RSPCA shoots 11 HEALTHY horses but claimed keep fees for months

[Alec Swan]

F

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

Erm, probably! The action that they took was because I'd been 'repeatedly' rude. I thought that I was really quite contained. It's the rspca, what did I expect? My chum was slung off (another HHOer), but was allowed back on. Crawler!

There's always the NetShade route, but I really cba.

Alec.

 

[Penny Less]

a sixpence on a sweeps arse ! love it

 

[sprytzer]

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.

me to Alec, along with my comments!!! nothing to hide...yeah, right!!

 

[Alec Swan]

Why I should be so surprised by the fact that I've looked at a fair few sites, and the only one where I find entrenched support, is there own, shouldn't really come as a mystery!

I have an abiding dislike of injustice and it's bedfellow, corruption, both of which are qualities on display.

Alec.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

'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.

Indeed there isn't. However it is a criminal act to claim livery costs for horses which you no longer own. This would be the best route to take for any-one who wants to take on the RSPCA, imo. Al Capone was finally imprisoned because of his tax irregularities not becasue of his other wrong-doings, which many thought were worse but not so easy to prove.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

A concerted campaign to do what ............ is it to prosecute the charity for their shortcomings, in which case the senior CEO needs to face criminal charges.

Then a new CEO takes over and either sweeps things under the carpet or opens the doors and clears out the former management structure and replaces with those who have integrity AND an understanding of animal welfare.

For either of these options to work the CEO has to be forced out and discredited.
Normally when the heat gets too much they resign, taking their pension with them etc etc.

 

[Alec Swan]

Indeed there isn't. However it is a criminal act to claim livery costs for horses which you no longer own. This would be the best route to take for any-one who wants to take on the RSPCA, imo. …….. .

Indeed, and that was the point which I failed to make clear.

A concerted campaign to do what ............ is it to prosecute the charity for their shortcomings, in which case the senior CEO needs to face criminal charges.

Then a new CEO takes over and either sweeps things under the carpet or opens the doors and clears out the former management structure and replaces with those who have integrity AND an understanding of animal welfare.

For either of these options to work the CEO has to be forced out and discredited.
Normally when the heat gets too much they resign, taking their pension with them etc etc.

As with all organisations, responsibility starts and stops with those who direct. The ethos which appears to be the rational which steers the rspca is such that with what could almost be nepotism, so those of a kindred spirit will only support those other directors who join them and who are like minded. The only way that direction can be forced upon them is by those who control the CPS and the Charities Commission, supporting their own charters and by removing the power of prosecution and by being insistent that the other controlling bodies Trading Standards and the Police, are not quite so gullible as to accept that the rspca are on occasion, almost rabid in their approach. In short, there needs to be a change of leadership, brought about by those who ultimately have the power to insist upon change.

Alec.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

Public opinion can also prosecute, in the non legal sense

 

[Fenris]

A concerted campaign to do what ............ is it to prosecute the charity for their shortcomings, in which case the senior CEO needs to face criminal charges.

Then a new CEO takes over and either sweeps things under the carpet or opens the doors and clears out the former management structure and replaces with those who have integrity AND an understanding of animal welfare.

For either of these options to work the CEO has to be forced out and discredited.
Normally when the heat gets too much they resign, taking their pension with them etc etc.

The CEO is not responsible for the actions of the RSPCA. The Trustees (Council members) are responsible. See the SHG submission to the Wooler Inquiry

http://the-shg.org/Notes for Independent Review of RSPCA Prosecutions.pdf

which included:

The effect of the departure of Gavin Grant

Gavin Grant was not personally responsible for the actions of the RSPCA as a whole. Each individual
within that organisation is responsible for what he or she does.

The people with ultimate responsibility for the actions of the RSPCA are the members of the ruling
council. It is they who decided to hire Mr. Grant, knowing full well what his policies and character were.

