RSPCA with out photos

[doriangrey]

honetpot, a good post. Should the rspca's planned for prosecution reaches its final stage, and it will surprise me if it does, it will make for interesting reading!

Alec.

Alec, could you make room for me on your fence? Here's a question someone may be able to answer - if I owned a dog (I don't) and someone reported me for badger baiting, or hare coursing or anything deemed to be illegal (don't know what is or isn't) what happens? I guess I'm asking what can the rspca do in the event that a member of public reports that this kind of activity is taking place? Can they just seize the animal because it has been reported that it might be involved or do they have to have more information to hand?

 

[honetpot]

Alec, could you make room for me on your fence? Here's a question someone may be able to answer - if I owned a dog (I don't) and someone reported me for badger baiting, or hare coursing or anything deemed to be illegal (don't know what is or isn't) what happens? I guess I'm asking what can the rspca do in the event that a member of public reports that this kind of activity is taking place? Can they just seize the animal because it has been reported that it might be involved or do they have to have more information to hand?

I do not know about this but surely there should be a chain of evidence? The dog would have to be swabbed for badger DNA, photos taken of injuries, cars and equipment swabbed and confiscated. What few county type programmes I watch on the TV, they seem to stake out baiters so they can catch them in the act so the evidence is wriggle proof, not wait till they wash up and go home. How do you prove the dog has not been out for a walk in the woods and gone down a set? Injuries themselves are not evidence of baiting.
A chap broke in to our house with an axe and the depth of the witness statements was incredible in case he denied it even though he was found outside with the axe sat outside our house.(Mentally ill off his meds it turns out at a later date)

 

[MerrySherryRider]

( the charge is causing pain and suffering to my sons dog ,they claim they found something wrong in the autopsy 95% of the dogs insides are missing) I hope this is clear enough

Didn't they find the dog had an internal infection when it died ? This could not have happened after its death, could it ?
Why have you been charged and not the dog's owner, your son ?
Your story has more holes than a sieve.

 

[honetpot]

Didn't they find the dog had an internal infection when it died ? This could not have happened after its death, could it ?
Why have you been charged and not the dog's owner, your son ?
Your story has more holes than a sieve.

The point being they (RSPCA)are claiming there was an infection, which caused the dogs death I suppose because of neglect(?) but as the body is incomplete when it was returned to the owners how are they able to mount a defence? I would want my own autopsy and expert witness, a bit difficult if half the evidence is missing.
Just an interested bystander, trying to understand where the holes are. It could be funny but its someones life.

 

[doriangrey]

I do not know about this but surely there should be a chain of evidence? The dog would have to be swabbed for badger DNA, photos taken of injuries, cars and equipment swabbed and confiscated. What few county type programmes I watch on the TV, they seem to stake out baiters so they can catch them in the act so the evidence is wriggle proof, not wait till they wash up and go home. How do you prove the dog has not been out for a walk in the woods and gone down a set? Injuries themselves are not evidence of baiting.
A chap broke in to our house with an axe and the depth of the witness statements was incredible in case he denied it even though he was found outside with the axe sat outside our house.(Mentally ill off his meds it turns out at a later date)

Thanks for that i mean I don't have a dog anymore - Just cats (verminexeterminators), but what if I had a dog with scars - can someone with an axe to grind just say you are baiting and then rspca can come in and remove them? Is that so now?

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

Just an interested bystander, trying to understand where the holes are. It could be funny but its someones life.

Of course, and it also raises the point that if those canine experts, the rspca and the inspecting vet upon the dog being taken in to care, failed to notice a minor uterine infection, then how could the owner have been expected to notice it?

I'd strongly suggest that the sieve is currently being carried by the rspca. If in fact the rspca are to charge the OP with neglect, then I fail to see how they can charge the man when they would be equally at fault and equally as neglectful. The other point, of course is that if the rspca claim that they didn't notice the dog with a uterine infection, because the infection didn't exist when they confiscated the dog, then again I fail to see how any Court can find the owner culpable. Stands to reason, when you think about it.

As a disclaimer, all of the above is of course assuming that the OP is telling the truth, and if the fact that the dog had a uterine infection is the mainstay of the rspca's case. Personally it would surprise me, as even the rspca aren't 'that' stupid, surely!

