RSPCA shoots 11 HEALTHY horses but claimed keep fees for months

[be positive]

I think we are only talking about khoomi with regards to being on loan.

Her owners did post a comment on the DM site but I suspect they will need to keep quiet for now if they are going to take action against everyone involved, which I sincerely hope they do, if they start kicking up too much fuss it may affect their chances of court action being taken seriously.

 

[madlady]

I'm another who is glad that there has been a follow up article in the mail. This needs to be kept in the public domain as much as possible.

The other point to note on all of this is that the RSPCA have stated that all the documents showed the horses registered to the Peels - this implies that they had the passports. Why then have they not followed passport regulations and informed the PIO (and indeed returned the passports as should be done) that the horses are deceased? AFAIK this still hasn't been done.

I did actually receive a reply to my 'questions' to the RSPCA which, as you can all imagine, didn't actually answer any of the questions but funnily enough brought up points that I hadn't mentioned. Funny that!

I'll put up what they sent to me later.

 

[Sadika]

It is an offence not to return passports to PIO within 30 days ... so where are they 2 1/2 or so years later????

 

[madlady]

It is an offence not to return passports to PIO within 30 days ... so where are they 2 1/2 or so years later????

Quite! I can understand them needing to keep the physical passports for the court case but they hadn't even informed the PIO that the horses had been destroyed. Also it doesn't stack up with the RSPCA only knowing the stable names. They have told me, in writing, that the paperwork that they had showed all the horses as belonging to the Peels - I'm assuming that is registration certificates and passports. If they had that documentation then why haven't they told the PIO that the horses were destroyed and why can they only give a list of stable names if they have the paperwork?

 

[DD]

Quite! I can understand them needing to keep the physical passports for the court case but they hadn't even informed the PIO that the horses had been destroyed. Also it doesn't stack up with the RSPCA only knowing the stable names. They have told me, in writing, that the paperwork that they had showed all the horses as belonging to the Peels - I'm assuming that is registration certificates and passports. If they had that documentation then why haven't they told the PIO that the horses were destroyed and why can they only give a list of stable names if they have the paperwork?

very good point

 

[Alec Swan]

Quite! I can understand them needing to keep the physical passports for the court case but they hadn't even informed the PIO that the horses had been destroyed. Also it doesn't stack up with the RSPCA only knowing the stable names. They have told me, in writing, that the paperwork that they had showed all the horses as belonging to the Peels - I'm assuming that is registration certificates and passports. If they had that documentation then why haven't they told the PIO that the horses were destroyed and why can they only give a list of stable names if they have the paperwork?

More to the point I'd suggest; Has the rspca ever produced the evidence of ownership by the Peels and to any who are in a position to validate their claim? Have we all simply assumed that the claims which the rspca have made are factual, and so, truthful? The Courts and apparently, parties who have entitlement, have been lied too, haven't they?

Alec.

 

[madlady]

Just thought I'd share this.

It's the 'complaint' I sent to the RSPCA last week (after being warned on their FB page) together with the response I received from them.

What I sent

I am writing in regard to the recent reports that you (RSPCA) shot 11 horses in the Peel case.

I have some concerns about this and I have some questions which I am hoping someone can answer.

Firstly why were they shot? The statement on the main website says that they were shot because it would have been impossible to re-home them - I do not believe that to be the case as there is evidence to show that the AHS could have re-homed all of those horses within days and that they indeed contacted you to that effect. So again, why were those horses shot?

Also, again on your main website, it states that you work closely with other societies and breeders to do everything possible to re-home animals and trace owners and breeders. Every single one of those horses had an AHS passport yet the AHS state (on their website) that you refused contact with them and the only updates they have had were to say that the horses had been rehomed. Why was this lie told and why does your website give such misleading information.

I have to say I am beyond appalled at what has happened. I have long since thought that the RSPCA should no longer be involved in any case involving equines as your officers just do not have the requisite experience - this case seems to support this even more. What will be done to bring training up to speed to ensure that this travesty is never repeated.

I wait your comments.

The response from the RSPCA

Dear Tracey



Thank you for your enquiry about the horses in the Peel case. You raise two issues on this matter.



