RSPCA SHAME ON YOU

Just come back in as I thought I had better check the drinkers in the bottom barn where ok put buckets in just in case welfare starts at home you know off to bed night night folks good debate .
I hope the Shetland at the beginning of the thread has a safe landing either back with a nice family from who he's done a runner or finds someone nice to care for him he's lucky OPs friend went by .
 
Stray horses are not the responsibility of the RSPCA. The police and the local council are. Some councils already operate schemes to seize and impound fly grazers and straying horses.
Owners are charged for costs, including vet treatment and care to get the horses back. Otherwise they become the property of the council.

The RSPCA and WHW do use private yards and volunteer approved yards to take in and rehab rescued horses already,as the sanctuaries cannot cope with the demand.


The RSPCA is a charity. Don't expect them to have a local team of patrolling stray horse catchers awaiting your call. It is not a publicly funded emergency service.

Just imagine of the fire brigade was entirely funded by public donations, would you still expect response to a 999 call within minutes by a highly trained crew ?

Get your facts straight before declaring shame on the RSPCA. OP, your thread should correctly have read,' Shame on my local council.'
 
True or not the facts given are that the OP and Friend are the only ones to help the poor pony. As to who should have it is irrelevant who is legally responsible it is moral responsibility that counts and the only ones to step up were the op and friend. Morally the RSPCA should have at least tried to help that is what they are given donations for to prevent cruelty and injury to animals seems to me and should get back to grass roots they have lost their way. I used to donate regularly but never again until they prove to me they are back to helping animals on a day to day basis
They dont help dogs they dont help cats they dont help horses they dont help farm animals so exactly what do they do Oh yes they pick soft targets of well cared for animals to poke around at and prosecute politically expedient groups and individuals
Not what I paid a lot of money for I am sure and the expensive ads they run are lies and misrepresentation.
TV in favour programmes are over dramatized and those against are pilloried. Having seen two versions of the same rescue I would have to say the WHW acted calmly and sensibly and the RSPCA version was like a war zone with could have broken his neck and could have killed the other pony I will add neither disaster happened the WHW just calmly sorted the situation
 
Last edited:
Er......an I the only one who's noticed that Moomin left the thread when it started to get a bit uncomfortable......but then 'MillyMoomie' very kindly joined and picked up where she left off.....and then she left the thread and now Moomin's back...?


Just me!?
 
Patterdale said:
Er......an I the only one who's noticed that Moomin left the thread when it started to get a bit uncomfortable......but then 'MillyMoomie' very kindly joined and picked up where she left off.....and then she left the thread and now Moomin's back...?


Just me!?
Click to expand...

Sorry to throw cold water on the conspiracy theory folks. Moomin and I are not the same person. The reason i left the forum was quite simply, i went to bed.

I think thats quite clear in our writing styles and that actually our user names ARE DIFFERENT. Moomin does not seem to have trouble getting her opinion across and nor do I so why on earth would someone create two usernames? All sounds dreadfully suspicious and complicated to me but then I am new.

laughable
 
Regarding the op, as I said earlier they nor e know what exactly was said to the RSPCA call centre. IF the pony was tethered tight enough to restrict it being able to move and IF that was portrayed clearly to the call centre then I believe it does and should fall into the remit of the RSPCA. But if it was the case and was made clear, was the response, call the police or was it, we don't have anyone available to attend please call the police, baring in mind that this was last night, after which time all other charities have shut for the day, so you wouldn't have had any different response from bhs or whw, there instead of a person saying they can't attend, it would have been an answer phone message, which in quite Likelihood would have referred you to the RSPCA in emergency out off hours!!! If however the pony was loose then it is not something the RSPCA or any charity should be left with the responsibility of.

You cannot expect a response time from a charity to be the same as that of a government service. Read one of the links and see how many inspectors they have.
 
Last edited:
YorksG said:
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.
Click to expand...

I find your reply somehat startling. 'Judges rarely rely on guilt or innocence'?? Have you forgotten the burden of proof in this country the innocent until proven guilty, the fact that any prosecutor apart from the most serious of crimes such as murder as to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the offense was committed.

Legal aid is far reaching and if the burden of proof was not beyond all reasonable doubt the defendant would be awarded costs.

Our courts have public gallerys i suggest you possible go and watch a few.
 
YorksG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Animal welfare act offences are summary only offences, therefore heard in magistrates court, therefore heard by a district judge or a panel of magistrates.

And if you believe that so many innocent plead guilty because of cost of defending themselves, I with all due respect, will politely disagree with this statement. If your legal advisor told you to plead guilty, it's highly likely because there is overwhelming evidence against you, and by pleading guilty you make yourself look better to the court and therefore in turn are more likely to get a lesser sentence.
 
