RSPCA with out photos

[dymented]

There were 9 dogs altogether we were looking after my sons as well
We have written permission for pest control
They took all the dogs from the house
All dogs were in good healthy fit condition.

(the alleged fighting with a wild animal) was an excuse so they could come with the police and sieze the dogs and charge you a fee of up to £20 per dog a day boarding while they hold your dogs
No evidance of any one here has been found of any dog fighting wild animals nor will they be
They have egg on there face big time and need to hide the fact that one dog was torn to bits in there care
They have been trying to intimidate me bully me threaten me and i will not roll over for them
I have done nothing wrong

 

[Fides]

I'm still none the wiser - what exactly were you doing with the dogs that gave them warrant to seize them? You still haven't answered the question. You say alleged fighting with a wild animal but you haven't said how many dogs, nor what type of animal. I was originally on your side, but I am starting to think that maybe there is more to it than you are letting on...

 

[dymented]

I'm still none the wiser - what exactly were you doing with the dogs that gave them warrant to seize them? You still haven't answered the question. You say alleged fighting with a wild animal but you haven't said how many dogs, nor what type of animal. I was originally on your side, but I am starting to think that maybe there is more to it than you are letting on...

what exactly were you doing with the dogs that gave them warrant to seize them?
Nothing at all as far as i am aware
You say alleged fighting with a wild animal but you haven't said how many dogs
I cannot answer as i never saw a warrant
what type of animal
i have no idea i did not see a warrant

i have not seen a warrant .They never left a warrant all i can gather is what i was told from them on the day .They waved a piece of paper saying they have a warrant for encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal they did not state what animal they were supposedly fighting the solicitor has request a copy twice now and never received a copy of the alleged warrant

 

[MerrySherryRider]

So are you saying that you or your son have never encouraged your dogs to fight a wild animal other than in usual and accepted method of pest control, because as far as I know, there are many people offering rat and rabbit control who do not attract the attention of the RSPCA or the police.

 

[dymented]

So are you saying that you or your son have never encouraged your dogs to fight a wild animal other than in usual and accepted method of pest control, because as far as I know, there are many people offering rat and rabbit control who do not attract the attention of the RSPCA or the police.

Yes you are correct everything was legal and above board. In 40 years of owning animals i have never had any die in my care if they need veterinary treatment they got it. That poor dog was killed and torn to bits in less than two days in rspca care. The rspca are 110% anti hunting and are well known for harassing innocent people who hunt .They think they are above the law
do these look neglected ? or abused ? or to have been fighting ?

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Your dogs look great, but forgive me if I find your apparent victimisation odd, particularly with the lack of clarity in your story.

I know that no organisation gets it 100% right all the time, (NHS and police make mistakes but essentially, they do a useful job, like the RSPCA) so I hope, like you, that the circumstances are investigated thoroughly and justice is done on behalf of the victims.

 

[Alec Swan]

I'm wondering M_S_R just how many times the O_P has to state their innocence, and I wonder just how many times you need to ask the very same question, only to receive the very same answer.

From what I read, and just once more;

'The poster who has named themselves as dymented, has no apparent idea of the reasoning behind the rspca raid, and as they haven't been charged with any specific offence, and apart from having a loose and apparently spurious accusation as to illegal activities, none of which have been made clear by explanation, so dymented is no more able to answer your questions than is anyone else. dymented has also had a terrier seized, which has been killed by a group of other dogs whilst under the control of, and in the care of the rspca, and it seems that there has been no explanation offered, nor from what I read, any suggestion of regret'.

Your previous and heart-warming tales of rspca successes have no bearing, what so ever, on this particular case, and neither do they alter or influence the facts as they've been given.

Alec.

 

[Dry Rot]

I'm wondering M_S_R just how many times the O_P has to state their innocence, and I wonder just how many times you need to ask the very same question, only to receive the very same answer.