Firstly our contacts with the Arab Horse Society. The RSPCA has never refused to have have contact with the AHS but we do need to have closer cooperation and yesterday we had a positive and constructive meeting with the Society. As part of this we have agreed to establish firm points of contact in each organisation for us to liaise on issues such as rehoming and investigations. The RSPCA does not get many Arab horses in its care but where we do we agree it is best to work closely with the AHS on rehoming them so that we get the best outcome we can for the horses in our care, which is after all always our underlying aim.



Secondly on ownership of the horses. The horses signed over to us were all legally owned by the defendant. We have not been contacted at any time by anyone claiming ownership of them, or by anyone claiming that their horse was 'on loan' to the defendant. Additionally, of the passports we have, none have other people named as the owners. Many of these horses had veterinary, health and behavioural issues and so were euthanised under veterinary advice. Two of the 14 horses were assessed and found to be suitable for rehoming, and were found loving new homes by the RSPCA.



The other horses were assessed by our equine rehoming experts in the days after being signed over to us and were considered unsuitable for rehoming. Putting an animal to sleep is never taken lightly, but where these difficult decisions must be made it is better for the animal’s welfare if they are made quickly.

We had hundreds of horses in our care at the time, which had been assessed as suitable for rehoming, which we were struggling to find homes for.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Kind regards
RSPCA Advice Team

 

[madlady]

Funny how they have mentioned loan horses in their reply but I didn't mention it in my contact to them.

ETA - AHS passports (to my knowledge) do not hold any owner details, the owner details are on the ownership papers which are separate to (but should be kept with) the passport. Is it just me that see's the implication in the above response that the RSPCA don't even know what paperwork they have!

 

[Archangel]

Someone has posted some notes made by a person present during the hearing over on Arabianlines.
Very distressing reading.
http://www.arabianlines.com/forum1/topic_new.asp?TOPIC_ID=55606&whichpage=15

I know it won't bring them back but those unknown horses who were just left to rot where they fell deserve some justice.

What makes it even worse, if that were possible, is that horses like Harley were kept up together so he could go out an parade and all around him the others were starving, neglected and dead.

 

[madlady]

Several people have said that they would like to see a different organisation taking over monitoring horse welfare. What say you to this from Remus?

http://www.remussanctuary.org/page/welfare-watch



Surely this could grow and bring in more of the specialist horse rescues? All it needs is support and volunteers.

I personally feel that the BHS should be the logical choice. They are already the UK's biggest equine charity, already have very strong links to the 'horsey' community at a national level and already have (on the most part) knowledgeable welfare officers regionally.

For me it would not be a massive change for the BHS to appoint more welfare officers (and make them full time positions) if some of the funding currently going to the RSPCA went to them instead. They (IMO) would do far more with it.

 

[Equi]

Just thought I'd share this.

It's the 'complaint' I sent to the RSPCA last week (after being warned on their FB page) together with the response I received from them.

What I sent

I am writing in regard to the recent reports that you (RSPCA) shot 11 horses in the Peel case.

I have some concerns about this and I have some questions which I am hoping someone can answer.

Firstly why were they shot? The statement on the main website says that they were shot because it would have been impossible to re-home them - I do not believe that to be the case as there is evidence to show that the AHS could have re-homed all of those horses within days and that they indeed contacted you to that effect. So again, why were those horses shot?

Also, again on your main website, it states that you work closely with other societies and breeders to do everything possible to re-home animals and trace owners and breeders. Every single one of those horses had an AHS passport yet the AHS state (on their website) that you refused contact with them and the only updates they have had were to say that the horses had been rehomed. Why was this lie told and why does your website give such misleading information.

I have to say I am beyond appalled at what has happened. I have long since thought that the RSPCA should no longer be involved in any case involving equines as your officers just do not have the requisite experience - this case seems to support this even more. What will be done to bring training up to speed to ensure that this travesty is never repeated.

I wait your comments.

The response from the RSPCA

Dear Tracey



Thank you for your enquiry about the horses in the Peel case. You raise two issues on this matter.



Firstly our contacts with the Arab Horse Society. The RSPCA has never refused to have have contact with the AHS but we do need to have closer cooperation and yesterday we had a positive and constructive meeting with the Society. As part of this we have agreed to establish firm points of contact in each organisation for us to liaise on issues such as rehoming and investigations. The RSPCA does not get many Arab horses in its care but where we do we agree it is best to work closely with the AHS on rehoming them so that we get the best outcome we can for the horses in our care, which is after all always our underlying aim.



