RSPCA SHAME ON YOU

Goldenstar said:
That will cost money. The area I worked had a pound I won't tell you the problems they had it was a nightmare they where basically used as a free veterinary service then the 'owners'who where magically invisible when we looked for them broke in and took them back it was like the wild west.
Click to expand...

Yes I know its going to cost money, but look at wales. Thats costing HUGE amounts of money with the fly grazing issues and "removal" only for the owner to steal them back.
Thats before the cost of removing the dead ones from public places.
Might as well round them up, shoot if unclaimed and sell the carcasses to zoo's and get some revenue back.
 
Goldenstar said:
The public interest , the CPS make a judgement based on what's in the public interest on whether a difficult case should come before a court that's right and proper .
In the case of animal cases the RSPCA a charity with its own agenda makes a judgement based on its interest on whether a case comes before a court.
My view is this is no longer a situation that is acting in the public interest and the police and the CPS should undertake this role.
Click to expand...



http://www.rspca.org.uk/in-action/whatwedo/prosecution/howwedecide

seems they heard you coming!!
 
joeanne said:
Yes I know its going to cost money, but look at wales. Thats costing HUGE amounts of money with the fly grazing issues and "removal" only for the owner to steal them back.
Thats before the cost of removing the dead ones from public places.
Might as well round them up, shoot if unclaimed and sell the carcasses to zoo's and get some revenue back.
Click to expand...

I agree drastic solutions are the only way to solve this.
 
MillyMoomie said:
Springy you misunderstand, The RSPCA like any other charity has to be open. Everything has to be accessable. You cannot lie about what prosecutions have been taken, what for and won or lost.
Click to expand...
No, but you can choose to take only those cases which you are sure of winning to court. And it is disingenuous to suggest that this doesn't happen, even CPS do that.
 
MillyMoomie said:
http://www.rspca.org.uk/in-action/whatwedo/prosecution/howwedecide

seems they heard you coming!!
Click to expand...

It just goes to show that they are acting like NGO it's not healthy for the public interest or the RSPCA IMO .
This is not intended to be RSPCA bashing its my genuinely held view that the present situation not tenable we would expect the NSPCC to prosecute child abusers that the job of agents of the state it's my view that animal welfare cases are no different.
 
Pearlsasinger said:
No, but you can choose to take only those cases which you are sure of winning to court. And it is disingenuous to suggest that this doesn't happen, even CPS do that.
Click to expand...

But i dont understand how that can be a bad thing? Why run someone through the court, waste money and time if there isnt the evidence or likelyhood to win? I'm sure thats running the risk of contempt of court or some such.

Why is everyone not more scandalised that obviously 98% of HUMANS BOUGHT COURT FOR CRUELTY TO ANIMALS IS FOUND GUILTY!!!! BY a judge!!!

Someone please explain how not taking a case to court that you will not win is bad thing? Would you bring forward a private prosecution that you didnt think you would win?
 
Where I live the SPCA or local Humane Societies deal with this sort of thing as per OPs post. I am also a holding station for horses who are lost, abandoned or seized. The horse comes to my farm. The SPCA or HS try to find the owner. If the owner comes forward they pay the bill (at cost only). If the owner does not come forward the SPCA takes ownership and will either leave with me to rehome or they can take it somewhere else if elsewhere is better suited for it or I don't want it on my land. I get paid for costs if this happens. If I am given authorization to sell the horse I get to keep the money. The horse sells as an adoption rather than a sale.

Perhaps something like this could be implemented in the UK?
 
Spring Feather said:
Where I live the SPCA or local Humane Societies deal with this sort of thing as per OPs post. I am also a holding station for horses who are lost, abandoned or seized. The horse comes to my farm. The SPCA or HS try to find the owner. If the owner comes forward they pay the bill (at cost only). If the owner does not come forward the SPCA takes ownership and will either leave with me to rehome or they can take it somewhere else if elsewhere is better suited for it or I don't want it on my land. I get paid for costs if this happens. If I am given authorization to sell the horse I get to keep the money. The horse sells as an adoption rather than a sale.