The ruling council could, at any time had they disapproved of Mr. Grant's actions, have ordered him to
stop, to change direction, or even fired him

Add to that the fact that the SHG has been in existence for over 20 years, for most of which Gavin Grant
had no input into or influence over the RSPCA.

Responsibility lies firmly with the Ruling Council.

Portraying Gavin Grant as the sole cause and effect of all that is wrong in the RSPCA will allow the ruling
council to walk away from their responsibilities.

Please see the SHG article discussing the issues raised in the leaked memo at

http://theshg.wordpress.com/2013/09...hey-realise-that-theirbrand-has-become-toxic/

,
Incidentally, I understand from internal RSPCA gossip that the RSPCA has attempted to head hunt 4 potential CEOs and each has turned them down. It will be interesting to see if it turns out to be correct. It has been an incredibly long time for the RSPCA to be without a CEO.

 

[Doormouse]

What I find the most interesting right now is that all the HHO forum members on here who are associated with the RSPCA are staying completely quiet which is most unlike them.

 

[spottybotty]

How can you pour so much venom on the slaughterman? Its hardly his fault. He was asked to do a job and he did it. A person I know is licenced. He keeps a small-holding in the back-end of nowhere and obtained a licence so that he didn't have to put his animals through the long and rough journey to a slaughterhouse. A nicer, more caring person you couldn't wish to meet. There is clearly a shortage of such people as during the last Foot and Mouth outbreak, while vets put down young/baby animals by lethal injection, much of the shooting of adult stock was done by Army butchers. I saw one of the slaughtermen crying his eyes out at what he had to do.

WHere were the owners of these animals which were apparently on loan? I can't believe that word didn't leak out about the conditions on the farm. Did they not go and do regular checks for themselves, however good the name of the breeders was. Plenty of so-called caring people have been caught out in the last few years being nothing of the sort. We had a chap prosecuted locally a few years back, a pillar of local horse world, Master of Hunt, breeder, high-flying show judge - prosecuted for neglect of animals on his property and banned from keeping. A year or so later I heard he was still keeping horses, but claimed they were his son's animals.

I'm no lover of the RSPCA having seen them in (in)action 40 years ago and more recently when they were called to two ponies where I kept my horse at the time. But I'm quite sure that there are some very caring and hard-working people amongst them. No doubt they get beaten down by those above them though.

Its not that straightforwards with regards to the "slaughterman" he has a large livery stables which were partly used by the RSPCA, this man was involved in an incident this year where by he shot a liveries horse and dumped it in her front garden over an unpaid livery amount of £20! IMO he went to the press with this to try and deflect some blame from himself !

 

[marmalade76]

I know this linked has been posted previously but in case anyone missed it here is the RSPCAs official response to the criticism it has received over the euthanasia of these horses.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/0615_2

It clearly states that they were slaughtered as there was no realistic chance of rehoming them. It makes no mention of the fact that many of the horses already had owners desperate to reclaim them or the fact that a breed society had made offer of assistance in dealing with and rehoming these horses. Neither does it mention that the majority were extremely valuable well bred animals, sports horses as well as Arabs, and that many people who have given their eye teeth to have had the opportunity of owning them not 'just' as rescues but for their own sake and I imagine several would have had competitive careers in front of them in the eventing world.

A swift look at the RSPCAs rehoming pages for horses shows page after page after page of small/medium coloured cob types mostly for rehoming as companions. It appears the RSPCA believes that these type of equines have a better chance of being rehomed than 'blood' horses. It is clear to me that whoever had overall responsibility for the Peel horses has very little understanding of horses in general or the equine industry or indeed the root cause of the 'current over population crisis' they are spouting about which is the indiscriminate breeding of (primarily but not exclusively) small/medium coloured cob types. Which certainly calls into question the RSPCAs competency to deal with the welfare/cruelty towards horses.