From what I read, and just once more;

'The poster who has named themselves as dymented, has no apparent idea of the reasoning behind the rspca raid, and as they haven't been charged with any specific offence, and apart from having a loose and apparently spurious accusation as to illegal activities, none of which have been made clear by explanation, so dymented is no more able to answer your questions than is anyone else. dymented has also had a terrier seized, which has been killed by a group of other dogs whilst under the control of, and in the care of the rspca, and it seems that there has been no explanation offered, nor from what I read, any suggestion of regret'.

Your previous and heart-warming tales of rspca successes have no bearing, what so ever, on this particular case, and neither do they alter or influence the facts as they've been given.

Alec.

A very good post from Alec.

M_S_R, on the other hand, is becoming hectoring and is now harassing the OP.

I still think a first course would be to get the dogs back before any more damage is done. The RSPCA have clearly demonstrated that they are incompetent while the dogs were equally obviously being well cared for while in the OP's care.

I would also get the Press interested. Phone a local newspaper and ask to speak to a reporter. If they publish, it will quickly be picked up by the nationals. AND I would make sure the RSPCA knew what I was doing! That could be more effective than anything.

 

[abracadabra]

I'm wondering M_S_R just how many times the O_P has to state their innocence, and I wonder just how many times you need to ask the very same question, only to receive the very same answer.

From what I read, and just once more;

'The poster who has named themselves as dymented, has no apparent idea of the reasoning behind the rspca raid, and as they haven't been charged with any specific offence, and apart from having a loose and apparently spurious accusation as to illegal activities, none of which have been made clear by explanation, so dymented is no more able to answer your questions than is anyone else. dymented has also had a terrier seized, which has been killed by a group of other dogs whilst under the control of, and in the care of the rspca, and it seems that there has been no explanation offered, nor from what I read, any suggestion of regret'.
c.

Really, simple as that. Some of you are just embarrassing yourselves now by being either unable to read for comprehension or willfully misunderstanding what the OP has said SEVERAL times already.

 

[Clodagh]

And having had terriers used for digging for many years, none of those dogs look like they have spent much time near a fox, let alone a badger. And if you were encouraging them to hunt rabbits we may as well all go and hand our dogs in today!
The RSPCA, years ago, seized a foxhound and kept her for months, they had no reason to as it was before the ban and she was in good condition. When the hunt eventually got her back she was skeletally thin and very stressed. At least she was still alive, which is more than can be said for your poor little dog.
You can click on ignore user if some people repeatedly asking the same question is getting boring.

 

[dymented]

We have had one dog killed in the care of the rspca , when i then complained over the lurcher looking like skin and bone the inspector J G replied hes only lost a tad over 2.5kg . After making official complaints they have refused me access to visit the dogs . There reason behind this. (we are to busy to arrange things at the moment ).I personal think its so i can not get more evidence of the rspca failing to look after our dogs as well as to cause us more stress / worry over if the dogs are still alive .One email that was forwarded on to us from inspector J G stated that there were only 7 dogs when there should be 8 Now did he do that deliberately ? To cause more worry and stress ? over which of our loved dogs had been killed this time ? .I have asked to see the dogs many times and get no reply. When the solicitor asks the reply is (we are to busy to arrange one) please try next week. We have not been allowed to see all of the dogs for nearly 3 months now and counting . Although we have had our own vet go out and check them over twice at our own expense to make sure things are all ok But no one can know your own dogs and how they should be like your self

 

[Alec Swan]

And having had terriers used for digging for many years, none of those dogs look like they have spent much time near a fox, let alone a badger. ........

Exactly the point which I made earlier, there wouldn't be anyone with any experience of terriers which are accustomed to going underground, who would view any of those dogs in anything other than a dismissive manner (Sorry OP, but those are not hard bitten work dogs. Hard bitten being a descriptive term). "Those dogs", viewed by those who know what work terriers look like, will be considered as housebound pets. There's a huge difference.

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

Seriously, what IS the point in anyone, on a public forum, who knows neither the OP, or the facts involved, making any comment on the situation? It's purely speculation on everyone's behalf. OP could be telling the whole truth, or not. Making speculative assumptions based on the words of a complete stranger on a forum is really rather pointless.

If OP is telling the truth, then justice will be done for them, otherwise, it won't. Simple.