Last edited:
I am reluctant to deal with stray horses, we had a loose horse galloping over the land I rent, so I caught it and put it safely in a spare field as it was heading towards a main road and there were people on the footpath it was galloping along. Turned out it was a stallion.

I phoned the police who weren't interested as it was safe and no longer a hazard, but they did take a report and description.

To cut a long story short I ended up stuck with it for over a week and had the hassle of the owner (who had only just realised it was missing a week later!) turning up and having to provide the passport etc. Once you've got hold of the leadrope then the animal becomes your responsibility and it can be a nightmare getting it sorted.

I also ended up chest deep in a river with a stuck horse which had been there for 24 hours, rspca wouldn't come out, although the fire brigade would. When we eventually got it out of the river the rspca inspector still wouldn't attend as he wasn't prepared to risk himself leading a stray horse. :rolleyes:

Would definitely use the whw/bhs for horse related issues.
 
Patterdale said:
Hmmmm

Sorry, not convinced. A new user who immediately jumps in only on existing arguments where Moomin is lacking people backing her up?

Ill venture to think as I did before, I think.
Click to expand...

I have no interest to convince you. Merely stating that alas i am my own person. Actually if you look at my posts you will see i'm rarely enforcing an opinion. I am correcting misleading mistakes with factual evidence. How welcoming you are to a new user who merely wants to bring some much needed perspective, i dont need anyone to back me up like you seem to think people do.
Rememeber we all know nothing about each other, i think you would be surprised.
 
competitiondiva said:
Animal welfare act offences are summary only offences, therefore heard in magistrates court, therefore heard by a district judge or a panel of magistrates.

And if you believe that so many innocent plead guilty because of cost of defending themselves, I with all due respect, will politely disagree with this statement. If your legal advisor told you to plead guilty, it's highly likely because there is overwhelming evidence against you, and by pleading guilty you make yourself look better to the court and therefore in turn are more likely to get a lesser sentence.
Click to expand...

Well written. Actual facts.
 
Patterdale said:
Hmmmm

Sorry, not convinced. A new user who immediately jumps in only on existing arguments where Moomin is lacking people backing her up?

Ill venture to think as I did before, I think.
Click to expand...

Patterdale i think you are the same person as .......Joanne? You seem to share the same views and she isnt on here at the moment? No? You mean to say its possible for different people to have similar views on a public forum?

Sorry Patterdale that was rude of me. I apologise, i do not wish to be rude to people on her or fight. I just couldnt resist stating how stupid it is.
 
competitiondiva said:
Animal welfare act offences are summary only offences, therefore heard in magistrates court, therefore heard by a district judge or a panel of magistrates.

And if you believe that so many innocent plead guilty because of cost of defending themselves, I with all due respect, will politely disagree with this statement. If your legal advisor told you to plead guilty, it's highly likely because there is overwhelming evidence against you, and by pleading guilty you make yourself look better to the court and therefore in turn are more likely to get a lesser sentence.
Click to expand...

the estimated costs for the defendants could have run well over £100,000. The defendants were a huntsman and a farmer, if they had LOST, they would have been liable and does anyone actually know where the line for legal aid is drawn? I keep seeing posts saying that legal aid can be applied, but what exactly are the requirements? clearly these 2 did not meet those or logically they would have taken advantage of it. Would you want to take that risk? I certainly wouldn't.

End of the day, whatever your feelings are about the RSPCA (I will put my hands up, my personal experience with staffords has not been good), they need to be open and accountable. Facts creep out to a variety of press, not just the Daily Mail and whoever handles their PR quite frankly deserves to be fired, pronto. On this forum, we have been told there is a separate fund for prosecutions, approved by the board, funded by private subscribers. WHAT?!!! The media reports that a busy branch will need to close down due to lack of funding and then find out that the branches are effectively autonomous. There has been no clear breakdown of where funds go (fair enough, I have only used google), we have been told they are cutting down on rescue animals/dogs (variety of stories, so will not quote any as the facts seem to vary). Now we hear they are being hauled up to defend their actions over prosecuting the Heythrop. Of course I agree we have to obey the law, and I say this as someone who does support hunting, but this entire story has ended up with a rather David and Goliath sort of situation and actually, the "guilt" and reality of the said defendants seems to be in question now. Their top guy is not helping their case either, he comes across poorly, almost ranting and far too focused on hunting and not on helping animal welfare. The original aim of the RSPCA was clear and well understood. Maybe they are being spread too thinly, maybe there is too much reliance on them but with clearer statements, a real return to helping animal welfare and an open book policy on where their money goes then public confidence would return.
 
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...

Of course it has its own agenda! What charity doesn't!

RSPCA also take Public interest into account if you can be bothered to read their published documents om their animal welfare prosecutions. They follow the CPS Code and take prosecutions based on 1) Evidential test 2) Public interest test.