Alec.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

The point being they (RSPCA)are claiming there was an infection, which caused the dogs death I suppose because of neglect(?) but as the body is incomplete when it was returned to the owners how are they able to mount a defence? I would want my own autopsy and expert witness, a bit difficult if half the evidence is missing.
Just an interested bystander, trying to understand where the holes are. It could be funny but its someones life.

We know that the dog had a puncture wound and scars when it was seized from the OP's property. OP says the post mortem revealed an internal (not uterine) infection.
We know that the OP has been charged with causing pain and suffering to the dog.

Those are the verifiable facts that the OP has told us.

 

[ribbons]

I am amazed (actually not that amazed) that some people here have the OP found guilty and convicted of cruelty, neglect, badger baiting and lying. All based on nothing more than the fact that his command of the written English language is not brilliant.
Some of you are alluding to inside knowledge and voicing points as if you have full knowledge of the case, when in fact it is nothing more than your opinion based on what you've read.

The OP could in fact be a nasty piece of work, keeping dogs in awful conditions and using them for badger baiting and other illegal pursuits. I don't know that and neither do you.

Equally, The RSPCA could have dropped a major clanger, and everything OP claims be absolutely true, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

Like Alec, I'm keeping an open mind at the moment, however, I'm finding it very unlikely the OP is telling a pack of lies. To accuse an organisation as big as RSPCA of the things he has, so loudly and so publicly would be suicide if there was no truth in it

There is of course a third option, the events didn't take place at all, the OP is not known in real life by anyone on the forums he uses and is making the whole thing up for a bit of entertainment.

I, like the rest of you, just don't know. My gut feeling however is option two. Based on my experience of the numerous cock ups the RSPCA are more than capable of.
It is only my feeling though.

I would also congratulate the OP on his behaviour on this thread, given the very unpleasant things others have posted, he has done well in the main to keep to the facts as he sees them.

 

[ChesnutsRoasting]

I am amazed (actually not that amazed) that some people here have the OP found guilty and convicted of cruelty, neglect, badger baiting and lying. All based on nothing more than the fact that his command of the written English language is not brilliant.
Some of you are alluding to inside knowledge and voicing points as if you have full knowledge of the case, when in fact it is nothing more than your opinion based on what you've read.

The OP could in fact be a nasty piece of work, keeping dogs in awful conditions and using them for badger baiting and other illegal pursuits. I don't know that and neither do you.

Equally, The RSPCA could have dropped a major clanger, and everything OP claims be absolutely true, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

Like Alec, I'm keeping an open mind at the moment, however, I'm finding it very unlikely the OP is telling a pack of lies. To accuse an organisation as big as RSPCA of the things he has, so loudly and so publicly would be suicide if there was no truth in it

There is of course a third option, the events didn't take place at all, the OP is not known in real life by anyone on the forums he uses and is making the whole thing up for a bit of entertainment.

I, like the rest of you, just don't know. My gut feeling however is option two. Based on my experience of the numerous cock ups the RSPCA are more than capable of.
It is only my feeling though.

I would also congratulate the OP on his behaviour on this thread, given the very unpleasant things others have posted, he has done well in the main to keep to the facts as he sees them.

That's the problem, his facts don't add up. Which is why some posters are questioning his account of the matter. The fact that nine dogs were seized with considerable assistance from the police suggests good cause. I'm still not sure who owns the dogs, as the OP & his/her son is also implicated. If their dog died due to the negligence of the RSPCA then they need to be held accountable. Sloppy housekeeping by a professional organisation should be held accountable. But, the fact the dogs were seized in the first place, strongly suggests the welfare of the dogs was of serious concern. I don't care if someone can spell or not, if they can't string two coherent sentences together. But I have the ability to read between the lines & also realise that if 2+2=5, that something doesn't add up. I really hope I'm wrong re the OP, because if my suspicions are proven then god only knows how many animals have suffered.

