RSPCA shoots 11 HEALTHY horses but claimed keep fees for months

[Archangel]

In this family's previous cruelty case the 67 sheep left in the field to rot TSs were involved. The current case also involved sheep again and cattle I believe so yes they should be involved.

 

[honetpot]

TS should have been heading the enquiry at the outset, a point which I've already raised. The initial complaint was of dead horses being left to rot, and failing to dispose of fallen stock is a criminal offence and it would (and always is), the responsibility of TS to deal with, not a charity which would purport to protect animals from cruelty. It's quite possible that the dead horse(s) found didn't die of either neglect or cruelty. A failure to collect and dispose of fallen stock is a criminal offence and irrefutably is the responsibility of Trading Standards, so why did they not act?

The CPS and now TS seem to be passing over their responsibilities to a charity which has no legal jurisdiction, and it's wrong that they do so. The State supplies unbiased and controlled administrators, and it's their duty to deal with those who break the Laws. The CPS and TS have an obligation, when prosecuting, to provide evidence which is clear of bias, which mostly they do. It seems that the rspca don't operate under such constraints.

Alec.

Alec is right. Anything to do with the keeping of farm animals, ie sheep and cattle is covered by Trading Standards as it is assumed they will end up in the food chain and they can inspect you at any time and ask to look at your feed, medications records and your housing. Its far tougher than the laws that cover horses, I know someone who was fined £5000 for one pig less than his records as he had no proof of how he had disposed of it.

 

[Fenris]

TS should have been heading the enquiry at the outset, a point which I've already raised. The initial complaint was of dead horses being left to rot, and failing to dispose of fallen stock is a criminal offence and it would (and always is), the responsibility of TS to deal with, not a charity which would purport to protect animals from cruelty. It's quite possible that the dead horse(s) found didn't die of either neglect or cruelty. A failure to collect and dispose of fallen stock is a criminal offence and irrefutably is the responsibility of Trading Standards, so why did they not act?

The CPS and now TS seem to be passing over their responsibilities to a charity which has no legal jurisdiction, and it's wrong that they do so. The State supplies unbiased and controlled administrators, and it's their duty to deal with those who break the Laws. The CPS and TS have an obligation, when prosecuting, to provide evidence which is clear of bias, which mostly they do. It seems that the rspca don't operate under such constraints.

Alec.

To some extent TS and local authorities are bound by the LACORS agreement (voluntarily entered into by LAs and the RSPCA etc) which details who is responsible for which aspect of any animal welfare case.
http://www.ihsti.com/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=20974

Yes, yet another agreement involving an empowered authority effectively hiving off its responibilites to the RSPCA. Remember the issues with ACPO and the Fire and Rescue Service? https://theshg.wordpress.com/2015/0...en-the-fire-and-rescue-service-and-the-rspca/

Note that the LACORS link is outdated in that if a local authority has appointed an 'inspector' under the powers of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it most certainly does have responsibilites in terms of pet animals.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

. Plenty of the horses were still alive at that point, weren't they?

I don't think they were alive, looking at the DM story and the timeline of when others knew of the horses being seized it would seem like the horses were long gone by that point?

 

[ester]

The Arab horse society stamp the passports if the change of ownership is done properly. There will also be an accompanying registration certificate which will be signed and stamped by the ahs.

It would be interesting if the AHS could confirm who they had as registered owners on their books....

 

[Meowy Catkin]

From what I have read and hopefully understood, Khoomi was on loan to the Peels and was shot by the RSPCA. They (Khoomi's owners) still believed that he was alive until they read the article in the Mail.

From AL.

The point is that the Mail on Sunday reporters genuinely believed that previous owners/breeders had been contacted as to the fate of the horses, they thought everyone knew about it long ago, they were shocked when they found out this was not the case. Why did the RSPCA spend money on treating horses and then have them shot months down the line? Why was no one told about the horses being dead before the court case started? Why was everyone led to believe ALL those horses had been rehomed except for the three we suspected had to be euthanized because of accident and poor condition..........there are questions the RSPCA has to answer and they have to be seen answering them with honestly and transparency.

 

[madlady]

Is there no way that the AHS can bring a case against the RSPCA or at least go to the national press themselves with regard to the lies told by the RSPCA?

The RSPCA statement says that the horses were shot because there was no chance of rehoming them - blatant lie.

