MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
Indeed.
RSPCA with out photos
- Thread starter dymented
- Start date
Indeed.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Do you mean like the Lisa Walsh thread was removed? :wink3:
The owners of this forum are heavily reliant upon the income stream which comes from those who pay to advertise on here, and the greater the flow of 'traffic' so the greater the perceived value to advertisers. Heavily used or viewed threads are a bit of a balancing act, I would imagine, between what is viewed as acceptable, and what isn't.
Apart from the occasional and rather puritanical stance, HHO is by and large reasonably accepting. The only clout which the rspca will have will be if they threaten litigation, and the legal bods consider that they may have a case, then the thread would be removed. Otherwise, I would imagine that the attitude would be that the rspca can go whistle if the flow of those visiting the thread is considered to be of value.
It might help to clear up the question of prosecution;
The O_P has yet to be advised as to whether there's any evidence of him/her, having broken any specific Law. It would also seem that notice of prosecution has yet to be issued.
The O_P is keen to have their dogs returned to them, as at best the evidence of the O_P's wrong doing seems rather sparse. In the event that the rspca are refusing to return the dogs, so they are also likely to face a 'civil' Law Suit from the O_P, and dependent upon the outcome, and equally dependent upon the apparent evidence, so the option for the CPS to themselves bring a prosecution case against the rspca though highly unlikely, would be an option.
It may well be worth raising the point that had the positions been reversed, and accepting that the evidence would need to exist, that the O_P had taken in 3 GSDs, and had they killed the terrier which was the property of another, then the O_P could well be facing the Courts. The fact that it would seem that the rspca have been either grossly negligent, or wilfully permitted such an act, should not be ignored. Charitable status is no excuse for neglect.
The suggestion that the rspca have six months in which to issue proceedings is questionable. It's always been my understanding that the six month limitation refers to motoring offences, not to criminal proceedings, but I may well be wrong.
It is not my point that I would support or defend the O_P, simply because of my views regarding the rspca, but that whilst in the care of a charity, one which would purport to be an authority on canine care, there can be no question that they have been negligent and to the point of criminally so, resulting in the death of a dog which is the O_P's property. It's my understanding, from what I read on here, that there has been no apology or expression of regret from the rspca, and that wont help their case, I wouldn't have thought. From the previous thread on the subject, it seems that the rspca sub-contracted the care of the dogs concerned to a boarding kennel in private ownership, and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they absolve themselves of blame, by blaming their contractors.
I suspect that this will rumble on, rather like the Lisa Walsh thread, until either one prosecuting body, or a civil Court make a decision as to the route to take. I will predict that should a civil case, brought by the O_P, precede notice of prosecution, then any such prosecution will be viewed more as retaliation than a worthwhile case.
It will be interesting to hear the outcome.
Alec.
_GG_
Well-Known Member
No idea who Lisa Walsh is. I normally stay out of these things...mainly because we only know what we get told and we are not getting told a lot here.
I am not defending the RSPCA, nor will I venture to wonder how and why decisions are made regarding the pulling of threads, but the RSPCA do actually have some considerable clout when then want something removed as I've seen it happen before.
meandmyself
Well-Known Member
Did they perform a necropsy on the dog or not? That could be the answer to why you got the body back like you did.
I'll be honest though OP. Non of this sounds true to me. Your times and dates are jumbled, you keep repeating the same info over and over again.
I'll be honest though OP. Non of this sounds true to me. Your times and dates are jumbled, you keep repeating the same info over and over again.
twiglet84
Well-Known Member
So let me just clarify. The RSPCA rocked up with the police, showed u no paperwork and seized your dogs. So did u not have a conversation with them? Did u not ask for paperwork and more details. I can't believe you handed over all your beloved dogs without exchanging any information with them whatsoever. So what exactly was the conversation u had?
And are u saying that the RSPCA did a post mortem on your dog, skinning it etc and then sent the body parts to the vet (in a bag like your picture) or was that all done after your vet saw the body?
And are u saying that the RSPCA did a post mortem on your dog, skinning it etc and then sent the body parts to the vet (in a bag like your picture) or was that all done after your vet saw the body?
Last edited:
Love_my_Lurcher
Well-Known Member
I am very much anti-RSPCA, but I too am struggling to understand exactly what happened. I would like to ask the poster as to why the picture of the dead dog is the exact same as the one from the online advert.
It took a great deal of courage to look at the photos on the Facebook page, but the remains of the dog don't look big enough to have been the dog pictured. The skull just looked too small. Anybody else notice this?
If there is an ongoing investigation then why-oh-why is there a Facebook page and discussions about it on forums? Any solicitor/legal adviser worth his or her salt would most definitely recommend against any public discussions.
It took a great deal of courage to look at the photos on the Facebook page, but the remains of the dog don't look big enough to have been the dog pictured. The skull just looked too small. Anybody else notice this?