Secondly on ownership of the horses. The horses signed over to us were all legally owned by the defendant. We have not been contacted at any time by anyone claiming ownership of them, or by anyone claiming that their horse was 'on loan' to the defendant. Additionally, of the passports we have, none have other people named as the owners. Many of these horses had veterinary, health and behavioural issues and so were euthanised under veterinary advice. Two of the 14 horses were assessed and found to be suitable for rehoming, and were found loving new homes by the RSPCA.



The other horses were assessed by our equine rehoming experts in the days after being signed over to us and were considered unsuitable for rehoming. Putting an animal to sleep is never taken lightly, but where these difficult decisions must be made it is better for the animal’s welfare if they are made quickly.

We had hundreds of horses in our care at the time, which had been assessed as suitable for rehoming, which we were struggling to find homes for.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Kind regards
RSPCA Advice Team

So they are still lying through their teeth.

 

[Alec Swan]

Just thought I'd share this.

……..

…….. . Every single one of those horses had an AHS passport yet the AHS state (on their website) that you refused contact with them and the only updates they have had were to say that the horses had been rehomed. Why was this lie told and why does your website give such misleading information.

……..

The response from the RSPCA

Dear Tracey

……..

…….. The RSPCA has never refused to have have contact with the AHS but we do need to have closer cooperation and yesterday we had a positive and constructive meeting with the Society. As part of this we have agreed to establish firm points of contact in each organisation for us to liaise on issues such as rehoming and investigations.

……..

Kind regards
RSPCA Advice Team

Someone isn't being that truthful, and yet again, I know where my money lies! So whilst the rspca denies ignoring the advances of the AHS, they now accept that 'we do need to have closer cooperation', which would imply that they either did in fact have advances made which they ignored, or that they see the previous lack of communication as being the responsibility of both parties.

For how much longer will others tolerate the arrogance and what appears to be the duplicity of the rspca?

Alec.

 

[Fenris]

I personally feel that the BHS should be the logical choice. They are already the UK's biggest equine charity, already have very strong links to the 'horsey' community at a national level and already have (on the most part) knowledgeable welfare officers regionally.

For me it would not be a massive change for the BHS to appoint more welfare officers (and make them full time positions) if some of the funding currently going to the RSPCA went to them instead. They (IMO) would do far more with it.

Logical choice in terms of resources yes, but what about the will to act or take this on?

 

[Alec Swan]

I personally feel that the BHS should be the logical choice. They are already the UK's biggest equine charity, already have very strong links to the 'horsey' community at a national level and already have (on the most part) knowledgeable welfare officers regionally.

For me it would not be a massive change for the BHS to appoint more welfare officers (and make them full time positions) if some of the funding currently going to the RSPCA went to them instead. They (IMO) would do far more with it.

No charity should be granted the right to prosecution. The roll of all charities is to provide the relevant and ethical bodies with the necessary evidence and there's a world of difference between the two and at times, conflicting rolls.

Alec.

 

[madlady]

Logical choice in terms of resources yes, but what about the will to act or take this on?

I've only ever had dealings with my local BHS officers who I've always found to be really helpful. I know our local BHS welfare officer quite well (used to be on a livery yard with her many many years ago) and she would certainly jump at the chance to do more (and have the equine part taken away from the RSPCA as she has had nothing but arguments with them) do you have different experiences of them?

I certainly feel that, if they were given UK equine welfare as a 'responsibility' for them (obviously with a higher profile to attract more donations) that they should be able to do a good job and the indications are all there that they would take it on.

 

[Fenris]

No charity should be granted the right to prosecution. The roll of all charities is to provide the relevant and ethical bodies with the necessary evidence and there's a world of difference between the two and at times, conflicting rolls.

Alec.

Remus were not talking about prosecuting. Here are their aims:

Objectives of Remus Welfare Watch

The aim of the groups will be to:

Monitor a local situation or area we have identified where equines are potentially in crisis
To help put pressure on local authorities and/or landowners as appropriate and raise awareness to the public in order to resolve the situation
Organise and deliver food, water, rugs etc where required

http://www.remussanctuary.org/page/welfare-watch

In other words, the first thing to do is try and help. If that doesn't work then the correct authorities have been notified.

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

In other words, the first thing to do is try and help. …….. .

That should ALWAYS and WITHOUT FAIL be the opening approach of all those who feel that their timely assistance, intervention or even interference is necessary.

Alec.