The RSPCA say that they work with breed societies to do everything they can to rehome animals - blatant lie.

Surely that is enough to at least get this out in a more public domain? I appreciate that there may be legalities involved but I really do feel that this needs to be out there in the news for everyone in the country to see. If enough of a public outcry is made and it starts hitting the RSPCA where it hurts (financially) then it might help drive some changes and finally some small good may come out of this truly tragic situation.

 

[Alec Swan]

In this family's previous cruelty case the 67 sheep left in the field to rot TSs were involved. The current case also involved sheep again and cattle I believe so yes they should be involved.

The Rules and Responsibilities for the correct disposal of horses, is just the same as it is for other and accepted, farm livestock. Failure to 'Collect' and 'Dispose of' dead horses is as punishable as it would be for sheep or cattle.

Fenris, thank you for your LACORS offering. It makes for interesting reading. The accusation of 'hiving-off' responsibility is pertinent.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

Is there no way that the AHS can bring a case against the RSPCA or at least go to the national press themselves with regard to the lies told by the RSPCA?

The RSPCA statement says that the horses were shot because there was no chance of rehoming them - blatant lie.

The RSPCA say that they work with breed societies to do everything they can to rehome animals - blatant lie.

Surely that is enough to at least get this out in a more public domain? I appreciate that there may be legalities involved but I really do feel that this needs to be out there in the news for everyone in the country to see. If enough of a public outcry is made and it starts hitting the RSPCA where it hurts (financially) then it might help drive some changes and finally some small good may come out of this truly tragic situation.

The ethical and so moral stance of the rspca will be their choice. However, 'IF' the horses concerned were the 'property' of the Peels, then they had the right to dispose of them as they saw fit, and the same, by transfer of ownership, applies to the rspca. The question remains, are the rspca right in their claim that the Peels were the owners of 'all' the horses concerned?

If there were no passports with the horses, a fact which would astound most, then with their (the rspca's) abilities, were they not able or willing to research who the factual owners were? If I were to buy a previously registered livestock trailer, for instance, and the manufacturers ID plate had been removed, and were I not to check with the authorities, then should I subsequently be found to be in possession of stolen goods, I'd be liable to prosecution. Establishing the rights to ownership is the responsibility of all those who buy or 'take in', the rspca included.

Alec.

 

[Fenris]

Hope you downloaded the two agreements for the detail how they agreed to work together.

 

[blueboy day]

Lets hope this case puts a light on the dreadful activities of the RSPCA, and their money grabbing antics. This case looks very suspiciously like some of the cases linked to cases they have been involved in related to the repossession of peoples farms for some banks, and this clearly has the same smell about it. It is hoped the papers will be looking at these further actions by several charities but mostly the RSPCA

 

[DD]

Has the AHS stated its position on all this? We know it tried to help initially only to be rebuffed by the RSPCA. But what are they doing now? Are they seeking to take action against the RSPCA for not accepting help offered? Have the passports of the dead horses been returned? if not what are they doing about it?

 

[Alec Swan]

Has the AHS stated its position on all this? …….. Are they seeking to take action against the RSPCA for not accepting help offered? ……..

'IF', as the rspca appear to claim, there were no passports, and IF as they also claim, the horses were the property of the Peels, then there will be no action to be taken by the AHS and against the rspca for refusing assistance. There is no criminal act in refusing assistance or advice.

Alec.

 

[Rollin]

So there were no passports? Were the horses microchipped?

When we compete in France, at local shows and ALL endurance events horse's passports and m/chips are checked. At all other competitions, e.g. a big SJ centre where 1700 horses competed over the weekend, the FFE randomly select passports for checking. At one endurance event only 2 Shagya Arabs competed, mine, both passports were randomly selected!!

If some of these horses were competing, it appears yet again that, Britain has a very sloppy process in place for making sure people comply with the legislation.

 

[madlady]

'IF', as the rspca appear to claim, there were no passports, and IF as they also claim, the horses were the property of the Peels, then there will be no action to be taken by the AHS and against the rspca for refusing assistance. There is no criminal act in refusing assistance or advice.

Alec.

There are some large 'IF's' there. Here's hoping that there is enough evidence for the AHS to take this further. It really is about time that the RSPCA got taken to task over how it operates.

 

[DD]

the arab horses would have been microchipped, its been a requirement for years. were they not scanned? Did the RSPCA not check who owned what with the AHS if scanning was done?

