RSPCA

Moomin1 said:
Oh that beauty!! It would seem Vikki didn't help the case there.
Click to expand...

If you have fb look for Hopes Cause and read the documents first, If Vikki hadnt stepped in Hope would have died, it was touch and go for a long time with Hope.
I cant see how you think she didnt help the case unless buying Hope and taking her away made things difficult for the RSPCA.

Vikki recently won the best vet of the year award.
 
I can explain to the poster above, why they wanted the poster to ring the helpline. It generates money for the RSPCA, so by refusing to accept the report by e-mail they gain the money of concerned members of the public, by rather underhand means IMO. I also get a little steamed up about their quasi official status. When I see them, on the various TV programmes, issuing people with the official police 'caution' it annoys me hugely!
 
YorksG said:
I can explain to the poster above, why they wanted the poster to ring the helpline. It generates money for the RSPCA, so by refusing to accept the report by e-mail they gain the money of concerned members of the public, by rather underhand means IMO. I also get a little steamed up about their quasi official status. When I see them, on the various TV programmes, issuing people with the official police 'caution' it annoys me hugely!
Click to expand...

HAHAHAAAAAA!!! You actually think they issue an official 'police' caution!?!! Are you for real?!!

They are called 'Adult written cautions' and they are merely a caution which goes on the rspca system which will be raised in any future court proceedings if they ever offend again!!

Oh, I am sorry YorksG, I see what you may mean.

I think what you are talking about is the caution which is read out when an offence is detected. That is not a police caution. It is in accordance with government laws and something called PACE. Anybody who detects an offence and wishes to investigate and progress with a possible prosecution HAS to by law abide by PACE. That means a caution has to be read out so that the potential offender knows their rights before answering any questions.

You, a mere member of public, could do the same if you wished to progress with a prosecution case. Anybody can take them!!!
 
Last edited:
Dobiegirl said:
This is an example of the RSPCA. I saw an advert on Gumtree selling a 3-4 week Staffy pup, I reported it to Gumtree and sent an email to the nearest RSPCA centre with the link. I had an email back from them asking me to ring the cruelty helpline, now why didnt they do that themselves considering it the same orginisation?
Click to expand...

Because they are not the same 'orginisation' (I suspect you mean 'organisation' there). The branches are separate organisations who take on the RSPCA name. They have their own rules and regulations, and sometimes don't have much to do with the National Society inspectors at all.:rolleyes:
 
Moomin1 You may very well be a diligent and knowledgeable employee of the Ridiculous Society Pretending to Care Any, but the management have alienated what once might have been an army of effective soldiers against cruelty to animals, with their transformation of it into a politically motivated, money orientated machine with faceless executives at the helm.

What is your angle on the Hope case? I'd be interested to hear...
 
brighteyes said:
Moomin1 You may very well be a diligent and knowledgeable employee of the Ridiculous Society Pretending to Care Any, but the management have alienated what once might have been an army of effective soldiers against cruelty to animals, with their transformation of it into a politically motivated, money orientated machine with faceless executives at the helm.

What is your angle on the Hope case? I'd be interested to hear...
Click to expand...

I have stated what my angle is on the Hope case on other threads!

Sounds like the RSPCA have really got under your skin at some point!...;)
 
I called RSPCA a while back as there was a dog left in a car multi story in summer with no water no air no food, RSPCA answer? Not their problem. They only come out and check on animals in extra need. pathetic!
On another note, someone Reported that my horse was limping and there was no water. So RSPCA come down and I show them that there is water and they say the horses look fine. They didn't even look in the stable where my poorly horse actually was?!?
 