 

[madlady]

I agree wholeheartedly with a lot of what Remus are proposing but, IMO, it needs to be a national organisation rather than a regional/local one.

We must remember that a lot of the calls that the RSPCA get regarding horses are from members of the public who phone them because they are known. If another national organisation were to 'take over' as it were then it would be much easier to get that message across than moving to lots of regional organisations which could just become confusing.

BHS welfare officers currently work on a basis of education where they can - working with owners to improve conditions and welfare rather than rushing in and seizing - they only involve Police for removal if all else has failed.

Whatever happens though I think that some organisation does need to 'take over' with regard to equine welfare in the UK. The RSPCA just are not up to the job.

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

Remus were not talking about prosecuting. Here are their aims:

Objectives of Remus Welfare Watch

The aim of the groups will be to:

Monitor a local situation or area we have identified where equines are potentially in crisis
To help put pressure on local authorities and/or landowners as appropriate and raise awareness to the public in order to resolve the situation
Organise and deliver food, water, rugs etc where required

http://www.remussanctuary.org/page/welfare-watch

In other words, the first thing to do is try and help. If that doesn't work then the correct authorities have been notified.

Fenris, that is exactly what the BHS welfare dept does already in 4 stages: Visit, Monitor, Advice, Report.
These 4 points above can be moved in any order, to suits the needs of the case.

A Welfare officer has as much 'clout' (for wont of a better word) as an RSPCA officer, however, a BHS officer cannot confiscate as the BHS has no longer got premises of its own. Thats when other welfare groups are of assistance round the country.

 

[ester]

Dear Tracey



Thank you for your enquiry about the horses in the Peel case. You raise two issues on this matter.



Firstly our contacts with the Arab Horse Society. The RSPCA has never refused to have have contact with the AHS but we do need to have closer cooperation and yesterday we had a positive and constructive meeting with the Society.
too late to have a meeting now, if they didn't refuse why didn't they contact them, if nothing more but to send the passports back
As part of this we have agreed to establish firm points of contact in each organisation for us to liaise on issues such as rehoming and investigations. The RSPCA does not get many Arab horses in its care but where we do we agree it is best to work closely with the AHS on rehoming them so that we get the best outcome we can for the horses in our care, which is after all always our underlying aim.
The AHS have welfare officer, surely this would be the obvious contact??


Secondly on ownership of the horses. The horses signed over to us were all legally owned by the defendant. We have not been contacted at any time by anyone claiming ownership of them, or by anyone claiming that their horse was 'on loan' to the defendant.
If this is the case is that because nobody knew where these horses were/who had them happa/rspca/rehomed etc?
Additionally, of the passports we have so they did have some passports and did not return to the POI?, none have other people named as the owners. Many of these horses had veterinary, health and behavioural issues and so were euthanised under veterinary advice. Two of the 14 horses were assessed and found to be suitable for rehoming, and were found loving new homes by the RSPCA. Two! Also given that on the basis of veterinary advice they did not do anything about carrot and spud I don't always rate their veterinary advice

The other horses were assessed by our equine rehoming experts sorry who!? in the days after being signed over to us and were considered unsuitable for rehoming. Putting an animal to sleep is never taken lightly, but where these difficult decisions must be made it is better for the animal’s welfare if they are made quickly. Only if there is an acute need

We had hundreds of horses in our care at the time, which had been assessed as suitable for rehoming, which we were struggling to find homes for.
Well yes, and we know what sort of horse most of them are, unbroken youngsters or 'broken' field companions.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Kind regards
RSPCA Advice Team

hmph.

 

[Fenris]

Finally!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34314004

RSPCA prosecution powers 'to be examined by MPs'
By Jim Reed
Reporter, Victoria Derbyshire programme

A group of MPs is planning to launch a formal inquiry into the powers of the RSPCA and other animal charities, the BBC has learned.
It will examine whether the RSPCA should be allowed to both investigate and prosecute cases of animal cruelty.
Neil Parish, chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, said it was important the "right cases" were taken to court.
The RSPCA says the private prosecutions it brings saves government £50m a year.
In 2014, the charity brought charges relating to animal cruelty against 1,132 people in England and Wales. It is the second biggest prosecutor in the UK, behind the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Its prosecution case managers, responsible for bringing charges, are not solicitors or barristers.

[...]

 

[ester]

I signed into post the same having had it sent to me by magistrate mate.