I do not work for the RSPCA nor am I an active contributor but I do like to base my opinions on facts. I work for a Government Regulator and we would approach it in pretty much the same way. We certainly wouldn't take a prosecution unless the above were satisfied.

Do you honestly expect the Police and the CPS to prioritise animal welfare crimes when funding across all Government and Public Sector is being cut so heavily they have to concentrate on things like violent crimes against people?
 
sussexbythesea said:
Of course it has its own agenda! What charity doesn't!

RSPCA also take Public interest into account if you can be bothered to read their published documents om their animal welfare prosecutions. They follow the CPS Code and take prosecutions based on 1) Evidential test 2) Public interest test.

I do not work for the RSPCA nor am I an active contributor but I do like to base my opinions on facts. I work for a Government Regulator and we would approach it in pretty much the same way. We certainly wouldn't take a prosecution unless the above were satisfied.

Do you honestly expect the Police and the CPS to prioritise animal welfare crimes when funding across all Government and Public Sector is being cut so heavily they have to concentrate on things like violent crimes against people?
Click to expand...

I expect the police and CPS to uphold the law .
So yes I do .
The RSPCA take the cases they choose to and I for expect the police and the cps to do what the public pay them for up hold the law not hive it off to a charity with its own agenda .
We don't expect road traffic safety charities to prosecute speeding drivers do we it's no different or the NSPCC to prosecute child abusers .
 
MillyMoomie said:
I find your reply somehat startling. 'Judges rarely rely on guilt or innocence'?? Have you forgotten the burden of proof in this country the innocent until proven guilty, the fact that any prosecutor apart from the most serious of crimes such as murder as to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the offense was committed.

Legal aid is far reaching and if the burden of proof was not beyond all reasonable doubt the defendant would be awarded costs.

Our courts have public gallerys i suggest you possible go and watch a few.
Click to expand...

What is the rubbish about judges 'relying' on guilt or innocence, and the fact that they rarely rule was in response to someone saying it is up to the judge to decide, please read the context. Legal aid is not far reaching, ask the huntsman for the Haythrop. The prosecution has to proove beyond reasonable doubt in all public prosecutions for criminal cases, I suggest that you watch a few cases from the gallery as well, or even try working within the legal system a bit :)
 
Luci07 said:
the estimated costs for the defendants could have run well over £100,000. The defendants were a huntsman and a farmer, if they had LOST, they would have been liable and does anyone actually know where the line for legal aid is drawn? I keep seeing posts saying that legal aid can be applied, but what exactly are the requirements? clearly these 2 did not meet those or logically they would have taken advantage of it. Would you want to take that risk? I certainly wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify are you really saying you believe the heythrope hunt were NOT hunting illegally? despite all the video footage? Really???
 
Oakleyalbert said:
21 pages later and nothing has changed, those who believe fully in the RSPCA will not change their ways or listen to those who dislike the RSPCA vice versa.

Where is my award for reading all of this :D
Click to expand...

Crikey, I think we all need an award. I'd like to award the thread the title of Biggest Drivel Written by Antagonists Who Consistently Base their Argument on Prejudice.

But heck, why let facts spoil a good rant ?
 
harveysmom said:
I got a call tonight from two of my friends from the yard, they had found a shetland pony tied to a lampost by the neck using a car seatbelt. The RSPCA would not attend they obviously thought leaving the pony there was ok. The police were nearly as bad, at least they showed up but then handed responsiblity for the pony over to my friends and then left
I think the word PREVENTION should be dropped from the RSPCA name would he have to starve to death before they did anything
Click to expand...

What recommendation did the RSPCA make in dealing with this issue??
 
Moomin1 said:
Could you tell us who you think should be prosecuted, why, and under what law?
Click to expand...

Ok......this is how i think it SHOULD be....(I know its not, but imo it ought to be)
The RSPCA get called out. There is a case. Police should be called, animal(s) seized, and the police should then charge and offer the case to the CPS for consideration.

The RSPCA should not be bringing prosecution at all.....it should fall to the police to do so.
Cruelty IS a CRIMINAL offense punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison and fines of upto £20,000.
The only time an RSPCA inspector should ever be seen in a court room is to testify.
As to who should be prosecuted? In an ideal world anyone who willfully neglects an animal.
In a less than ideal world? Anyone the CPS thinks can be brought to justice in a court of law.
But the RSPCA has no business in bringing private prosecutions on "moral" or "polictical" grounds, and as they have, I am not of the belief they should be bringing private prosecutions at all anymore.
 
joeanne said:
Ok......this is how i think it SHOULD be....(I know its not, but imo it ought to be)
The RSPCA get called out. There is a case. Police should be called, animal(s) seized, and the police should then charge and offer the case to the CPS for consideration.

