RSPCA shoots 11 HEALTHY horses but claimed keep fees for months

[DD]

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.

^^^^^^^^^
this

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

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.

Your very well expressed views are at the centre of concern. The danger, as must be obvious, is that with the rspca's 'claimed' successes, so logically, they would be desirous of having their powers extended to allow them the same facilities that are grated to the Police and Trading Standards as they've already publicly stated. Without any apparent requirement upon them to consider the condition of perjury, so our justice system will go in to free-fall.

The main problem, as I see it, is that with our previous system so the Courts have to make decisions which are based on clear and professional evidence. A qualified Vet representing the rspca will have their evidence countered by the evidence provided by the support of another qualified Vet and from the defence counsel.

I was once facing the rspca over a calamitous situation when I had a large flock of sheep which were lambing and were infected by Enzootic Abortion (a highly contagious disease). I had 132 dead lambs born in three days, with many that were surviving which would also fail. At no point would the visiting rspca officials accept that whilst the sheep were my responsibility the fault was not mine, and at such an advanced stage of the lambing window, so treatment would be ineffective. At no point in this distressing situation was there any level of sympathy or understanding because those who visited the land concerned simply had no idea what they were talking about. They were ignorant of the facts and had no interest in understanding.

Both my attending Vet, and I explained to them, in no uncertain terms that they were worsening a difficult situation. My Vet stayed calm, I didn't. The rspca eventually withdrew and left me to the chaos. Had my Vet not given me support, and through no fault of mine, I would most probably been bankrupted, with no thought given to the welfare of either my sheep nor I.

Alec.

 

[Meowy Catkin]

They were ignorant of the facts and had no interest in understanding.

This is something that sadly comes up time and again.

I wholeheartedly support the investigation into the RSPCA and their prosecutions. It should have been done a long time ago.

 

[cobgoblin]

On the RSPCA Facebook site they are claiming a 98.9% success rate for prosecutions. Does anyone else find that alarmingly high, or even abnormal?

 

[Equi]

On the RSPCA Facebook site they are claiming a 98.9% success rate for prosecutions. Does anyone else find that alarmingly high, or even abnormal?

I would say a lot of it is bully tactics.

 

[ycbm]

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.

In addition to this, the RSPCA prosecute where the Police would issue a caution or a conditional caution for a first offence. These cautions are not available to the RSPCA.

And the RSPCA routinely use Crown Court self employed barristers to prosecute the simplest case. Their costs are extortionate, many times that of a CPS prosecutor.

 

[ycbm]

On the RSPCA Facebook site they are claiming a 98.9% success rate for prosecutions. Does anyone else find that alarmingly high, or even abnormal?

It could simply be a sign that the people they prosecute are actually guilty and that they don't prosecute unless the case is very strong. CPS, I think, will prosecute when the chance of winning is greater than 50%

There have been two cases near me. One a starved dog who thrived in the care of my local rehoming centre with no difficult feeding needs as the owner claimed. The second the chairman of a local riding club who allowed a horse to starve to death in. a field.

Both as guilty as sin. Only a tiny proportion of RSPCA prosecutions, in my opinion, are of innocent people.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is no question whatsoever that the RSPCA should have criminal justice removed from their remit.

 

[ycbm]

Your very well expressed views are at the centre of concern. The danger, as must be obvious, is that with the rspca's 'claimed' successes, so logically, they would be desirous of having their powers extended to allow them the same facilities that are grated to the Police and Trading Standards as they've already publicly stated. Without any apparent requirement upon them to consider the condition of perjury, so our justice system will go in to free-fall.

The main problem, as I see it, is that with our previous system so the Courts have to make decisions which Iare based on clear and professional evidence. A qualified Vet representing the rspca will have their evidence countered by the evidence provided by the support of another qualified Vet and from the defence counsel.

I was once facing the rspca over a calamitous situation when I had a large flock of sheep which were lambing and were infected by Enzootic Abortion (a highly contagious disease). I had 132 dead lambs born in three days, with many that were surviving which would also fail. At no point would the visiting rspca officials accept that whilst the sheep were my responsibility the fault was not mine, and at such an advanced stage of the lambing window, so treatment would be ineffective. At no point in this distressing situation was there any level of sympathy or understanding because those who visited the land concerned simply had no idea what they were talking about. They were ignorant of the facts and had no interest in understanding.

