_GG_
Well-Known Member
I don't think they were police officers Fides. I believe it was 9 RSPCA officers, accompanied by police. I can't remember if OP has stated on either thread how many police there were.
RSPCA with out photos
- Thread starter dymented
- Start date
I don't think they were police officers Fides. I believe it was 9 RSPCA officers, accompanied by police. I can't remember if OP has stated on either thread how many police there were.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
I have seen no proof that this has actually happened, Alec. I would need more evidence before I could believe the death happened, and even then the RSPCA is not necessarily at fault and more facts are required.
I have no evidence of that Alec, only dymented' s description of what seems to me have been a carefully planned and safely executed removal of nine dogs.
I find it completely impossible to believe that he has no idea whatsoever why these dogs were removed. And therefore impossible to know how much of his story is true.
…
But I have witnessed nothing in this case Alec, and what the OP has written has holes in it big enough to sink the titanic.
PS gg, his Facebook page is now directly asking for donations.
Last edited:
Fides
Well-Known Member
It was nine police officers - the OP PMed me. "9 police officers and a few RSPCA" officers were his exact words.
abb123
Well-Known Member
I have to agree with cptrayes. There is no evidence that anything the OP has posted is true.
From what I can gather from the posts, the facts are:
(1) OP has 9 dogs that he says he uses to control rats and rabbits. None of which look suited to that job and are more of the pet type.
(2) The RSPCA turned up with 9 police officers with warrant and removed the dogs.
(3) One dog at some point died.
There are questions over:
(1) What the warrant was for. The police would be duty bound to ensure that you understood the contents of the warrant.
(2) What the dogs were doing/being done to that would necessitate the RSPCA obtaining a warrant organising 9 police officers to be in attendance and why they felt the need for 9 police officers to be in attendance.
(3) The time line with dates changing.
(4) Solicitors involvement/ is there a solicitor and if there is then they are not acting as would be expected.
(5) How the dog died/when the dog died and in what condition it was when the RSPCA removed the animal.
I'm sorry OP, I may be completely wrong but the impression that all this is giving is that you/your son are known to the police and RSPCA and that they expected trouble. That you were either baiting badgers/foxes or involved in dog fighting in some way. That the dog was injured before the RSPCA seized it and was put down. You are now trying to make money out the situation by looking for 'donations'.
If this is not the case then you need to seriously reconsider how you are presenting your situation and how you are going about sorting it all out!
From what I can gather from the posts, the facts are:
(1) OP has 9 dogs that he says he uses to control rats and rabbits. None of which look suited to that job and are more of the pet type.
(2) The RSPCA turned up with 9 police officers with warrant and removed the dogs.
(3) One dog at some point died.
There are questions over:
(1) What the warrant was for. The police would be duty bound to ensure that you understood the contents of the warrant.
(2) What the dogs were doing/being done to that would necessitate the RSPCA obtaining a warrant organising 9 police officers to be in attendance and why they felt the need for 9 police officers to be in attendance.
(3) The time line with dates changing.
(4) Solicitors involvement/ is there a solicitor and if there is then they are not acting as would be expected.
(5) How the dog died/when the dog died and in what condition it was when the RSPCA removed the animal.
I'm sorry OP, I may be completely wrong but the impression that all this is giving is that you/your son are known to the police and RSPCA and that they expected trouble. That you were either baiting badgers/foxes or involved in dog fighting in some way. That the dog was injured before the RSPCA seized it and was put down. You are now trying to make money out the situation by looking for 'donations'.
If this is not the case then you need to seriously reconsider how you are presenting your situation and how you are going about sorting it all out!
_GG_
Well-Known Member
Really? Wow. I have been involved in enough welfare cases involving the removal of animals to know that that is an INCREDIBLE number of police officers.
_GG_
Well-Known Member
Very well constructed.
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
It's not really if they expected trouble and I have been at removals where they were up to twenty and at one they had armed officers .
Taking animal in the circumstances described is unusual .
_GG_
Well-Known Member
Exactly....what the OP has been getting at all along is that they are totally innocent and had been doing nothing wrong. If that were the case, I'd expect one police officer present, 2 at most. To have 9 there means only one thing....as you say, they expected trouble.