 

[Alec Swan]

........

If OP is telling the truth, then justice will be done for them, otherwise, it won't. Simple.

Such faith would be considered by many to be naivety.

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

Such faith would be considered by many to be naivety.

Alec.

Either way Alec, it really isn't for any of us, who know nothing whatsoever about the real facts behind the entire situation, to decide what is right and what is wrong.

Perhaps OP should repost IF and WHEN an outcome, either way, occurs, and then people can make a thorough and balanced judgement.

 

[PolarSkye]

Am I alone in finding this thread extremely confusing and baffling? All of it . . . or am I just really, really thick?

P

 

[Alec Swan]

Either way Alec, it really isn't for any of us, who know nothing whatsoever about the real facts behind the entire situation, to decide what is right and what is wrong.

Perhaps OP should repost IF and WHEN an outcome, either way, occurs, and then people can make a thorough and balanced judgement.

Three points for you;

Firstly, it's dymented who is taking action against the rspca, and to date, not the other way around, and.....

Secondly, are we to assume that you remain confident that the rspca will give a clear and unbiased defence, or prosecution?

Thirdly, this case, and interestingly, it quite clearly demonstrates that there must be colossal doubts as to the integrity of the investigating officers, so it would throw up serious questions as to the suitability of a prosecuting counsel, which is reliant upon its own evidence. Generally, the CPS rely upon the evidence of the Police. It seems that the rspca are enabled of the ability to rely upon their own, how ever skewed it may be.

Again, Generally, the CPS will weed out the unsuitable evidence which it is offered, and in the cases where evidence has been bastardised, so they will them selves prosecute the suppliers of false claims. Do you honestly imagine that the rspca will report themselves to the CPS? Honestly? The rspca, as a prosecuting force, are morally corrupt.

Alec.

 

[webble]

Am I alone in finding this thread extremely confusing and baffling? All of it . . . or am I just really, really thick?

P

Nope you aren't I am very confused, a lot of OPs text doesnt make sense.

I used to be a volunter dog walker for an rspca rehome kennels and it was usual for no one but staff to have contact with case dogs so it isnt hugely unusual or suspicious for the OP not to be given access to the dogs in an ongoing case

 

[webble]

Three points for you;

Firstly, it's dymented who is taking action against the rspca, and to date, not the other way around, and.....

Secondly, are we to assume that you remain confident that the rspca will give a clear and unbiased defence, or prosecution?

Thirdly, this case, and interestingly, it quite clearly demonstrates that there must be colossal doubts as to the integrity of the investigating officers, so it would throw up serious questions as to the suitability of a prosecuting counsel, which is reliant upon its own evidence. Generally, the CPS rely upon the evidence of the Police. It seems that the rspca are enabled of the ability to rely upon their own, how ever skewed it may be.

Again, Generally, the CPS will weed out the unsuitable evidence which it is offered, and in the cases where evidence has been bastardised, so they will them selves prosecute the suppliers of false claims. Do you honestly imagine that the rspca will report themselves to the CPS? Honestly? The rspca, as a prosecuting force, are morally corrupt.

Alec.

This of course all based on the assumption that the op is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

 

[dogatemysalad]

This of course all based on the assumption that the op is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

That's my feeling too. I'd be interested in hearing the other side too. The Rspca has to content with a lot of malicious accusations from disgruntled people who have been brought to the attention of the RSPCA . There are numerous websites devoted to destroying the main organisation that prosecutes people guilty of cruelty to animals in the absence of any will to do so by the CPS.
The CPS advises people to use the RSPCA legal service because of its highly specialised team - and because it saves them money.

I'm damned if I'll stand by and let those with a vested interest in its destruction turn the clock back a century with a lack of animal welfare protection.
It may not be perfect, but it's all we've got. While its in everyone's interests to investigate any wrong doing, being fair and not making judgement based on prejudice is better.

 

[dymented]

If an only if i had a video of the whole incident of the dog being torn to bits in rspca care i think a few people would still not believe what there eyes are seeing and still claim the rspca were whiter than white. I still believe after all the rspca have done to me and my family they still have a use in the uk and should continue to do so only as a charity and leave the law up to the people that have been trained in it .

