RSPCA prosecutions

[brighteyes]

Since the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime (either in severity or effectiveness) why don't they abandon the current system in favour of speedy removal of animals reasonably considered to be kept in breach of the five freedoms, to be returned when proof is given that proper care and management is in place?

The huge amounts of money wasted in building cases for the largely unsuccessful prosecutions (in terms of stopping the perpetrators from continuing undeterred) could be spent on rehabilitating the animals and a new ruling, one strike and you are out, put in place for the offenders.

There seems to be much dithering over when to sieze animals in desperate need of some sort of urgent attention anyway. The current 'leave the animal there until death is the proof that action needed to be taken' (sooner!) doesn't seem to be working and if the GSD farce is to be believed and used as an example, it seems they are either heavy-handed maniacs or hopeless prevaricators.

Royal - well, no longer applicable, really, is it.

 

[Fantasy_World]

Very well said!

 

[competitiondiva]

Not sure I follow, the rspca is successful in over 97% of the cases it brings to court??? The AWA was brought in to prevent the need for the animal to suffer before action could be taken, the law is there that if someone doesn't provide the needs and after an improvement notice still does nothing then the animal can be taken under the new law?? So by not prosecuting but taking the animal away what are you solving, as the animals would be taken away and the person would go and get another! The purpose of prosecuting is to get disqualification orders to prevent these people owning the animals which you cannot give without a court case!!!!!

 

[Cuffey]

Brighteyes up to you which story you choose to believe but--
The RSPCA have put a statement about the GSDs on their web site:

01.09.09
We've had a lot of comments about a case earlier this year, regarding 10 German shepherd dogs in South Wales.

Background information
We had a call for help from a member of the public on 23 June about 10 German Shepherd dogs at an address in Pontardawe, in South Wales. The caller said the dogs' owner, a relative, had died and the dogs had been living on their own.

An RSPCA inspector visited the premises that day and assessed the animals. The inspector took the decision that none of the dogs were at all suitable for rehoming due to concerns about their aggressive behaviour and lack of socialisation with people. The dogs were also suffering from a severe skin condition.

We explained to the owner's the next-of-kin that they should contact other rescue groups for help.

The next-of-kin later contacted the RSPCA again and said they had been turned down by other charities who were unwilling to take on the animals and they signed over the dogs, fully aware that the dogs would be euthanased.

 

[Mithras]

It sounds as if the RSPCA has lost its way and has become mainly an evidence gathering agency for the Prosecution Service. As a result, it has become over-formalised and driven by targets. But as the OP mentions, does this end really justify the means? Is leaving animals to deteriorate in appalling conditions in order to get a small fine and successful conviction justified? Of course it is not, and in achieving this, the RSPCA becomes implicit in the cruelty. It is also a morally flawed precept - quite often those who perpetuate cruelty upon animals do so because they can exercise control over those animals. Therefore it is perfectly possible to treat animals cruelly even where an owner has food, bedding, stabling, water, etc on site and to hand.

As a lawyer, I have to say that you often run into problems like these when non lawyers attempt to act as quasi lawyers. They try to tell people they "cannot do things" because of the way the law works when they do not understand the law themselves. There is invariably more than one way of interpreting legislation, there are many factors which can jeopardise a prosecution, and many more which will be overlooked by a judge.

In the case of the German Shepherd gods, specialist GSD charities were NOT contacted by the RSPCA when they would have been willing to assist had they known. However, if the RSPCA do have a very formalised list of "partner agencies" towork with, this would explain their lack of imagination and real effort in rehoming the dogs and their "success" in reaching a target by "dealing" with the problem.

Not my idea of acceptable or effective animal welfare protection in a civilised society at all. I do think the RSPCA has lost its way. Again, as the OP says, it is either a hopeless prevaricator or overly heavy handed. Another problem with it is that, reading anecdotally from on here, it is over-active at high profile, high publicity generating events and seeks to over-egg its influence by harassing some owners who are not an animal welfare concern at all. A few of its officers seem to delight in exerting their control over perfectly good owners and we should be questioning their recruitment process. There are serious problems with it and I think we should stop sticking our heads in the sand and admit this.

 

[brighteyes]

Which is what I was trying to say. Also in my other reply to RSPCA bashing.

<font color="blue">Yup. Protocols, proper channels red tape as decreed by people issuing orders and administering directions from ivory towers.

Common sense? Never heard of it. Doesn't apply here. Why?

Because it's got too big for anything except management and response by numbers and ticked boxes. You can't hardly get through to them, they have revenue generating phone numbers - and guess what, you wait 20 minutes to get connected to a 'call centre' peep who reads from a flow chart whose final box reads 'I'm sorry but we can't do anything to help in this instance'.

That's absolutely what the problem is. </font>

 

[Clodagh]

I rang them once about some chickens that were in an appalling state and the call centre girl actually laughed when I said it was chickens, no food, some off their legs and sitting in their own filth. Funny ha ha.