Well I think they are rubbish. There was a programme on Radio 4 a couple of years ago with some stories about peoples' animals - 1 was about a GSD with a stomach disorder and the RSPCA interfered and eventually took the dog away and had it put down - the poor woman didn't even get the body back to bury it as they 'lost' it. The same programme said that the previous year the RSPCA put down something like 48,000 healthy animals (unlike the Dogs Trust who say they never put a healthy dog down). They also cooked up a case about a very well respected ex-Olympic family locally several years ago which caused them to lose their business - friend of mine was a livery there at the time and neither of us had ever seen any of the things that they were accused of. They certainly wouldn't get a penny of my money.
 
Our local RSPCA has for YEARS needed decent upgraded kennels......yet HQ spent FOUR MILLION pounds on revamping it's offices a few years back THEN bleat on tv how short of cash they are.
Bunch of morons.
Oh and they have NO right to enter your land or house without a warrant.
As useful as a box of condoms in a nunnery!
 
joeanne said:
Our local RSPCA has for YEARS needed decent upgraded kennels......yet HQ spent FOUR MILLION pounds on revamping it's offices a few years back THEN bleat on tv how short of cash they are.
Bunch of morons.
Oh and they have NO right to enter your land or house without a warrant.
As useful as a box of condoms in a nunnery!
Click to expand...

I should think a box of condoms would actually be quite useful in many nunneries! ;)

To repeat, the local branches are SEPARATE charities which take on the name of the RSPCA. The are random people who decide to set up shelters in the name of the RSPCA. Their income is solely down to THEM not the National Society.
 
Moomin1 said:
I should think a box of condoms would actually be quite useful in many nunneries! ;)

To repeat, the local branches are SEPARATE charities which take on the name of the RSPCA. The are random people who decide to set up shelters in the name of the RSPCA. Their income is solely down to THEM not the National Society.
Click to expand...

That's good them. I'd much rather support these individual branches who actually help animals than the bloated, politicised main organisation.
 
I was an RSPCA Inspector for a long time, and can see both sides of the argument.

It is my definite belief that the Inspectorate is only as good as the Inspector on the ground, who deals with a certain patch. Excellent ones, and not so excellent ones.

If a complaint is made, under any circumstances, about an animal that is considered to be suffering, an Inspector is OBLIGED to attend it as soon as possible. This often causes offence, but the animal HAS to be seen. Like I say, it is then up to the individual Inspector how to react.

Remember, no other organisation PROSECUTES offenders, the police will almost always defer to the RSPCA. As will the BHS, WHW (both of whom i worked with a lot, often very successfully).
 
Last edited:
@Amymay
You make the point that my friend gave away 10horses (at instructions of RSPCA) and are shocked at that. What you do not know is that with her contacts (extensive network) she can do that easily.And into good homes. What you do not also know when you stand in judgment on her (and me) is that she is regually given horses to rehome, to save them from being put down where owners cannot afford them.
And out of over 50 horses, when an inspector was nit picking only 2 that needed trimming? Of horses that may or may not have just arrived? Maybe they were going to be trimmed on the last visit from farrier and they prooved to be difficult, then needing to be sedated without the time then to do it, and it was planned in. That is not neglect.
The whole point in how she is dealing with them is to do everything that they were telling her to, and showing them that they were wrong. Like the topping of the field in the wet (everything they said done in writing from them, photographic evidence, vetinary evidence, independent valuations etc) And she will sue the pants off them if they continue the harassment, with proof of her losses at their hands.
Down in my corner, you get a lot more sense from independent charaties.
Why is it in this section? where else should it be? Was fresh news
 
Thanks for your response Elijahasgal. Over 50 horses? That's a huge amount of equines to have. I'm guessing she's running some sort of pseudo rescue, which is admirable. But boy have you got to have the funds to be able to finance something like this.

I'd suggest that rather than sueing the RSPCA, she simply uses the money to ensure all of her horses are adequately cared for, and that she can pay her staff to assist in that care.
 
Moomin1 said:
To repeat, the local branches are SEPARATE charities which take on the name of the RSPCA. The are random people who decide to set up shelters in the name of the RSPCA. Their income is solely down to THEM not the National Society.
Click to expand...