 

[FionaM12]

That's the problem, his facts don't add up. Which is why some posters are questioning his account of the matter. The fact that nine dogs were seized with considerable assistance from the police suggests good cause. I'm still not sure who owns the dogs, as the OP & his/her son is also implicated. If their dog died due to the negligence of the RSPCA then they need to be held accountable. Sloppy housekeeping by a professional organisation should be held accountable. But, the fact the dogs were seized in the first place, strongly suggests the welfare of the dogs was of serious concern. I don't care if someone can spell or not, if they can't string two coherent sentences together. But I have the ability to read between the lines & also realise that if 2+2=5, that something doesn't add up. I really hope I'm wrong re the OP, because if my suspicions are proven then god only knows how many animals have suffered.

Agreed. His story kept changing and he seemed unwilling to answer key questions. I don't give a damn about anyone's writing skills, it has nothing to do with that.

If the dog did indeed die in RSPCA care they ought to explain how this happened, however I find it very hard to believe that they'd return the dog hacked into pieces, skinned and with its brain (and unborn puppies) missing, as in the Facebook photos.

https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog

I do hope the truth comes out in the press, whoever is at fault.

 

[dymented]

Agreed. His story kept changing and he seemed unwilling to answer key questions. I don't give a damn about anyone's writing skills, it has nothing to do with that.

If the dog did indeed die in RSPCA care they ought to explain how this happened, however I find it very hard to believe that they'd return the dog hacked into pieces, skinned and with its brain (and unborn puppies) missing, as in the Facebook photos.

https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog

I do hope the truth comes out in the press, whoever is at fault.

The dog did indeed die in rspca care , the photos you refer to are the contents of the plastic bag that they returned . I have never changed my story the claims they made of dog fighting badger bating are totally fabricated . I have never been questioned regarding dog fighting or badger bating or charged with them , blazingsaddles seems to think because they turn up mob handed your guilty please listen to the interview on radio 4
then tell me the rspca would never do anything like that ( www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037v4fp ) listen to the full interview
MerrySherryRider the rspca or police have never spoken to my son who is over 21 even when told who owns what dog , Also there welfare was never an issue all pens (10ft x 5ft) were clean with clean water and bedding and were water tight

 

[Alec Swan]

dymented,

a couple of questions, do you have a date for the hearings of either your case or theirs yet, and if you do, where will they be heard? Assuming that you are being truthful, I will predict that neither case will go ahead, which will be a shame as you are as entitled to your day and to be heard, as they are.

Thankfully, the Courts no longer rely on the 'suspicions' of others, or a 'nose for bullshit', or as far as I'm aware a 'woman's intuition'! A reliance upon such 'evidence' was abandoned when we gave up setting light to witches!

I shall follow your case with interest, and if you are proven to be guilty as charged, you will receive the rounded judgement of not just the Courts, but this forum )), and if the charges against you are dropped, then you will be seen to have 'got away with it', for a lack of evidence. It can be a relatively simple matter to prove Guilt with a supply of evidence, but innocence is an entirely different matter.

Alec.

 

[ribbons]

Exactly right Alec.

It seems some feel that the ability to read between the lines and smell bullshit is evidence enough.

I'm not sure about the truth behind demented's claims and neither is blazingsaddles or any other poster. We all have our opinions, but to try and state them as fact at this stage is some what arrogant.

 

[Sleighfarer]

I have read all of this thread and also the thread on the Hunting Life forum and am inclined towards the Alec/Ribbons school of thought.

Although I can see why people might be confused by the story, it is actually not contradictory - you do have to concentrate, though!

When the OP said the RSPCA contacted his solicitor 8 weeks after the initial incident he meant that this was their official response to what had happened - not that this was the first he had heard of it, which is how some people have read it.

He was taking them to court and they retaliated by taking him to court - but this came much later, which also has caused confusion of the 'well, which is it?' variety.

The people on the Hunting Life forum are strongly behind the OP - who has made more than 4000 posts on that forum - though I can't say whether any of them know him in real life.

The Hunting Life folk started a fund (through an auction) to help OP fight his case. A poster from H&H popped up to tell them they were being scammed. She also informed them that she had reported the OP to the police. They made it clear that they didn't give two hoots about her allegations and have banned her from their forum.

The OP was convicted of a drugs charge, which was information that he withheld in the original posts on both forums. I think this is understandable, but not helpful.

Some people questioned whether it was the same dog on the grounds that its legs were a different colour, but if you look closely I think you can see the white through the blood.

I do not know the truth of what happened to the little dog or during the police/RSPCA visit and neither does anybody else unconnected with case.