Both my attending Vet, and I explained to them, in no uncertain terms that they were worsening a difficult situation. My Vet stayed calm, I didn't. The rspca eventually withdrew and left me to the chaos. Had my Vet not given me support, and through no fault of mine, I would most probably been bankrupted, with no thought given to the welfare of either my sheep nor I.

Alec.

There's no doubt that they are inadequately trained. I once had a lovely young RSPCA inspector tell me that her colleagues in another area were expressing great surprise that she was dealing with a starved horse because the yard he had come from was spotless clean and immaculately maintained. They equated perfectly kept grass with good management and didn't question what the grass kept horses were actually getting to eat if there was no hay in the fields

 

[ester]

From those I know of through said magistrate friend it they do often have no option but to find the defendant guilty but it is often complicated by said defendents being elderly and vulnerable who had sought veterinary advice and had some issues and fell fowl of the law. As an animal lover he just says he sees a lot of people where a bit of help and advice would have resolved the situation rather than taking them to court over it. - In such instances they don't do much re. sentencing.

I don't believe that stat though and would like to see the actual numbers and what the resultant sentencing was.

 

[ycbm]

From those I know of through said magistrate friend it they do often have no option but to find the defendant guilty but it is often complicated by said defendents being elderly and vulnerable who had sought veterinary advice and had some issues and fell fowl of the law. As an animal lover he just says he sees a lot of people where a bit of help and advice would have resolved the situation rather than taking them to court over it. - In such instances they don't do much re. sentencing.

I don't believe that stat though and would like to see the actual numbers and what the resultant sentencing was.

Ester those are exactly the people who should be dealt with by a gentle police caution while Sat with a cup of tea I the local Police Station. So it's on record, in case of future problems, but over and done with at minimal cost.

 

[Alec Swan]

The answer, it seems to me is that the rspca get their house in order, and before their current freedom is curtailed, heavily. Will they? Will they ****, the level of their supreme arrogance remains intact.

Alec.

 

[Jill Lloyd]

The 98.9% success rate is, in my opinion, reflective of the Court in which the cases are held. Animal Welfare cases are Summary Cases meaning they are expected to be dealt with promptly at one of the lower Courts in the country - Magistrates' Court. Often in Magistrates' Courts the presiding Magistrates are not legally trained. "Magistrates are volunteers who hear cases in courts in their community." (source: https://www.gov.uk/become-magistrate/what-magistrates-do). The RSPCA is selective about which photographs it includes in its evidence and the vast majority of people when faced with photos of "abused" animals will feel outraged and it is human nature to condemn those accused of causing such a situation.

So, untrained, vounteers look at photos of ungroomed animals, lean animals, photos taken at dusk, animals taken out of context, and they convict.

Most solicitors are not equipped to deal with the complexities and nuances of animal welfare law and the Magistrates certainly aren't.

Animal welfare should be tried on points of law not on raw emotion.

Which leads on to the use of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). This Act refers to the conduct of the police when interviewing under caution. The RSPCA also issue cautions but is this valid? Firstly, one of the requirements of PACE is that the person being interviewed is entitled to free legal advice which in the case of the police is the duty solicitor. When the RSPCA interviews under caution it does not offer free legal advice and therefore it is not compliant with PACE. Secondly, when the police interview under caution, that caution applies for the duration of the interview and should a person need to be interviewed a second time, a futher caution is given. The RSPCA however are operating under the illusion that a caution is indefinite and therefore having been interviewed under (albeit non compliant) caution, the RSPCA inspectors then tell the "abuser" that they are still under caution days later, when the abuser is desperately trying to find out what happened to their animals that the police removed at the say so of the RSPCA and a tame vet.

They may have a high success rate of convictions but how many are over turned at Appeal when the Crown Court is presided over by qualified and experienced judges and the issues on which judgments are made are points of law, not volume of tears.

 

[Alec Swan]

^^^^ yet another excellent post.