If there is an ongoing investigation then why-oh-why is there a Facebook page and discussions about it on forums? Any solicitor/legal adviser worth his or her salt would most definitely recommend against any public discussions.
_GG_
Well-Known Member
I did wonder about the skull, thought it looked a little small and wrong shape but I'm no expert and didn't want to look for too long.
I would comment on the worst pictures though, of the little dog with front part of mouth missing and that is to say that the dog has a myriad of old scars on its face. The lesions look to me more like lesions from a form of cancer or local infection than new wounds caused by another dog.
I just don't believe any of it.
widget
Well-Known Member
Dog missing some jaw front teeth also synonymous with badger baiting dogs
Angelbones
Well-Known Member
Where can I find the facebook page with this on please? or anywhere else?
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
As I see it, OP's solution is quite simple. Raise an action in Small Claims to require the RSPCA to hand back the dogs. If the OP doesn't want to do that, he loses all credibility in my eyes.
_GG_
Well-Known Member
I think it is looking more like an RSPCA witch hunt. Collecting the stories of other people and using the shock factor.
Personally, if my dogs were taken in such circumstances, I would not be going anywhere near facebook or this forum about it. I would have been straight in an office with a specialist solicitor and I would be doing every damn thing I could to get my dogs back.
But then, I would know why they were taken because, unless the OP responsible for making the situation difficult, there is no reason at all that they couldn't have asked to read the warrant and be told what was happening. Regardless of the RSPCA, the police would contain the situation and explain the situation to you, then ask if you understood. if you were so difficult to deal with that they couldn't explain and show you the warrant, you'd be arrested.
I am not saying that there isn't some element of truth as in, the RSPCA having the dogs...but the rest of it I find impossible to believe.
You know how we got the horses rescued recently? We got it all stopped on facebook, stopped people being public about it and just spent hours each day on the phone to the police and RSPCA and within two weeks it was all sorted.
Publicity is NOT always good. The facebook page has sent a message to the BBC, the BBC are not interested.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
D_R,
Presumably the O_P will be receiving legal advice, and whilst you've raised an interesting point, I suspect that it would be unlikely that a Court would move against a prosecuting body who in their defence, simply stated that enquiries were on going and that the animals concerned were evidence.
If in such a case, a private claim was taken out, then presumably any potential prosecuting team would need to explain to a Court just why they are holding the animals and they'd also need to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper body to care for seized animals. They'd struggle with the last bit, I suspect, but at least the dogs wouldn't die of old age waiting for a hearing! There would also be a certain level of accountability which the rspca would need to display, I'd have thought.
Alec.
Presumably the O_P will be receiving legal advice, and whilst you've raised an interesting point, I suspect that it would be unlikely that a Court would move against a prosecuting body who in their defence, simply stated that enquiries were on going and that the animals concerned were evidence.
If in such a case, a private claim was taken out, then presumably any potential prosecuting team would need to explain to a Court just why they are holding the animals and they'd also need to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper body to care for seized animals. They'd struggle with the last bit, I suspect, but at least the dogs wouldn't die of old age waiting for a hearing! There would also be a certain level of accountability which the rspca would need to display, I'd have thought.
Alec.
dymented
Well-Known Member
The dog which you are on about is not my dog it is some one else's and all the damage in the photo was done to that poor dog in rspca care as well ask him nice and he will send you the report on how anther dog slipped free from his lead and did the damage instead of trying to make out the rspca do no wrong The solicitor is in the processes of dealing with the rspca for there neglect and cruelty they inflicted on the poor dog as to the warrant ill say it again no warrant was seen or left they waved a bit of paper about claiming to have one they were mob handed and shouting i did what i was told by the police i did not realize until later i had rights the solicitor has requested a copy of the warrant twice now and still not received it . Thank you all for your concern Remember the rspca could target any one of you nest they do not appear to have any reason they do it because they can have a listen to the inter view with a much respected horse owner and what they did to him ! http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037v4fp
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Dymented I've followed this thread with interest and now to have come back, can you please answer one question?
What species of animals were your dogs used to control?
What species of animals were your dogs used to control?
dymented
Well-Known Member
Rats & rabbits
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
Has there ever been an occasion when they disturbed fox or badger which could have been mistaken by an ignorant onlooker for baiting, or has this accusation come from completely left field?
I'm sure they will have had a warrant, I'm just very puzzled what evidence they produced to get anyone in authority to sign it.
Has there ever been an occasion when they disturbed fox or badger which could have been mistaken by an ignorant onlooker for baiting, or has this accusation come from completely left field?
I'm sure they will have had a warrant, I'm just very puzzled what evidence they produced to get anyone in authority to sign it.
Fides
Well-Known Member
Bloody finally! I've asked that question 4 times and you have dodged around it! Can't believe it took this many pages to get a straight answer...
