I don't feel I can answer the question because I don't know which funds were used and how they were raised. If the prossecution was funded by say one or two major donors or a specific fundraising campaign which informed donors what their donation was to be used for, I don't condemn their action. If it was funded from a pool of money that was made up of 100s of donors who were under the impression that their donations would help fund emergency vet treatment for a stray kitty or dog, then that would be unethical and misleading at best, and illegal at worst to spend that money on something very different.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Maybe the RSPCA has learnt its lesson - it's dropped a couple of cases in the past couple of weeks (admittedly against far less 'fashionable' hunts!) - and LACS has also had another thrown out!

 

[fburton]

I voted no because I believe that the RSPCA should be using money for the greatest possible good. The prosecution of hunts should be a matter for specific anti-hunting organisations and the police. Or the RSPCA should set up a separate fund for anti-hunting activities to whcih people would be free to contribute to or not as they desire

This.