Just to add I think cobs (coloured or otherwise) are fantastic and equally deserving of good homes my point is that unfortunately for coloured cobs they appear to have been particularly subject to indiscriminate breeding and this part of the market appears flooded and likely hard to rehome particular animals due to sheer volume. Further those people looking to rehome an Arab/part bred sports horse are unlikely to rehome a coloured cob instead and vice versa.

I am truly shocked at the RSPCAs actions and lack of professionalism in this instance. How they managed to win a court case when it appears they had not even managed to successfully identify the animals involved and trace true ownership (despite I believe being in possession of the passports) beats me. I am disgusted at the RSPCAs complete refusal to work with partner organisations (Arab Horse Society) who had the knowledge and wherewithal to assist. Finally I am saddened beyond belief that the horses which had suffered once at the hands of the Peels were given no opportunity of a second chance and never even offered for re-homing.

Totally agree! The rspca is either totally ignorant or shot them simply because they didn't want to spend money on them and whichever the case they had no business taking them on.

Endless money appears to be spent rehabbing ten a penny worthless coloured cobs while these quality, wanted horses with valuable bloodlines were shot.

As for claiming stabling costs, I read somewhere (think it was on the Arab FB group) that these horses were signed over to the rspca, surely making them the owners and surely, as the owners, therefore responsible for the cost of their keep.

 

[cobgoblin]

Totally agree! The rspca is either totally ignorant or shot them simply because they didn't want to spend money on them and whichever the case they had no business taking them on.

Endless money appears to be spent rehabbing ten a penny worthless coloured cobs while these quality, wanted horses with valuable bloodlines were shot.

A horse is a horse, no matter it's quality. Surely the important fact is that these horses had actual owners, homes were available for them, yet lies were told. Whether they were quality bred or not is irrelevant. Frankly I feel sorry for any animal, equine or not, pedigree or not, that ends up in the hands of the RSPCA.

 

[Alec Swan]

What I find the most interesting right now is that all the HHO forum members on here who are associated with the RSPCA are staying completely quiet which is most unlike them.

I'd say that to answer your doubts, defending the indefensible would be pointless.

There can be no doubt that, with the possible exception of those who refuse to accept criticism, there will be those grass roots members of staff of the rspca who are very well aware of the glaring anomalies but who lack the collective 'voice' which would be needed to affect change. When change occurs, as it must and eventually will, their silence should be taken in to account. I understand that swimming against the tide makes for certain risks, but silence is no defence.

Alec.

 

[fatpiggy]

Its not that straightforwards with regards to the "slaughterman" he has a large livery stables which were partly used by the RSPCA, this man was involved in an incident this year where by he shot a liveries horse and dumped it in her front garden over an unpaid livery amount of £20! IMO he went to the press with this to try and deflect some blame from himself !

I know the case you mean, but it still doesn't mean he is evil or whatever. The girl who was LOANING that horse was the one to blame ultimately. I'm pretty sure most slaughtermen have other sources of income. One local yard owner to me used to shoot his own and butcher them in a stable on the livery yard!! Also alot of what we know about that and this case was what was reported in the press, who don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. I reckon about 25% of what they report is fact and the rest is the reporter's own opinion and 2+2 assumptions.

As I'm not entirely familiar with this very sad case, exactly why were the various owners loaning their horses to the couple? Breeding purposes, a riding school? They seemed to have a lot of animals there, but why?

Lastly, I remember a case from a year or four back where the RSPCA removed some horses to a yard approved by themselves for rescue purposes and a while later the horses were found to be in an even more deplorable condition and removed from there too. Tragically, I think there are plenty or well-meaning yards/rescue places out there who then take on way too many for the land/facilities they have. That is why we shouldn't be just "rescuing" every horse or pony that needs it. The sick, elderly and basically useless (conformation etc) should be humanely removed from the equation and the second chances given to those who it will work for. Breeding needs to be looked at very hard. Many of these coloured animals are bred by people who are no different from puppy-farmers.