 

[be positive]

This is a step in the right direction, they have been abusing their power of prosecution for far too long and while it may save £50m a year it is not always prosecuting the right cases or ones that are really in the public interests, they tend to target either big cases that will make headlines or the vulnerable who do not know their rights and are easy targets.

They may be learning from their mistakes but seemingly not fast enough as they have been targeting the vulnerable for many years, this quote is taken from the link, Regarding the RSPCA's treatment of the vulnerable, Mr Bowles said that while the charity "isn't perfect", it was learning from mistakes.

 

[Alec Swan]

The claim that the rspca 'saves' the CPS £50 million a year is complete bunkum. The correct prosecuting authorities wouldn't be swayed by political agenda and wouldn't go ahead with cases which were clearly without foundation, or were so weak that there was no hope of success. The rspca also and already claim most of the costs of failure from the Courts anyway, so the costs to this country are such that we already support the rspca in its often careless approach. It's all 'spin' supported by mistruths.

The rspca, previously, were an advisory body and one which presented evidence when it was requested. They should be returned to that roll.

Considering their shameful and clearly dishonest approach to their current powers, then the support of Royal patronage should be withdrawn.

Alec.

 

[madlady]

Finally - some progress. Lets hope the ball is kept rolling.

 

[Alec Swan]

…….. , Mr Bowles said that while the charity "isn't perfect", it was learning from mistakes.

Had Mr. Bowles accepted that the rspca had all along been very well aware that it had been abusing its powers, and that with a change of senior management so these short comings would be addressed, then we may have a little respect for them, but to now claim that they've made 'mistakes' in the face of continual and constrictive criticism, is laughable.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

Finally!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34314004

RSPCA prosecution powers 'to be examined by MPs'
By Jim Reed
Reporter, Victoria Derbyshire programme

……..
It will examine whether the RSPCA should be allowed to both investigate and prosecute cases of animal cruelty.
……..

[...]

The CPS, correctly, rely upon the investigative powers of the Police who answer to the Courts AND the CPS for any evidence offered which is found to be perjury. To have the powers of investigation and prosecution invested in the same body is a near certain route, as will be obvious to most and as has clearly happened, to corruption.

Alec.

 

[Jill Lloyd]

I'd like to see the facts and figures behind the claim to saving £50 million a year. How can they possibly say that when there is:
1. Court time - not paid for by the RSPCA
2. Legal Aid - most people prosecuted have applied for Legal Aid (it may not be avaialble noow) - not paid for by the RSPCA
3. Police costs - to deal with threats and violence against "abusers" not paid by the RSPCA
4. Benefits - when most accused and their families are forced out their homes and jobs - not paid by the RSPCA
5. NHS costs - when the families of the accused are caught up in the whole thing, stress, heart attacks, mental health issues - not paid by the RSPCA

The decision to prosecute is made by people who are neither solicitors nor barristers. What is the average cost of an RSPCA trial? How much to their "expert" witnesses get paid? How much to the Prosecution barristers get paid?

The investigations are conducted by people who have no legal or evidentiary training so when a case does get to Court there are many questions raised about the quality of the evidence.

A public enquiry is definitely needed.

The RSPCA has become a self appointed prosecutory body without the controls and conduct requirements of the judiciary. They are not required to meet evidentiary standards, they are not subject to judicial review, they have no powers to act, no powers of entry, no powers of seizure. The people who seize the animals are the police not the RSPCA. Do the various Police Forces in the country realise that they too could get caught up in this fiasco because everyone has abdicated responsibility for animal welfare to the RSPCA who are neither trained nor competent in the role of prosecutor.

 

[be positive]

The CPS, correctly, rely upon the investigative powers of the Police who answer to the Courts AND the CPS for any evidence offered which is found to be perjury. To have the powers of investigation and prosecution invested in the same body is a near certain route, as will be obvious to most, to corruption.

Alec.

There has always been a conflict of interest with the prosecution side often taking precedence over the "prevention of cruelty" they are supposed to be there for, often in the interests of prosecuting they leave animals to suffer until they are beyond help, in big cases they normally have a few dead ones, whereas if they went in and advised, the vulnerable people often just require a prod in the right direction to get veterinary help, rather than go in all guns blazing threatening prosecution many animals and their owners would be better off but it does not make headline news to do this.

 

[AmieeT]

Rspca's powers are being discussed now on the Victoria Derbyshire segmenton the Beeb.