 

[Alec Swan]

This of course all based on the assumption that the op is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

This actually has nothing to do with the O_P and whether they're telling the truth, or not. It has everything though to do with a charity which are reliant upon their own evidence, that are corrupt, and apparently unable to provide any evidence which is anything other than entirely contradictory.

Any Prosecuting Service needs to be above reproach, and the rspca aren't.

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

This actually has nothing to do with the O_P and whether they're telling the truth, or not. It has everything though to do with a charity which are reliant upon their own evidence, that are corrupt, and apparently unable to provide any evidence which is anything other than entirely contradictory.

Any Prosecuting Service needs to be above reproach, and the rspca aren't.

Alec.

Oh Alec, I honestly would have credited you with more intelligence than that. You say it's not about the OP or whether they are telling the truth?! Well, of course it is, if you are saying it's about a charity being 'unable to provide evidence'...

How do YOU know they are unable to provide evidence?

 

[fburton]

If OP is telling the truth, then justice will be done for them, otherwise, it won't. Simple.

Is justice always done? I think not. So - not so simple.

 

[Moomin1]

Is justice always done? I think not. So - not so simple.

Well, if it isn't, I am quite sure OP will speak to their legal representative, who will be in receipt of all the facts (not hearsay, or opinion).

 

[FionaM12]

I'm not a defender of the RSPCA as I don't know enough about them to know how they operate.

There are often threads on here or cases in the media which do cause me concern and give me reason to doubt the RSPCA's behaviour. However this thread isn't one of them.

The whole story seems bizarre and baffling. The dates involved are confusing and, sorry OP, it just doesn't have the ring of truth IMO.

 

[dymented]

I'm not a defender of the RSPCA as I don't know enough about them to know how they operate.

There are often threads on here or cases in the media which do cause me concern and give me reason to doubt the RSPCA's behaviour. However this thread isn't one of them.

The whole story seems bizarre and baffling. The dates involved are confusing and, sorry OP, it just doesn't have the ring of truth IMO.

which bit are you struggling with ? The fact that the rspca allowed my sons dog to be torn to bits and sent it for collection skinned and beheaded ? what dates are you confused with ? explain for me please that way i might be able to shed light on it for you

 

[FionaM12]

which bit are you struggling with ? The fact that the rspca allowed my sons dog to be torn to bits and sent it for collection skinned and beheaded ? what dates are you confused with ? explain for me please that way i might be able to shed light on it for you

I haven't got time to trawl back through your posts here and on Facebook to point out quotes again.

However, you say on facebook that your solicitor was told back in mid March (a few days after it died) that your dog was killed in a fight. Later you say you weren't told until late April.

Your dog was killed three months ago. Yet the very same photo was on a selling page selling the same terrier, also three months ago.

Your dog was killed, then, in mid March and your solicitor "Clive" has been involved from the start. Your online campaign (which didn't start until the end of April) should surely have been advised against by any solicitor?

I'm dropping out of this thread, as it's time-wasting. You still haven't answered peoples' reasonable questions about what you and your dogs were doing when they were seized. (The answer can't be "nothing", were you out hunting, at home asleep, out for a walk, watching tv.....?)

If other people want to check those dates, good luck to them, but the fact remains that to me it just doesn't look true. This is my last post here. No doubt if any of this is real and you're really making a case through your solicitor, the truth will come out in court where the facts (and not the baffling jumble of allegations on here) will be available.

 

[webble]

Oh Alec, I honestly would have credited you with more intelligence than that. You say it's not about the OP or whether they are telling the truth?! Well, of course it is, if you are saying it's about a charity being 'unable to provide evidence'...

How do YOU know they are unable to provide evidence?

This ^^

Wider discussion isnt about whether the OP is telling the truth but this particular thread is

 

[Tiddlypom]

For those of you convinced of the truth of the OP's story and allegations, you are able to contribute directly to the 'fightforstellafund' via PayPal on the 'RSPCA did this' Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog

That's handy.