RSPCA - useful link to site outlining their powers

C

camilla4

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 July 2009
Messages
3,682
Visit site
Hi all,

There have been many posts over the last 48 hours discussing the RSPCA and other welfare organisations. Unfortunately, many of the views expressed have been based on a certain amount of misunderstanding and misinformation and I thought it might be useful for everyone to have a definite idea of what the RSPCA can and cannot do. My views on the organisation as a whole and the Stamford situation in partcular have been expressed and I hope that any further discussion could be confined to those posts already in existence on this matter. It might be useful if this post could be bumped occasionally though!


http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/political/general/enforcement-of-the-animal-welfare-act-2006/
 
It absolutely does MrsM - there's been a lot of discussion on it on these threads lately and I think that most people are in agreement with that. It did seem though that there was some confusion over what the current legislation did or did not allow - I hope this will help clarify matters a little so that future discussions (and I have no doubt there will be some!) can be reasonably constructive.
 
This is nothing new, the defra website clearly outlines who is appointed to act under the AWA, the rspca will continue to investigate and prosecute in the same way they did before the AWA, the only difference is now they do not have to wait for an animal to suffer before intervening and bringing a prosecution with the addition of section 9 of the AWA, (duty of care), it is the responsibility of the person in care of an animal to provide for its needs.

This is why I do not understand why people are saying 'they want the powers of the rspca to be taken away' What powers???? If they do not know what they are talking about then they shouldn't be making wide open accusations.....

One other fact: The rspca is the only animal charity to bring prosecutions. Not because they are the only ones allowed but because they are the only ones who are willing to take on the expense!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually trying to make sure that people *do* know what they are talking about!

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't refering to you personally, I was refering to the many posts on this forum from people attacking the rspca without any knowledge of what they are talking about.

I realise you were educating people and that's good.
 
However the problem is that in the doing so, in their zealousness to gain evidence for a successful prosecution resulting in a paltry fine or occasionally a short term imprisonment, is that on occasion they become implicit in perpetuating the cruelty by allowing it to continue. Perhaps their willingness to gather evidence for criminal prosecutions is now the problem, perhaps if they were not so willing to do so then there is now enough public momentum to encourage other activities possible under the Act and more gathering of evidence by the police. Their current way of operating is just not acceptable in a civilised society, it is not working and needs a wholescale reassessment.
 
Sorry I'm struggling to follow, do you think it is the cps that take the prosecutions to court and the rspca just do the investigations for them? And that you think the police should now do the investigation????

If this is the case you are sadly wrong, it is the rspca that take the prosecution on fully as a private prosecutor. It is the inspector that does the investigation because the police don't do these jobs!! You phone the police about animal cruelty and they will pass you onto the rspca.

Like I said the rspca are good at what they do, their success rate is over 97% more than the cps!

The society do not leave animals to suffer knowingly, it may be that an inspector due to large areas and workload can't get out to every job but that does not mean that they left animals knowingly....... In these circumstances some animals may not unfortunately get seen to, because other animals are!!! The rspca can't be criticised for not having enough people on the ground to attend the jobs!! These are just problems associated with a large organisation with too high a workload!

Any incident/problem/issue including an animal, people view is the rspca's responsibility! The society does what it can, but it is only a charity and contrary to what people think, IS financially struggling and not wealthy!!!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually trying to make sure that people *do* know what they are talking about!

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't refering to you personally, I was refering to the many posts on this forum from people attacking the rspca without any knowledge of what they are talking about.

I realise you were educating people and that's good.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem - didn't mean to sound uppity and apologies if I did!!
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I'm struggling to follow, do you think it is the cps that take the prosecutions to court and the rspca just do the investigations for them? And that you think the police should now do the investigation????

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't, and yes, I do.

[ QUOTE ]
If this is the case you are sadly wrong, it is the rspca that take the prosecution on fully as a private prosecutor. It is the inspector that does the investigation because the police don't do these jobs!! You phone the police about animal cruelty and they will pass you onto the rspca.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the reasons the Police don't investigate is because the RSPCA are there. IMHO the RSPCA are now creating a problem because as you say below, they have limited resources and are a charity. They were never set up to be a investigative agency and take over the role of the police in cases of animal cruelty and are incapble of doing the job properly. One has to ask if whether they dropped this publicty generating role and we all focussed on pressurising the police to do their job, would we really be in any worse a position?

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said the rspca are good at what they do, their success rate is over 97% more than the cps!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I should hope so. If they are private prosecutions, they are hardly going to take on ones they think they will lose. The ones they do proceed with will be the ones they think are dead certs to result in convictions.

[ QUOTE ]
The society do not leave animals to suffer knowingly, it may be that an inspector due to large areas and workload can't get out to every job but that does not mean that they left animals knowingly....... In these circumstances some animals may not unfortunately get seen to, because other animals are!!! The rspca can't be criticised for not having enough people on the ground to attend the jobs!! These are just problems associated with a large organisation with too high a workload!

Any incident/problem/issue including an animal, people view is the rspca's responsibility! The society does what it can, but it is only a charity and contrary to what people think, IS financially struggling and not wealthy!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they can be criticised. The present situation isn't working and the public are becoming wise to the RSPCA being unacceptably slow to react, revenue - orientated and publicity hungry. Just because you say something is good, does not mean it is. The RSPCA is open to criticism just like any other public body or charity. The present situation and its operation are just not acceptable and requires overhaul.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Any incident/problem/issue including an animal, people view is the rspca's responsibility! The society does what it can, but it is only a charity and contrary to what people think, IS financially struggling and not wealthy!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

You ARE having a laugh, aren't you! Financially struggling my a*se! It finished the year (2008) with free reserves in excess of £70 million! (Total reserves including reserved/committed/restricted funds - £200 million.) Its income was over £114 million and net 'profit' - over £3 million! It managed to pay 17 of its staff more than £60,000 a year! Doesn't sound too 'struggling' to me!
 
<font color="blue"> The society do not leave animals to suffer knowingly, it may be that an inspector due to large areas and workload can't get out to every job but that does not mean that they left animals knowingly....... </font>

Sorry, but that doesn't wash with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top