Alec.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

From my contact with SSPCA personnel, and after all they select their staff to represent them from minor to higher level, they are variable in quality, and are not totally on the side of the animal or in my case [pony being starved and no water] they did not give me good independant advice, I got the horse back but it was not thanks to the Society it was due to my bank balance. They never contacted me, and surely as the owner I was entitled to know what was happening? I asked the police to call them in, but as the "attending vet" had seen these animal a week before and done nothing, she was not going to incriminate either her client or herself.
The vet told the police the my horse was in "good condition", yet the spinal processes were showing. They had no hay, no water, and no hard feed.
They don't all have equine knowledge in the same way that WHW does for example, and they have to call a vet in, which would be fine if the vet was independant of the client. This must be another issue that needs addressed.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

The current case that has raised his issue, it it possible/likely that the owners will seek financial compensation ....... we know the horses are dead, but should the Society walk away?
I am very much in favour of animal rights in a civilised society, but unfortunately "Animal Rights" is a collection of extremists who mostly react on a whim and have no understanding of animal welfare.

 

[Equi]

So, untrained, vounteers look at photos of ungroomed animals, lean animals, photos taken at dusk, animals taken out of context, and they convict.

Every picture of every horse in winter will be good for a conviction then!

 

[madlady]

The current case that has raised his issue, it it possible/likely that the owners will seek financial compensation ....... we know the horses are dead, but should the Society walk away?
I am very much in favour of animal rights in a civilised society, but unfortunately "Animal Rights" is a collection of extremists who mostly react on a whim and have no understanding of animal welfare.

No the society should not walk away - nor should they be allowed to.

This should have been sorted out ages ago, it is a total farce that the RSPCA are even allowed to bring their own prosecutions and it's an absolute crying shame that it has taken something like this for some action to be taken.

I just hope that this investigation does go all the way and that real changes are made as a result - not just the usual load of platitudes that we are normally given.

 

[Meowy Catkin]

I also think that the very serious 'error' of lying to the court RE claiming for stabling fees of dead horses should be properly investigated.

 

[Equi]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06bc9hx/victoria-derbyshire-22092015

RSPCA on victoria derbyshire show. Of course there is a few "fox hunting" freaks claiming the whole UK politics is a big conspiracy to get it back lol

 

[cobgoblin]

RSPCA England and Wales on Facebook seems to have 'lost' about a week of it's timeline. Which posts do you think that week contained?

 

[Meowy Catkin]

Has anyone read the article in H&H magazine on this?

 

[Alec Swan]

Has anyone read the article in H&H magazine on this?

No, we don't take the H&H mag. Could you post it on here?

Alec.

 

[Tiddlypom]

 

[Meowy Catkin]

Thanks TP. It's a bit shorter and less in depth than I had hoped for.

 

[Tiddlypom]

It's a bit shorter and less in depth than I had hoped for.

I agree. It's ok as a news item, but I hope that there is more to come from H&H on the subject.

 

[Alec Swan]

It wouldn't surprise me to find that the person who wrote that article saved themselves the trouble of research and gleaned what they needed from this thread!

Alec.

 

[ester]

No mention of them claiming livery for dead horses either. Not sure that was worth the weeks delay!

 

[Equi]

Posted to hho Facebook now.

 

[madlady]

I expected a bit more from H&H TBH. Although it does show that the RSPCA having them PTS as 'unable to re-home' is a load of bull.

 

[Fenris]

I expected a bit more from H&H TBH. Although it does show that the RSPCA having them PTS as 'unable to re-home' is a load of bull.

H&H must be very sore after sitting on the fence for so long over this one

Here's another article on the subject

https://cdanews.com/2015/09/more-public-outrage-follows-rspcas-shooting-of-eleven-healthy-horses/

Public outrage against the RSPCA is focused on the number of animals put down each year after they have been rescued by the charity. Many people want to know why the charity does not do more to help owners take care of their pets or to re-home neglected animals. In the case of the eleven horses that the RSPCA killed, people are angry because the act was a senseless loss of life that could have been prevented had the RSPCA reached out to the horse community, especially previous owners and breeders.