 

[ester]

That is not the only case of him shooting other people's horses, it had happened before with some pregnant mares on grass livery - I can't find the story right now though.

Horses were loaned to them for breeding or competing - the daughter was competing several arabs and part breds and they were very pro showing that arabs could be functional and people were happy for them to have their horses contribute to that.

 

[Alec Swan]

I wonder if anyone has what it takes to form a new RSPCA aka the Real Society for the Protection of Animals. There'd be no need for Royal support, just that of the populous.

It also occurs to me that with Royal support I wonder if Her Majesty remains as supportive as the society concerned would have us believe. With the rspca's resistance to game shooting, I wonder how they square that with the fact that their Royal Patrons maintain vast areas of land, and for that very purpose. Tricky, I'd say!

Alec.

 

[Rollin]

I wonder if anyone has what it takes to form a new RSPCA aka the Real Society for the Protection of Animals. There'd be no need for Royal support, just that of the populous.

It also occurs to me that with Royal support I wonder if Her Majesty remains as supportive as the society concerned would have us believe. With the rspca's resistance to game shooting, I wonder how they square that with the fact that their Royal Patrons maintain vast areas of land, and for that very purpose. Tricky, I'd say!

Alec.

I had a look at the RSPCA FB sight. Not an equine of any description. You would have to convince the dog walkies and cat lovers (I am one) that this is not an organisation that cares for animals. If 11 cats or dogs were pts would there be an outcry? Who would notice?

Perhaps the way forward would be for the RSPCA to be the society for the protection of cats and dogs and the Real Society look after the hoofed, cloven or not?

 

[EstherYoung]

From a purely mercenary point of view some of the horses were quite valuable, had the rspca allowed them a few weeks of good grub to recover: for example an experienced schoolmaster affiliated eventer, a purebred stallion with rare and sought after bloodlines, a young well bred sports horse who was registered with BE and had been in training with a pro. Even taking everything else out of the equation, can the rspca afford to throw away several thousand pounds worth of horseflesh? That money in itself could have saved other animals.

Also from a purely mercenary point of view, which of these two scenarios do you think would bring the RSPCA in more money in donations:

1)*** “We found this amazing mare, who had been recognised by the World Arabian Horse Organisation as one of the best Arabians in the world, living in appalling conditions. We nursed her back to health and now look at her”

2)*** “We found this amazing mare, who had been recognised by the World Arabian Horse Organisation as one of the best Arabians in the world, living in appalling conditions. However, rather than bother to find out who she was, we bundled her off in a crowded truck which meant she broke her leg and we shot her”

The fact was they had no idea what they had in their possession and had no intention of finding out.

 

[cobgoblin]

The rspca have announced that they have had a constructive meeting with The Arab Horse Society. No details given.

 

[Alec Swan]

I've just had an e/mail contact from the rspca, and via Facebook. Odd that, as they've banned me!

This is it;

RSPCA (England & Wales) also commented on their link.



RSPCA (England & Wales)
September 17 at 12:19pm

Hi all, today the RSPCA have had a constructive meeting with the Arab Horse Society, and have mutually agreed ways of progressing on this issue. If you would like to contact us about this or other matters, please get in touch here: http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/contactus




View on Facebook
******************

Ever one to look for the good in everyone, I went to the 'get in touch' section, and it immediately sent me to a Q&A window. One of the points raised was 'I've found a swan stuck in ice'. Excellent I thought, that's me! Wrong. I asked just how I was to engage with them and all that I received by return was a further questionnaire wishing to know if the answers given were helpful. They weren't.

There are many, and I'm amongst them, who would have the rspca back on track and fulfilling the purpose of their charter. The cynic in me would have me wondering just how genuine were their wishes to actually 'listen'. I remain ever hopeful because by negotiation rather than legislation, is the better path for all of us, the rspca included.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

The rspca have announced that they have had a constructive meeting with The Arab Horse Society. No details given.