FionaM12
Well-Known Member
Interestingly the solicitor the OP names advertises that his speciallity is "defending the indefensible" which he defines as "animal related offenses, such as hunting with dogs, badger digging, poaching, disturbance of wild birds"
http://clivereessolicitor.com/
Fides
Well-Known Member
That's what I thought. I wouldn't have even expected 9 RSPCA officers even to be honest - 9 dogs but surely they would remove them one by one to minimise stress.
My impression of the OP through this thread (and PMs he has sent me) is that he may be known already to the police and RSPCA as an 'unsavoury character' and they anticipated trouble. I am not talking behind the OPs back - I said this to them privately after they PMed me. I may be wrong but this is the impression that the OP gives with their aggressive stance on the thread and by PMing people who disagree with them. I would be interested to hear if anyone else has had PMs telling them how wrong they are - not polite PMs, ones with a pretty arsey 'tone' much like the replies in this thread.
ETA - I also don't like his 'name dropping'. Using peoples' full names without their permission, when they are the people being accused, smells a little of 'I know who you are' type witness intimidation.
The whole thing leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
But still - poor poor dog who was mauled. Someone does need to answer for that.
Last edited:
_GG_
Well-Known Member
So, he writes for Horse and Hound!
_GG_
Well-Known Member
I have not had any PM's nor have I had much in the way of response to any of the points I have made throughout this thread. I have witnessed the OP respond to others and not me. The response to my long posts a couple of pages back was just a bit odd...no acknowledgement at all of the points made.
I know others have PM'd but not what has been said...they are PM's, so non of my business, but I just find it all a bit odd.
Even where a person had previously (in front of police officers) threatened to stab someone....only one police officer turned up when the horses were siezed. We were all, police/RSPCA, vet and myself petrified the owner was going to turn up...thankfully she didn't...but even with that history, only 1 officer.
FionaM12
Well-Known Member
Yes, if there was a dog that was mauled that is...
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
Not sure if any thing can be inferred by it .
The warrant thing makes no sense to me who in their right mind would allow their dogs to be removed without reading the warrant .
dymented
Well-Known Member
( A total of 13 officials turned up at 70-year-old John Spicer,s home )
70 year old and 13 turned up at a retired vets house was he an unsavory charter ????
link to the story here
http://usecmagazine.usecnetwork.com/uk/?p=63906
you can post that to your buddies in the rspca
under the 2006 animal welfare act they had a duty of care to to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the animals and have failed miserably 1 dog dead , 1 dog has been attacked and bitten about the head ,one dog emaciated , all the dogs seem to have lost fur in large patches the white dogs have urine stained legs now as stated Clive Rees is dealing with this matter of prosecuting the rspca
I have never been questioned over dog fighting / i have never been questioned over badger bating
as stated i did not own all the dogs. no one else has been questioned by the rspca or the police
They have made a horrendous mistake and they know it ! they are now trying to cover there ass .
In a statement made to an investigator the rspca claim it was the police who seized the dogs and they had nothing to do with it they also claim that it was not at one of there kennels where it happened the kennel where it happened is ( http://www.rspca-lincseast.org.uk/catalog ) So the investigator called the police who state it was the rspca who advised them to size the dogs on there behalf and that they are looking after the dogs he also asked if they were going to prosecute me which the reply was No
its up to the rspca if they can find anything . he has the whole conversation on tape !!
_GG_
Well-Known Member
Why are you posting a link about a totally unrelated incident....of which you only have a biased story? I don't need to look, it doesn't mean anything.
I don't have buddies in the RSPCA...I actually avoid them like the plague but have had to work with them a few times, one very recently. I have no doubt that they can be incompetent, but that is them.
My issue with you is that you have and continue to handle this whole thing extremely poorly. You came on here giving one version of events, while giving different information on the other forum (thread which has now either gone or become private). It has been your behaviour which has made me draw the conclusion that I don't trust what you say. That's not to say I don't believe that your story could potentially have some truth to it...just that you have posted and handled this is a way that I can't trust what you say to be true and with such disparity in your comments, I find it abhorrent to accept any donations, whether you've asked for them or not.