Perhaps something like this could be implemented in the UK?
Click to expand...

It should be yes....

but theoretically something like this happens but then the livery isnt paid and the horse is 'stolen' back or they dispute livery or the passport it needed for ownership/destroying/movement lots of loops holes etc etc

Its a complicated one, but I would agree the law on this needs changing
 
MillyMoomie said:
But i dont understand how that can be a bad thing? Why run someone through the court, waste money and time if there isnt the evidence or likelyhood to win? I'm sure thats running the risk of contempt of court or some such.

Why is everyone not more scandalised that obviously 98% of HUMANS BOUGHT COURT FOR CRUELTY TO ANIMALS IS FOUND GUILTY!!!! BY a judge!!!

Someone please explain how not taking a case to court that you will not win is bad thing? Would you bring forward a private prosecution that you didnt think you would win?
Click to expand...

It's normally not a judge it's a panel of magistrates not the same thing at all.
My view it's just plain wrong that animals have to depend on a charity with its own agenda to get justice it should be the duty of the state to do this .
And it is an issue with the RSPCAs campaigning it's simply not fair that an organisation with a campaigning role is decideing if the majority of animal welfare cases come to court .
 
Judges rarely rule on guilt or innocence, that is a panel, or even a jury. There is another possible cause for the RSPCA to get such a high 'conviction' rate, they have access to a lot of funds for prosecuting, unless the person they are prosecuting qualifies for legal aid, then the 'accused' will have to fund their defence, which is costly and tbh few people have access to the funds which they would require to mount an appropriate defence. IMO this is another reason why these should not be private prosecutions brought by a charity, but should be dealt with by the normal prosecution channels. People are often advised to plead guilty if they cannot afford to mount a defence against a private prosecution.
 
MillyMoomie said:
But i dont understand how that can be a bad thing? Why run someone through the court, waste money and time if there isnt the evidence or likelyhood to win? I'm sure thats running the risk of contempt of court or some such.
Click to expand...

But you still went ahead and prosecuted the Heythrop....
Now this is where for me at least it gets interesting.
NORMALLY as you say, the RSPCA only head up cases that they are certain of winning.
Yet they went ahead and prosecuted the Heythrop.
Why?
Because it was political is why. They had no idea if they could win the case, yet spent HUGE amounts of money in doing so.
It was high profile and the "anti brigade" would donate to their dwindling coffers, because the once generous public are now seeing them for what they are and as such they need a new fund raising method.
Hunting is emotive enough to do just that.
 
I agree for a nation of animal lovers we rely heavily on a charity, which appears overwelmed by the results of our somewhat bizarre treatment of the animals we are supposed to love.

The RSPCA are not an emergency service, yet people seem to expect they turn up after a phone call 24/7.

Now they are attacked for opposing blood sports, I'd have thought this on it's own is well within their remit. Of course the people they oppose here aren't tinkers or off a sink estate, so it's political. Absolute rubbish cruelty is cruelty no matter how you dress it up.
 
Pale rider, they were not set up as a charity to help oppose blood sports.
They were set up in 1837 by a group of men to help the working animals like pit ponies, and the pets of poor people. They were there to try and educate, help and assist animals in need and their owners.
They are far from those humble yet noble beginings now!
 
joeanne said:
Pale rider, they were not set up as a charity to help oppose blood sports.
They were set up in 1837 by a group of men to help the working animals like pit ponies, and the pets of poor people. They were there to try and educate, help and assist animals in need and their owners.
They are far from those humble yet noble beginings now!
Click to expand...

Could you tell us who you think should be prosecuted, why, and under what law?
 
One of the reason the public think the RSPCA are an emergency service is how they have marketed themselves so on that they are reaping as they have sowed .
On the prosecution thing well they are a lot less keen on spending a fortune seeking to prosecute the people openly allowing filming of cock fighting and hare hunting for a programme last week ( I think it was on channel four) so that does kind of make the point it's not right that a charity is making these choices .
 