 

[Alec Swan]

For those with an interest, if you go to the rspca Facebook Page (England and Wales), and then scroll down to the pic of an inspector, face to face with a dog (a GSD), you'll see blind faith extolled by some which defies credulity. Were it not so serious, it would be funny.

Alec.

 

[madlady]

For those with an interest, if you go to the rspca Facebook Page (England and Wales), and then scroll down to the pic of an inspector, face to face with a dog (a GSD), you'll see blind faith extolled by some which defies credulity. Were it not so serious, it would be funny.

Alec.

Wow - just reading through some of the comments - why on earth would anyone phone the RSPCA for an injured lamb! Absolutely beyond belief that people can spout this sort of nonsense. I'm going to have to stop looking because I'm tempted to comment (and not nicely) on far too many of those 'stories'.

 

[Flame_]

I don't think they would necessarily have been chipped. I may be totally wrong but IIRC chipping only became compulsory round about 2006.

 

[shadeofshyness]

I cannot get my head around this. I read about it this morning on the Arab horse Facebook group with my jaw dropped - and not just because it's the first thing the Mail has ever reported on properly. My heart goes out to all the breeders and owners who could have had them back. An utterly absurd scenario and I hope everyone affected is coordinating to take legal action? Good luck x

 

[DD]

I don't think they would necessarily have been chipped. I may be totally wrong but IIRC chipping only became compulsory round about 2006.

TheAHS made chipping compulary for their registered horses long before this date, I think it was 1999.

 

[HashRouge]

TheAHS made chipping compulary for their registered horses long before this date, I think it was 1999.

I don't think that can be right. We didn't buy my purebred until 2001 and she definitely wasn't chipped until 2004 at the earliest. Or do you mean that horses had to be chipped at the time of registering from this date? In which case, that wouldn't affect a lot of the horses in this case as they would have been registered before that date.

 

[Pinkvboots]

It can't be 1999 I have two pure breds one born 2004 and one 2005 neither are chipped but both registered I have a feeling it was around 2006 hence why they missed it.

 

[Pinkvboots]

I don't think that can be right. We didn't buy my purebred until 2001 and she definitely wasn't chipped until 2004 at the earliest. Or do you mean that horses had to be chipped at the time of registering from this date? In which case, that wouldn't affect a lot of the horses in this case as they would have been registered before that date.

Yes it was changed that if you wanted to register a foal it had to be chipped but it's a relatively new thing as neither of mine were at registering.

 

[Meowy Catkin]

This is important from AL, RE emailing MP's about this case.

all the people that are emailing Sir Edward Garnier also need to email their own MPs unless they are in his constituency as parliamentary protocol prevents him from acting on their behalf, I got this info from my own MP. It would be such a shame for all our efforts amount to nothing simply because we haven't contacted the right people.

 

[catkin]

IIRC the PIOs were charged with checking that their passport data was up-to-date in the changes to passport rules following the horsemeat scandal. Certainly some breed societies have been writing to 'last known owner' particularly of older animals to check that the information is up to date.

 

[ester]

I think some passports do not have the section that say not for human consumption and replacements been issues, I know Frank's 1993 WPCS passport doesn't but I haven't been contacted by them.

 

[Alec Swan]

For those with an interest, if you go to the rspca Facebook Page (England and Wales), and then scroll down to the pic of an inspector, face to face with a dog (a GSD), you'll see blind faith extolled by some which defies credulity. Were it not so serious, it would be funny.

Alec.

Should you fancy joining in with the rspca f/b page, do be careful; I've only been on there about 10 minutes, and I've been banned already!! It seems that negative thoughts offend those who are a touch 'precious'. I've yet to understand how there are those who despite what's as obvious as a sixpence on a sweep's arse, still defend the indefensible. I console myself with the fact that casting pearls, …. and all that!

Alec.

 

[cobgoblin]

F

Should you fancy joining in with the rspca f/b page, do be careful; I've only been on there about 10 minutes, and I've been banned already!! It seems that negative thoughts offend those who are a touch 'precious'. I've yet to understand how there are those who despite what's as obvious as a sixpence on a sweep's arse, still defend the indefensible. I console myself with the fact that casting pearls, …. and all that! :

Alec.

Wow Alec, that's pretty impressive. Was it the sanity post?

 

[MotherOfChickens]

apparently they've also sent moorland ponies to auctions. nice home checking there!