I recently managed to force the RSPCA into action as another member on here can verify. You don't get what you need against organisations like this by posting crap all over the internet...you get results by being extremely careful, clever and considered in everything you do...ignoring all other stories and cases, just concentrating on your own. The moment you start to go on a hate campaign, you will be given about as much respect as snail poo.
My advice, if this is all true...Take aboslutely everything offline. Ask the forum admins to remove all threads, close down the facebook page, close down donations and refund everyone that has donated so far. Work with your solicitor and make absolutely NO negative comments anywhere or to anyone about the organisations you are accusing. Be absolutely above reproach in how you handle this and if/when it goes to court, you will be able to show yourself to have been nothing but exemplary in your conduct. A judge faced with a person who has publicly condemned the opposition, solicited or accepted financial contribution etc. will NOT be impressed and will be far more likely to concentrate on your conduct when all they should be concentrating on is the welfare of the dogs/justice for the dog that died.
Seriously...you are being your own worst enemy. You don't have to listen to me, you probably won't...but I have been successful on numerous occasions...you haven't...learn something from that.
Last edited:
dogatemysalad
Well-Known Member
Thank goodness the RSPCA got the dogs out in the link you posted. One of the dogs has to be carried out on a board, it's too sick to walk and has most of its coat missing.
How can you criticise the dog in such a pitiful state being taken ? Are you mad or just inhumane?
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Well there more to the story you quote in your last post Dymented, isn't there?
1. It is not normal for the Fire Brigade to attend. Why was it felt they were needed in that case?
2. It is not normal to climb a ladder and look in an upstairs window when seizing dogs. Why did it happen in that case?
3. It is not normal to do a dawn raid or break down the door for people felt to be no threat, who answer their door when it is knocked. Why did it happen in that case?
4. It IS normal for the RSPCA to attempt to work with owners before seizing dogs. They had previous contact with that old vet. Can you tell us what previous contact they had with you?
5. It is also completely normal for the Police not to charge these cases and leave it to the RSPCA, so I wish you and the person who wrote this article would get it into your heads that just because you have not been charged by the Poloce that you are in some way victims of an RSPCA vendetta.
Just because that man is seventy and an ex vet does not make him innocent. They have to become hardened to hurting animals to help them, and its easy to cross that line into cruelty, which clearly this man has done, given the state of the dog on the board.
1. It is not normal for the Fire Brigade to attend. Why was it felt they were needed in that case?
2. It is not normal to climb a ladder and look in an upstairs window when seizing dogs. Why did it happen in that case?
3. It is not normal to do a dawn raid or break down the door for people felt to be no threat, who answer their door when it is knocked. Why did it happen in that case?
4. It IS normal for the RSPCA to attempt to work with owners before seizing dogs. They had previous contact with that old vet. Can you tell us what previous contact they had with you?
5. It is also completely normal for the Police not to charge these cases and leave it to the RSPCA, so I wish you and the person who wrote this article would get it into your heads that just because you have not been charged by the Poloce that you are in some way victims of an RSPCA vendetta.
Just because that man is seventy and an ex vet does not make him innocent. They have to become hardened to hurting animals to help them, and its easy to cross that line into cruelty, which clearly this man has done, given the state of the dog on the board.
PolarSkye
Well-Known Member
What I take away from this thread is that it takes an awful lot to rile GG . . . she is, without question, one of the most balanced, kind and rational posters on this board . . . if you were trying to garner support, the fact that GG finds it difficult to stomach the way you have gone about things speaks volumes to me.
Oh, and I was sceptical before GG called you out . . . now I am doubly so.
P
Oh, and I was sceptical before GG called you out . . . now I am doubly so.
P
FionaM12
Well-Known Member
I think the OP has been listened to politely and reasonable questions asked. But their story's unconvincing and they refuse to answer questions fully. GG could not have been nicer or more tolerant yet is childishly accused of being a friend of the RSPCA. Bringing other anti- RSPCA stories in causes even more confusion.
Maybe the RSPCA did act badly, we'll probably never know as I don't believe a court case will follow and the OP had totally discredited themselves.