So please tell me why I keep getting begging bl00dy "charity workers" at my door telling me that what I donate will benefit my LOCAL shelter?
Clearly that is not the case.....I wonder if I should talk to trading standards about that?
 
Amymay, it shows that you have not read the whole posts. She has a buisness, and often takes in, on the side to the buisness, horses that have been neglected, or horses whose owners have run out of funds to rehome them. She mainly deals in TBs, mainly broodmares, and is known across the whole industry for her honesty and integraty knowledge and care, and is often phoned by big studs to rehome mares that have not taken (in many cases else they would be put down) Yes she has a huge undertaking, but does it well, with fit, healthy horses. The fact that nitpicking could only find 2 whose feet needed care, not one in bad condition, or unhealthy says something about her level of dedication. oh and docks in fields that were too wet to top....You seem determined to trash her without knowing her, but if you have read the other replies, the RSPCA has few knowledgable friends, especially in that area.
I do know her, have for years and years, know that she is savvy, is letting them play their game, and prooving that they are talking out their asses. And using their rules and doing things their way (but covering her own back with independent reports along the way) to proove that they are clueless. As said she runs a buisness, in which reputation is everything, and having them camp their vans on her drive will damage her reputation and her buisness.....for what? one visit cause someone complained, fine, all actions requested done, but they dont let go. they HARASS, having had it done to me for pooh by a ring feeder, for keeping a colt seperate from mares when i took it in to treat it for lice, even though it had ad lib haylage (by the way dont you know mud fever is caused by standing on a pooh....I laughed that inspector out the place) Even though all horses were fit, well, in glowing health (well that colt was when I had finished with him) no signs of infection, or illness, coats shining. Because somebody decided that they didnt like the "look" of what they saw. (actually in my case because someone wanted to try and force me to sell my horse) Then cases that they dont take action, because horses are so expensive to get well again, and feed. I have never said how many people she has working there, so you have no clue how well cared for the horses really are....and totally loved.
 
Have personally had a good experience with the RSPCA, albeit the inspector was not horse literate but helped me with 2 abandoned shetlands in an unhorsey friends field, miles from me. I found them homes and gave him advice on care, (watering and reducing grazing), he checked on them daily and researched the legal aspects. I paid for the castration, teeth, injections and worming. However, I also support hunting and help with Stafford Welfare so on both counts, will not agree with how the RSPCA functions. When money is so tight for rescue and so many healthy animals are being destroyed, I bitterly resent the waste of funds on political antics. Wish, wish wish the RSPCA could get back to what most members of the public actually believe it is. A knowledgeable charity to care for animals in need. Personally think organisations like Battersea are doing a much better job of promoting rescue and the situation for animals that are dumped!
 
I won't comment on everything here, and honestly no I have not read it all.

Simply put the RSPCA is a BIG organisation costing over a hundred million each year to run. Do they do a good job, well I suppose that would come down to your own experience (and not hearsay) and which side of the 'visit' you were on. (if you understand!?) and i'm sure for every person who's had a bad experience there are 100's that have had a good, but of course, no one shares good experiences! (human nature!)

No they are not perfect, yes they've made some cock ups I'm sure. BUT they are the ONLY CHARITY willing to spend money to bring prosecutions and make people responsible for their actions (or lack of) and with something like a 98% success rate, they are damn good at it!

As with anything in life there will be good officers and bad.

Whether you agree with them or not, I don't see any other organisation able and willing to take on what the RSPCA does. Yes there are charities that will deal with parts, but not the whole.

And for those who do not agree with the prosecution side of the RSPCA, please ask yourself in a situation where animal neglect/abuse is occuring and advice is refused etc, what do you want to happen? Only a court can remove ownership/responsibility for an animal. Which means taking that person to court to get it.