I too look forward to information about the court case.

 

[Spring Feather]

I have read all of this thread and also the thread on the Hunting Life forum and am inclined towards the Alec/Ribbons school of thought.

Although I can see why people might be confused by the story, it is actually not contradictory ...

Same here and I also didn't think it contradictory, just a bit jumbled, but not difficult to understand.

 

[ester]

I do feel I need to say that it isn't a lack of understanding which made people suspicious (which rather makes it sound like people just aren't putting in the effort to read it properly). I understand what dymented is suggesting perfectly well, it doesn't mean that I am necessarily inclined to believe their side of the story.

 

[FionaM12]

I'll be very interested to see whether the OP provides dates, location and times of hearings. He's been asked several times now.

 

[Goldenstar]

I'll be very interested to see whether the OP provides dates, location and times of hearings. He's been asked several times now.

No reason for him to do so if he chooses not to.
I agree the story is jumbled , but then you might well be jumbled in that situation.
I can understand why in the stress of the situation you might not demand the warrant if the RSPCA and the police arrived mob handed .
It's easy to know what to after the event .
If the dead dog was killed in the care of an agent keeping up dogs for the RSPCA will they be liable not sure about that .
Just like the everyone else I don't know the truth of this, time will tell.
It's peculiar story.

 

[_GG_]

I am just popping back on to kind of stick up for Dymented a bit here.

I am aware how rich that may seem given my feelings about the situation, but I have given my support for his fight in getting justice for Stella and I have apologised for getting a bit carried away. Emotion has a lot to answer for. My thoughts have only been for the animals and I forgot for a while that there is also a person at the centre of this.

What I will say though is that Dymented offered to give me the date for his hearing and I declined. I don't want to know and don't feel Dymented should have to tell anyone. It is of course up to him if he furnishes those who have asked with that information, but I don't think any reluctance to do so should reflect on him in any way.

 

[Alec Swan]

A post of humility _GG_, and well said.

We will, as you say, await the outcome, and if it can be proven that the OP has taken part in illegal activities, then I will lead his critics.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

I can understand why in the stress of the situation you might not demand the warrant if the RSPCA and the police arrived mob handed .

……...

An interesting point. Would any of us, barring those with professional expertise, know how to react and in our own best interests, when out of the blue, we're raided? I certainly wouldn't and am wondering exactly how we 'should' react to best defend ourselves. Does anyone know?

The argument that 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' would have a rather hollow ring to it, especially with those bodies such as the rspca who have no moral or actual compunction placed upon them to work for the good of the State.

Alec.

 

[honetpot]

An interesting point. Would any of us, barring those with professional expertise, know how to react and in our own best interests, when out of the blue, we're raided? I certainly wouldn't and am wondering exactly how we 'should' react to best defend ourselves. Does anyone know?

The argument that 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' would have a rather hollow ring to it, especially with those bodies such as the rspca who have no moral or actual compunction placed upon them to work for the good of the State.

Alec.

Basic advice
http://the-shg.org/Basic legal advice for pet owners.htm
http://the-shg.org/

 

[Alec Swan]

Thank you honetpot.

I've done a bit of research, and it now seems that if the rspca, backed by Police support, succeed in confiscating dogs, then regardless of whether a criminal prosecution follows, or not, and if they do, then whether it's successful, or not, then the rspca have a legal right to keep the dogs. It seems that the owner, once deprived of his property, looses all right of ownership and regardless of the outcomes of any prosecutions. Surely this can't be right. Does anyone know, for certain?

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

Having made further enquiries it seems that the OP is not alone with his problems. So I understand there are 3 serious investigations currently in place and all are enquiring in to the major mistreatment of dogs which have been 'confiscated' by the rspca and whilst in their care.

Regarding my last post, I'm now advised that the rspca often ask the owners of the animals which they are taking, to sign a document, and all so often the document which they sign is effectively gifting the animal to the rspca. My understanding is that if the Police are hoodwinked in to insisting upon an animal's removal, then ownership is actually 'suspended' following the decision of a Court.

The rspca have no powers at all, barring the ability to apply to a Court and to prosecute. The rspca have no rights of entry, or to confiscate any animals. It's high time that the Police woke up to the fact that they are all so often being used.