Maybe the RSPCA did act badly, we'll probably never know as I don't believe a court case will follow and the OP had totally discredited themselves.
dymented
Well-Known Member
we now have a date in early October regarding prosecuting the rspca !!
joycec
Well-Known Member
Prosecuting? For a criminal offence? Don't you mean suing, for a civil offence?
Whichever, this will be very interesting. Can you tell us which court please, if it's close I may even go and watch so I can finally make an informed view of you case, which I've been watching and bemused by since it started.
Last edited:
dymented
Well-Known Member
I am using the same procedure that the rspca do any any other member of the public can its a criminal offence under the animal welfare act 2006 to cause unnecessary suffering and pain to a protected animal IE my sons dog that was in there care that was killed . If it happened in your or my care they would prosecute us !!!
Fides
Well-Known Member
Has your solicitor informed you that if you do so the CPS can take over and stop the proceedings? I have a feeling you could soon be learning a very expensive lesson.
FionaM12
Well-Known Member
No answer to this question?
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Upon what grounds? Though unusual, private individuals can bring private prosecutions, and I would have thought that the throwing out of a case would be at the discretion of a Judge, and not the CPS who appear to have taken no interest in the matters under discussion. The question is aside from the OP and their case. I'd be genuinely interested to hear.
Alec.
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
Yes, The CPS can and does stop private prosecutions for various reasons, eg if it was malicious or vexatious, or if it interfered with other criminal proceedings.
Spudlet
Well-Known Member
Under section 6 of the Prosecutions of Offences Act 1985, the CPS can take over private prosecutions and continue or discontinue them. The circumstances under which they can do either of these things is outlined here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/private_prosecutions/#an05
Another watching with, erm, interest, if that's the right word!
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/private_prosecutions/#an05
Another watching with, erm, interest, if that's the right word!
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Aah, so if the rspca are planning a prosecution, then presumably the CPS can step in and prevent a counter measure, am I right? Mind you, that still doesn't explain the rspca's handling of a dog which was killed, by what would appear to be a neglect of duty and care. As others, and accepting that I'm not a fan of the charity in question, I am nonetheless, fence sitting!
Alec.
_GG_
Well-Known Member
Dymented was given a court date for October on 16th September. His legal team have been given a copy of the warrant, which has apparently been found to be unlawful.
The income from the charity auction and donations stood at £5,100 as of 16th July, with £4,200 paid to Clive Reese for the Section 20 and barristers cost.
Magistrates Court was mentioned previously and Lincolnshire police, so I would imagine that the case will be heard in a local Magistrates Court. Shouldn't be hard to find out if anyone did want to go. I have no interest in going, but someone on here recently said they'd like to. It's public information and easy to obtain.
This thread has been quiet since June, but the Hunting Life forum has been updated regularly. Should anyone wish to look, here's the link again.
http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/topic/320138-rspca/page-43
Dymented. I will again say, as I have all along that if the RSPCA have done wrong here, you will have my support and I hope they are made to pay, I have no problem apologising when I am wrong, but I still don't quite buy into it all. Not that I don't buy into some of it...but just not all and I maintain that taking donations from strangers is wrong when the information supplied is so very full of holes.
Thank you for the update though. I fully understand you posting more on the other forum, you get a lot more support on there, but I will look forward to further updates on here.
The income from the charity auction and donations stood at £5,100 as of 16th July, with £4,200 paid to Clive Reese for the Section 20 and barristers cost.
Magistrates Court was mentioned previously and Lincolnshire police, so I would imagine that the case will be heard in a local Magistrates Court. Shouldn't be hard to find out if anyone did want to go. I have no interest in going, but someone on here recently said they'd like to. It's public information and easy to obtain.
This thread has been quiet since June, but the Hunting Life forum has been updated regularly. Should anyone wish to look, here's the link again.
http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/topic/320138-rspca/page-43
Dymented. I will again say, as I have all along that if the RSPCA have done wrong here, you will have my support and I hope they are made to pay, I have no problem apologising when I am wrong, but I still don't quite buy into it all. Not that I don't buy into some of it...but just not all and I maintain that taking donations from strangers is wrong when the information supplied is so very full of holes.
Thank you for the update though. I fully understand you posting more on the other forum, you get a lot more support on there, but I will look forward to further updates on here.