And yes they may take their time to attend in some instances, but they are not a government service like the police or ambulance, they have limited people on the ground available to attend, as the whole thing is paid for exclusively by donations........
 
competitiondiva said:
And for those who do not agree with the prosecution side of the RSPCA, please ask yourself in a situation where animal neglect/abuse is occuring and advice is refused etc, what do you want to happen? Only a court can remove ownership/responsibility for an animal. Which means taking that person to court to get it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that should be decided/done by the part of government that is SPECIFICALLY there to do exactly that function - ie the Crown Prosecution Service. It is completely unacceptable for a body with a political agenda to be outsourced with the role that in a democracy is supposed to be undertaken by an impartial administrative body.

The very fact that the RSPCA is funded by donations in itself should disqualify it from any role in prosecuting anyone as it makes it vulnerable to conflicts of interests in many different aspects.

Courts can only judge on the facts presented to them and personally I would prefer facts to be presented by someone who was there purely to do that, and not to undertake political campaigning on areas with which I might disagree with them.

There is absolutely no reason why using the proper bodies to undertake prosecutions should inhibit the number of prosecutions and the RSPCA could still give evidence as witnesses, but NOT operate the current system of ignoring many genuine welfare complaints in favour of grandstanding in front of TV cameras in cases they think will look good in the media.
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
Yes, and that should be decided/done by the part of government that is SPECIFICALLY there to do exactly that function - ie the Crown Prosecution Service. It is completely unacceptable for a body with a political agenda to be outsourced with the role that in a democracy is supposed to be undertaken by an impartial administrative body.

The very fact that the RSPCA is funded by donations in itself should disqualify it from any role in prosecuting anyone as it makes it vulnerable to conflicts of interests in many different aspects.

Courts can only judge on the facts presented to them and personally I would prefer facts to be presented by someone who was there purely to do that, and not to undertake political campaigning on areas with which I might disagree with them.

There is absolutely no reason why using the proper bodies to undertake prosecutions should inhibit the number of prosecutions and the RSPCA could still give evidence as witnesses, but NOT operate the current system of ignoring many genuine welfare complaints in favour of grandstanding in front of TV cameras in cases they think will look good in the media.
Click to expand...

oh where is my like button. Brilliantly put..
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
Yes, and that should be decided/done by the part of government that is SPECIFICALLY there to do exactly that function - ie the Crown Prosecution Service. It is completely unacceptable for a body with a political agenda to be outsourced with the role that in a democracy is supposed to be undertaken by an impartial administrative body.

The very fact that the RSPCA is funded by donations in itself should disqualify it from any role in prosecuting anyone as it makes it vulnerable to conflicts of interests in many different aspects.

Courts can only judge on the facts presented to them and personally I would prefer facts to be presented by someone who was there purely to do that, and not to undertake political campaigning on areas with which I might disagree with them.

There is absolutely no reason why using the proper bodies to undertake prosecutions should inhibit the number of prosecutions and the RSPCA could still give evidence as witnesses, but NOT operate the current system of ignoring many genuine welfare complaints in favour of grandstanding in front of TV cameras in cases they think will look good in the media.
Click to expand...

Your last comment is what really grates me about people's perspectives. NUMEROUS prosecutions are taking place every single day within the RSPCA, ranging from a one animal abandonment, to a multi animal high level of neglect. The press DO NOT cover these. They only cover the stories that will cause a stir. Inspectors work damn hard to secure evidence, convictions and hopefully bans on people who don't deserve to keep animals. People seem to think that the only prosecution cases that have taken place are those that are in the papers!! It's so far off the mark I can't even begin to say!
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
Yes, and that should be decided/done by the part of government that is SPECIFICALLY there to do exactly that function - ie the Crown Prosecution Service. It is completely unacceptable for a body with a political agenda to be outsourced with the role that in a democracy is supposed to be undertaken by an impartial administrative body.

The very fact that the RSPCA is funded by donations in itself should disqualify it from any role in prosecuting anyone as it makes it vulnerable to conflicts of interests in many different aspects.