Springy said:
It should be yes....

but theoretically something like this happens but then the livery isnt paid and the horse is 'stolen' back or they dispute livery or the passport it needed for ownership/destroying/movement lots of loops holes etc etc

Its a complicated one, but I would agree the law on this needs changing
Click to expand...

The way it runs here is the owner does not know where the horse is kept. I've never met an owner. So they have to pay the bill if they want the horse back therefore there's no recourse for the yard owner if the horse owner takes exception to any charges. There are lots of yards here who are in the system in my area so it's relatively easy to place the lost/abandoned horses quickly until their owner comes forward.
 
Goldenstar said:
One of the reason the public think the RSPCA are an emergency service is how they have marketed themselves so on that they are reaping as they have sowed .
On the prosecution thing well they are a lot less keen on spending a fortune seeking to prosecute the people openly allowing filming of cock fighting and hare hunting for a programme last week ( I think it was on channel four) so that does kind of make the point it's not right that a charity is making these choices .
Click to expand...

You are making an assumption of what went on aren't you? Do you actually know what went on?
 
I will answer that in the morning Moomin if I may.
I have horses to get up for and children to get to school and as much as I enjoy our little debates, its late!
 
Moomin1 said:
You are making an assumption of what went on aren't you? Do you actually know what went on?
Click to expand...

I know that cock fighting was shown on television and lurchers catching a hare my friend saw the programme channel four I am sure it was channel four will have plenty of footage .
But oh they where not 'posh ' people while this role is taken by a charity they will always be open to being accused of unfairness this simply should not be their job.
It's the job of the police and the CPS somewhere along the line we the public handed over this role to an organisation with an agenda of its own it's simply not right animals deserve the same protection from the state when laws are broken as cars banks and people.
It's about the law it's that simple.
 
Goldenstar said:
I know that cock fighting was shown on television and lurchers catching a hare my friend saw the programme channel four I am sure it was channel four will have plenty of footage .
But oh they where not 'posh ' people while this role is taken by a charity they will always be open to being accused of unfairness this simply should not be their job.
It's the job of the police and the CPS somewhere along the line we the public handed over this role to an organisation with an agenda of its own it's simply not right animals deserve the same protection from the state when laws are broken as cars banks and people.
It's about the law it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Yes it is Goldenstar, thank god you have agreed with that. That is why the Heythrop Hunt prosecution was IMO correct, it was about the law and it was that simple.

As an ex welfare officer, are you actually saying that prosecutions are only taken against 'posh' people?!! Or have I read that wrong?
 
Moomin1 said:
Yes it is Goldenstar, thank god you have agreed with that. That is why the Heythrop Hunt prosecution was IMO correct, it was about the law and it was that simple.
Click to expand...

It is about the law but I object to an organisation that is not the state therefore not subject to checks and controls of the state having this roll.
 
I can assume whatever I choose it kind of makes my point .
I am assuming the TV company did not fake the filming they showed .
I am not assuming that the RSPCA are not proceeding agaisnt them because they made a statement to that effect.
I can draw from that any conculsion I want that's my right.
And I object strongly that the police IMO are not doing their job in this area.
 
Goldenstar said:
I can assume whatever I choose it kind of makes my point .
I am assuming the TV company did not fake the filming they showed .
I am not assuming that the RSPCA are not proceeding agaisnt them because they made a statement to that effect.
I can draw from that any conculsion I want that's my right.
And I object strongly that the police IMO are not doing their job in this area.
Click to expand...

You slightly missed my point, but never mind. I was trying to ask whether you knew exactly what investigations had gone on and what admissable evidence there may have been from that investigation. I don't know, I didn't see it.
 
No of course not and I don't care that's my point people will judge the RSPCA because they are in the position they are in and because of the direction they are taking more and more won't give them a penny or help them .
I would not help if they turned up at my door now and I worked closely with them at one point.
I have heard the same sorts of story from too many people and yes read too many stories in the paper I no longer would help or support them .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top