Presumably the AHS have a contact system which the rspca have made availavble to them. Does anyone know how to engage with the rspca, rather than the debacle in my last post on here?

Alec.

 

[madlady]

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.

Presumably the AHS have a contact system which the rspca have made availavble to them. Does anyone know how to engage with the rspca, rather than the debacle in my last post on here?

Alec.

Funnily enough Alec I did this last night and posted comments on 2 of the rescue threads which I immediately received argumentative responses on. I asked where the thread was to deal with the issue I had questions about and I was issued with a 'warning' they did send me a link though which I haven't had chance to try yet but it does allow you to send an email.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/contactus

I have registered today on there and will be sending an email later. I'm not even expecting to get a reply but if I do I will share.

 

[sprytzer]

Jane Summerfield is a vile piece of work !!
She is now making vile comments about CRUK....what a tool
So how is it we get banned from commenting yet the RSPCA allow her to continue making her vile comments!!

 

[Tiddlypom]

Posted this evening on the Arab Horse Society FB page.

I have this morning had a rewarding meeting with the Head of Public Affairs and Staff Officer, Inspectorate Department at the RSPCA head office. We had a good meeting and now have set up a communication system which I'm sure will be of benefit both to the Arab Horse Society and the RSPCA. The RSPCA are going to do their utmost to identify the horses which were only known by stable names and not registered names. Please be patient as this will take sometime, but I am confident that this will come to a satisfactory conclusion.

 

[Alec Swan]

Bull****. Not you, the rspca! Rather than placating those who have an inbuilt power, the AHS amongst them, they would do well to attend to their responsibilities to private individuals, those who lack clout. Have they made any efforts to appease or rectify the wrongs done to those who they've treated in a shameful manner? Have they ****.

Alec.

 

[be positive]

Posted this evening on the Arab Horse Society FB page.

I have this morning had a rewarding meeting with the Head of Public Affairs and Staff Officer, Inspectorate Department at the RSPCA head office. We had a good meeting and now have set up a communication system which I'm sure will be of benefit both to the Arab Horse Society and the RSPCA. The RSPCA are going to do their utmost to identify the horses which were only known by stable names and not registered names. Please be patient as this will take sometime, but I am confident that this will come to a satisfactory conclusion.

If this is true, that they only identified them by their stable names, then in my view it makes their actions worse, it means they did not check the passports properly against the individual before treatment by the vets, or before the decision to destroy them, have the survivors got their passports or is the rspca once again making their own laws and getting new ones done, illegal if the animal already has a passport to get a new one, at least it is for the rest of us.

Also this was a relatively small and varied group of horses, not all were pure bred, they were a range of sizes, type and colour not the mention different ages, I would hope anyone with a reasonable amount of experience would be able to check 20 or so against the passports and easily get most correct, a couple of similar greys may prove tricky to positively identify but most others from the photos we have seen, descriptions given would be a few minutes work for most professionals. Many of the stable names are taken from the registered name just to make matters even easier.

 

[Tiddlypom]

^^^ Agree, be positive.

The RSPCA admitting that they only knew the horses by their stable names makes it clear that they hadn't matched them to their passports. What a fiasco.

 

[millikins]

Being very cynical here but is it possible the horses were shot because they weren't in fact in poor enough condition to get a conviction for neglect if they remained alive? Otherwise might be hard to prove what the ones found dead in the field actually died from so conviction could only be failure to remove fallen stock? Not very newsworthy/fundraising potential at all?

 

[paul_exe]

I believe there is a saying.... The show aint over until the fat lady sings.... Rachelle Peel, you obviously did not starve yourself like you did your horses.... Here is your opportunity hunny to come in here and defend yourself, together with the fruit of your loin, who claims she knew nothing of what was happening to the horses.... My arse she didn't.... I don't give a damn if I get banned for saying this: You are SCUM. Hang your head in shame, for you do not deserve to look anyone in the eye. Deluded and a total waste of oxygen!