Courts can only judge on the facts presented to them and personally I would prefer facts to be presented by someone who was there purely to do that, and not to undertake political campaigning on areas with which I might disagree with them.

There is absolutely no reason why using the proper bodies to undertake prosecutions should inhibit the number of prosecutions and the RSPCA could still give evidence as witnesses, but NOT operate the current system of ignoring many genuine welfare complaints in favour of grandstanding in front of TV cameras in cases they think will look good in the media.
Click to expand...

Moomin1 said:
Your last comment is what really grates me about people's perspectives. NUMEROUS prosecutions are taking place every single day within the RSPCA, ranging from a one animal abandonment, to a multi animal high level of neglect. The press DO NOT cover these. They only cover the stories that will cause a stir. Inspectors work damn hard to secure evidence, convictions and hopefully bans on people who don't deserve to keep animals. People seem to think that the only prosecution cases that have taken place are those that are in the papers!! It's so far off the mark I can't even begin to say!
Click to expand...

Moomin, have you actually read the well reasoned post which you've just quoted?

I understand that you feel passionately, but do you not think that your energies may be better spent, explaining to the rspca that the public's perception of them is that they are not fit for purpose, and that the bulk of those who think about the current situation, clearly, feel that the bestowed Royal patronage should be removed?

Arguing that I, and others, are wrong, is a futile exercise. Bring your considerable passion to bear, and convince the rspca that they have a less than admiring public, and that to regain the confidence of the public, a change of management and direction would be of benefit. In short, the body which you support, are a joke, sadly.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Moomin, have you actually read the well reasoned post which you've just quoted?

I understand that you feel passionately, but do you not think that your energies may be better spent, explaining to the rspca that the public's perception of them is that they are not fit for purpose, and that the bulk of those who think about the current situation, clearly, feel that the bestowed Royal patronage should be removed?

Arguing that I, and others, are wrong, is a futile exercise. Bring your considerable passion to bear, and convince the rspca that they have a less than admiring public, and that to regain the confidence of the public, a change of management and direction would be of benefit. In short, the body which you support, are a joke, sadly.

Alec.
Click to expand...

It's really not down to me to be doing what you suggest. I would prefer to get out there and get some people prosecuted for not being fit to keep animals. After all, that is surely what matters?

I am not arguing that you are wrong in your opinions, what I am arguing is that people are wrong in their perception that the only prosecutions that take place are high profile ones.
 
Moomin1 said:
Your last comment is what really grates me about people's perspectives. NUMEROUS prosecutions are taking place every single day within the RSPCA, ranging from a one animal abandonment, to a multi animal high level of neglect. The press DO NOT cover these. They only cover the stories that will cause a stir. Inspectors work damn hard to secure evidence, convictions and hopefully bans on people who don't deserve to keep animals. People seem to think that the only prosecution cases that have taken place are those that are in the papers!! It's so far off the mark I can't even begin to say!
Click to expand...

I am not basing this view on the perception from the papers or TV, other than the contrast between what is seen on there, and what is experienced from those reporting neglect or abuse, I am basing it on personal experience, of me, of people that I know and of people who I dont know personally but who I have reason to believe have animal welfare at heart, very few of whom have had good positive help from the RSPCA in a significant number of appalling animal cruelty or neglect cases.

I also did not suggest that individual inspectors dont work hard, I believe there could be many more inspectors if (i) money was not wasted in political campaigning (ii) the resources currently ascribed to appropriating part of the role of the officers of the state in this country was instead devoted to investigating and taking direct on the ground action in respect of ongoing neglect or cruelty.

ie quit the grandstanding and 'glamourous' case chasing and self importancing, RSPCA, and there would be resource for a lot more animals in need of your help to get it, added to which you would have a lot more cash from the large proportion of horse/animal lovers who currently wouldnt consider donating a penny to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top