Alec.

 

[dymented]

On the first day in Court the Police claimed that it was the RSPCA that took the dogs and they were not responsible stating they have powers issued by the council as inspectors, the court found that the RSPCA are charity workers who have no powers what so ever, and that the Police were responsible for seizing the dogs and the RSPCA are agents who were supposedly looking after the dogs. Then they argued that I am in court regarding matters involving the dogs, so the Court decided to adjourn the matter to a later date. This means we can now ask that both the Police and RSPCA explain to the Court, firstly the evidence which they had to bring charges in the first place, and secondly how they are jointly responsible for the seized dogs, and their dereliction of a duty of care.

 

[_GG_]

On the first day in Court the Police claimed that it was the RSPCA that took the dogs and they were not responsible stating they have powers issued by the council as inspectors, the court found that the RSPCA are charity workers who have no powers what so ever, and that the Police were responsible for seizing the dogs and the RSPCA are agents who were supposedly looking after the dogs. Then they argued that I am in court regarding matters involving the dogs, so the Court decided to adjourn the matter to a later date. This means we can now ask that both the Police and RSPCA explain to the Court, firstly the evidence which they had to bring charges in the first place, and secondly how they are jointly responsible for the seized dogs, and their dereliction of a duty of care.

I am pleased every time a court states that the RSPCA have no powers as it serves to educate the general public in that matter a bit more. Regards the dereliction of a duty of care, I hope for Stella's sake that it gets sorted out. Did it seem to you that the police and RSPCA were opposing each other? That could be very telling in your case against them.

 

[Alec Swan]

I would suggest that if it becomes evident that the charges brought by the rspca are without substance, and if it becomes obvious to the Court that the Police have been mislead in to acting as the confiscating body, then the Police will, in turn, be a little more circumspect in future, regarding the level of support that they give. It will be a sad day if the rspca are found wanting, and if the Police are forced in to evaluating the evidence for themselves rather than accepting the word of the charity.

I wonder, especially in canine cases, if Police Dog Handlers shouldn't have at least some input, from the viewpoint of suitable arrests. They would certainly be in a better position to judge than an rspca inspector, I would have thought.

Alec.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Surely the police were present to prevent a breech of the peace in much the same way that they attend when bailiff's have reason to believe there may be trouble ? Every employee has the right to be protected against the threat of abuse and physical assault whilst carrying out their duties.

If there is reasonable cause to believe that a law has been broken, the police would rightly be called to attend. They do not need to know the person is guilty. That's what the courts are for.

Interestingly, the NSPCC inspectors have more powers to remove children from their parents than the rspca has to remove animals from risk. Strange how those who criticise the RSPCA aren't equally concerned about children.
Or is animal welfare something we, like the CPS, just give lip service to ?

 

[_GG_]

Surely the police were present to prevent a breech of the peace in much the same way that they attend when bailiff's have reason to believe there may be trouble ? Every employee has the right to be protected against the threat of abuse and physical assault whilst carrying out their duties.

If there is reasonable cause to believe that a law has been broken, the police would rightly be called to attend. They do not need to know the person is guilty. That's what the courts are for.

Interestingly, the NSPCC inspectors have more powers to remove children from their parents than the rspca has to remove animals from risk. Strange how those who criticise the RSPCA aren't equally concerned about children.
Or is animal welfare something we, like the CPS, just give lip service to ?

In the equine cases I have been involved in, without exception, there has been a need for 1 police officer to attend as it is they and not the RSPCA who have the right to remove the animal(s). Basically, it is usually done over a period of time between the RSPCA and a local vet, monitoring the state of the horses and on the planned day of seizure, a police officer is present who hears what the vet says and either agrees or disagrees. To be honest, I have never known a police officer disagree with a vet. The last seizure I was present at involved an owner who had made serious threats and physically struck a member of public who had previously assisted at an RSPCA visit, so there were two officers present on the day of seizure in case the owner turned up. That's not reflection on any other cases, just pointing out that one officer needs to be present for seizure to go ahead, without them, there are no rights to do so.

 

[Alec Swan]

…….. . Strange how those who criticise the RSPCA aren't equally concerned about children.

……..

An explanation of how you managed to arrive at that gem should be interesting!!

Alec.