Fwiw - the RSPCA couldn't issue a warrant for fighting wild animals if it were rats and rabbits due to the fact they aren't fighting animals. Badgers will...
thewonderhorse
Well-Known Member
Quite.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
I'm still fence sitting, but with a slant which is opposed to the animal charities. However, and whilst NOT taking the side of dymented, I can assure you that I've had many 'decent' terriers in my time, and to suggest that the little dog in question, was a dog which could be or would be used to face a badger, is just laughable. By way of comparison, would you be a little surprised that a Welsh Section B pony would complete the course at Burghley? Would you be surprised to see a Standard Poodle come out of Greyhound traps? Either would be just as likely as the apparent claim.
To suggest that the dead dog was a dog designed for work, would be ridiculous, and you'll have to take my word on that. Over the years I've had dogs which would engage with a fox, and kill it single handedly. I've never allowed terriers below ground when there has been any chance of Brock being there. Two reasons for this, Firstly I rather like Brock, and secondly, I've never known a terrier which could take on, again single handedly, a badger and kill it. All that I've ever seen are the most horrendous injuries and death from facing Mr. Badger.
I remain confused, and still wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye. Accepting that the rspca wouldn't know a decent dog if it bit them, I'm still confused, having seen the pics of the seized dogs which have been posted, as to how anyone would view them as anything other than a rather motley collection of pets. The dogs in the pics have not been used against badgers, and even were the O_P to claim that they were, then I would be more than happy to contradict them.
The quotes from previous posts where others have doubted that the P-M pics of the dead dog were those of the purported animal, then let me assure you that the head size even though skinned out was of an entirely acceptable size to the supposed animal. The missing teeth were also most probably lost whilst the animal was being killed by the 3 GSDs. Such murder from other dogs is rarely an instant event, and the attack would most likely have been sustained and it would have lasted for some while. I remain appalled at the apparent rspca report which states that the dog in question was 'Found Dead'. 'Found Dead' would imply that there was no supervision, what so ever. The level of suffering which the poor wee thing went through would have been dreadful. How others can support the rspca, following on from their offered reports, is beyond me. How those who were responsible for the incompetence which lead to the murder (dog-upon-dog) of the animal on question, are going to explain their incompetence, will be entertaining, at the very least!!
Were the quoted rspca reports anything other than genuine, then those who monitor this thread, and on behalf of the rspca, would have had this thread removed, by now!
Alec.
PolarSkye
Well-Known Member
Alec,
It's perfectly possible to be (to put it politely) dubious of the OP's claims and NOT be pro RSPCA.
P
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
This is absolutely so.
For Whatever and however the RSPCA removed OP's dogs if it was done in a lawful or unlawful way there's no excuse for a mauled to death pet on their watch .
I also don't understand why OP seems so little focused on the rest of their dogs if it where me I would hysterical with fear for them worrying about them separated from me and not knowing where I was and worried that some further cock up might result in death ,PTS or rehomed and 'lost ' with out me knowing , yet OP does not mention them.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Alec, just to double check you do know the dead dog was different to the one with the jaw bitten off?
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
The photograph which the OP offered, and was subsequently removed, showed a bottom jaw intact-ish. I'll go back and check, to be sure of my facts.
Alec.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
I'll see if I can send you a link, as that is poss why badgers have been mentioned, I wouldn't have a clue what a badger dog might look like though!
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Oh apparently the one I was thinking of on the fb page is not one of the OPs, too many dogs!
Last edited:
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
Daschunds were bred as Badger dogs, Jack Russells used to hunt badgers because of their fearlessness as did Border Terriers and other working Terrier dogs.
Of course, it's not just badger's that the RSPCA is concerned about, it could be fox or deer being used for sport by an owner inciting a pack of dogs.
_GG_
Well-Known Member
I don't have much experience with dogs used for pest control. Do any of the dogs pictured in this thread look like dogs used for pest control?
I hadn't thought of it, but if you say you can tell a working dog from a non working dog, then do they all look like working dogs?
Hope that makes some sort of sense
_GG_
Well-Known Member
Yes it is. That is why I said it seems more like a witch hunt against the RSPCA...it is more about promoting stories against the RSPCA than trying to get back the dogs they still have.
I just don't understand. Also, the dog missing some jaw has some very old scars that look like fighting scars so I am extremely dubious...no...absoluetly totally unconvinced that the damage shown happened as the result of a recent dog attack.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Well it didn't look to be a particularly fresh wound to me either, certainly seems an odd way to go about getting your dogs back.
_GG_
Well-Known Member
Given how much work I have done with vets over the years, it looks more like a wound that is recovering from infection, the borders to the wound, the texture of the skin/flesh. I am very untrusting. All we have to go on is the OP's word. I can't see anything from the RSPCA so can't judge that, but I just don't get it.