The RSPCA should not be bringing prosecution at all.....it should fall to the police to do so.
Cruelty IS a CRIMINAL offense punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison and fines of upto £20,000.
The only time an RSPCA inspector should ever be seen in a court room is to testify.
As to who should be prosecuted? In an ideal world anyone who willfully neglects an animal.
In a less than ideal world? Anyone the CPS thinks can be brought to justice in a court of law.
But the RSPCA has no business in bringing private prosecutions on "moral" or "polictical" grounds, and as they have, I am not of the belief they should be bringing private prosecutions at all anymore.
Click to expand...

I think you are my long lost twin.!!!!
 
harveysmom said:
I dont see your point my friends and i were dealing with this one shetland pony why on earth would i want to raise money for an organisation who would no attend this pony
This pony needed help at that moment in time what would you of had us do all take turns in standing with the pony until it died that may take a bit of time it is in good health, i would like to think the equestrian community could pull together in these situations you never know next time it might be your horse, you would then probably complain that everyone walked by and did nothing
i would prefer to find out that someone had been kind to my horse and cared for it
perhaps you would like to hold a coffee morning to help towards my diesel for collecting him and my friends hay and straw that he is now enjoying
his owner maybe found yet until then he is safe
Click to expand...

I dont see your point either. If I found a horse with a seatbelt round its neck my first instinct would be to remove it and make the horse safe and if that involved putting it in a field then I would. As to fund raising as usual you expect someone else as does everyone knocking charities to do the dirty work for them. Unfortunately as you have found some people are not decent human beings to animals and if you read the link that I had attached it was from a horse charity advising on what the procedure is and unfortunately the police will not always come with a blue light to rescue a horse tied up. They have murders, rapes, firearms, drugs, terrorists, burglary, speeding etc animals unless they are causing havoc on a highway do not have the time or resources to deal with this kind of issue. So read the link. You have over reacted this particular time. Yes you found a horse, Yes you collected it and have to provide some hay and diesel and now find an owner(if one exists). Good luck that will be your charitable contribution for 2013. God will bless you one day.
Why should someone else dig deep. Well done.
 
competitiondiva said:
Just to clarify are you really saying you believe the heythrope hunt were NOT hunting illegally? despite all the video footage? Really???
Click to expand...

I was saying that whatever your thoughts and whatever side you support, the original purpose of the trial has been completely lost in this whole David and Goliath story. And actually, yes, doubt is now raised at the outcome as it is being argued that the defendants could not afford to defend themselves, hence pleading guilty. I actually don't know if they were guilty or not, but this seems to have been lost in the entire debate thereafter. Obviously all have to accept the legal verdict, but from a detached perspective (while I support hunting, I neither know or have any ties with this hunt) the morality is now called into question.

and on a slightly different note, I had a call from a friend last year on a Friday evening who had seen a loose coloured horse on a road very close to the M25, I was called as they were non horsey. Well I enlisted friends and we were digging up livery details and not one of the yards was remotely interested as it was definitely not one of theirs. Well it wasn't one of ours either as we were some 8 miles away and we didn't have the advantage of knowing the layout or where we could put said horse IF we found it. Police knew what we were doing, they left us to get on with it. Ended up with a group of us trekking over Headley near Midnight, found said cob very easily (very nice chap and obviously well cared for) and a bizarre walk trying to find a field that was not padlocked. Once we did, then we had to check the field for other animals, security and water as best we could.

Turned it it HAD escaped from a field in one of the yards contacted. But I did learn a rather bitter lesson that actually, people are not interested in helping. We didn't however, turn our back, we kept going till it was sorted but actually never thought of involving the RSPCA..
 
Last edited:
YorksG said:
What is the rubbish about judges 'relying' on guilt or innocence, and the fact that they rarely rule was in response to someone saying it is up to the judge to decide, please read the context. Legal aid is not far reaching, ask the huntsman for the Haythrop. The prosecution has to proove beyond reasonable doubt in all public prosecutions for criminal cases, I suggest that you watch a few cases from the gallery as well, or even try working within the legal system a bit :)
Click to expand...

I do work within the legal system and i have no idea what your trying to say or even what point your trying to argue with?

Please read the link which clarifies what exactly happens in a magistrates court, with a summary offense (Animal Welfare Act) bought by a prosecutor, in this context private- RSPCA.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/magistrates-court
 
MillyMoomie said:
I do work within the legal system and i have no idea what your trying to say or even what point your trying to argue with?

Please read the link which clarifies what exactly happens in a magistrates court, with a summary offense (Animal Welfare Act) bought by a prosecutor, in this context private- RSPCA.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/magistrates-court
Click to expand...

I suggest you read your own posts, and maybe proof read before posting, it may help to reduce your confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top