RSPCA

[Moomin1]

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.

See, you again talk about the 'grandstanding and glamourous case chasing, and the so called 'fact' that the RSPCA alledgedly ignore small cases won't get them publicity - this is what I'm saying - hundreds of those cases are getting put through the courts daily, but they don't make the press. I myself know of numerous horse cases which have taken place this year, and only 1 of them has made the press, a tiny weeny little article in the local paper. Unless the press feel there is a sensational story they won't show one iota of interest sadly. What I would say, is that maybe that is where the RSPCA do go wrong, they should tackle this issue a bit more.

I'm assuming the likes of Lesley Skipper shouldn't have been prosecuted in your eyes?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the RSPCA is perfect, there is surely room for improvement in some areas, which is a work in progress.

People still need to remember that there are thousands of animals out there that have been saved, rescued, removed and rehomed, and hundreds of people are banned from keeping animals. Like them or not, the RSPCA do a provide a unique service, and until another organisation decides to do that, then we don't have much alternative, other than to stop providing the RSPCA money, and let everyone get away with neglecting and abusing animals. The police very rarely show any interest in prosecuting, and in fact, aren't even trained in the Animal Welfare Act, often approaching inspectors asking what it is even!

 

[Alec Swan]

It's really not down to me to be doing what you suggest. ........

Why not? How can you continue to support a body who are so often viewed as being a fund raising machine, with very little genuine interest in animal welfare, without making an attempt to bring about change?

We need an animal welfare group, of that there's no question, just as long as it isn't the rspca.

By saying that it's not really "down to you" to bring about improvement, is a tacit agreement that whilst there's truth behind the grievances of many, that's just tough luck, and those who hold the rspca in a very poor light can maintain their often warranted views.

Rather than explain to us just how wonderful the rspca are, you will have to accept that if you refuse to accept the criticisms of many, then your claims have a rather hollow ring. Sorry, but it's fact.

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

Why not? How can you continue to support a body who are so often viewed as being a fund raising machine, with very little genuine interest in animal welfare, without making an attempt to bring about change?

We need an animal welfare group, of that there's no question, just as long as it isn't the rspca.

By saying that it's not really "down to you" to bring about improvement, is a tacit agreement that whilst there's truth behind the grievances of many, that's just tough luck, and those who hold the rspca in a very poor light can maintain their often warranted views.

Rather than explain to us just how wonderful the rspca are, you will have to accept that if you refuse to accept the criticisms of many, then your claims have a rather hollow ring. Sorry, but it's fact.

Alec.

I do love the way you say I will HAVE to accept!!

Who are you, the Opinion Enforcement Authority?!

I can fully accept the grievances of many, as I say, I don't believe they are perfect. I just feel that people quite often brush over the good stories, and don't even bother commenting when there's a positive post on HHO about a succesful prosecution. How can people argue that they are generally interested in animal welfare when they don't even comment on a decent outcome ie ban for life etc?

 

[Alec Swan]

I do love the way you say I will HAVE to accept!!

Who are you, the Opinion Enforcement Authority?!

I can fully accept the grievances of many, as I say, I don't believe they are perfect. I just feel that people quite often brush over the good stories, and don't even bother commenting when there's a positive post on HHO about a succesful prosecution. How can people argue that they are generally interested in animal welfare when they don't even comment on a decent outcome ie ban for life etc?

Refuse to accept logical arguments, if you wish, but by doing so, you invalidate your own argument. The role of the rspca isn't simply as an enforcement body, or shouldn't be, though your arguments are continually reinforced by the success rate of prosecutions (which are actually abysmally low), and as has already been pointed out to you, and very well too, for the rspca to have no legal powers of entry to land (in fact, no legal or enforceable powers at all, without a Court order), but to have the responsibility passed over to them by the CPS, is lunacy.

If you're attempting to persuade everyone on here, that the rspca are worthy of our unquestioning support, then you're on a sticky wicket.

Campaign for change, a change which your critics would have, and I will give you my support.

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

Refuse to accept logical arguments, if you wish, but by doing so, you invalidate your own argument. The role of the rspca isn't simply as an enforcement body, or shouldn't be, though your arguments are continually reinforced by the success rate of prosecutions (which are actually abysmally low), and as has already been pointed out to you, and very well too, for the rspca to have no legal powers of entry to land (in fact, no legal or enforceable powers at all, without a Court order), but to have the responsibility passed over to them by the CPS, is lunacy.

If you're attempting to persuade everyone on here, that the rspca are worthy of our unquestioning support, then you're on a sticky wicket.

Campaign for change, a change which your critics would have, and I will give you my support.

Alec.

Do you call 98% a LOW success rate?!! That was the success rate percentage for 2011.

 

[Alec Swan]

Fine, you win.

I'm off!!

Alec.

(Psst, just a question for you, 98% 0F WHAT?)

 

[Moomin1]

Fine, you win.

I'm off!!

Alec.

(Psst, just a question for you, 98% 0F WHAT?)

I would have thought that was self explanatory!!?! SUCCESSFUL CONVICTIONS!!!

 

[lachlanandmarcus]

See, you again talk about the 'grandstanding and glamourous case chasing, and the so called 'fact' that the RSPCA alledgedly ignore small cases won't get them publicity - this is what I'm saying - hundreds of those cases are getting put through the courts daily, but they don't make the press. I myself know of numerous horse cases which have taken place this year, and only 1 of them has made the press, a tiny weeny little article in the local paper. Unless the press feel there is a sensational story they won't show one iota of interest sadly. What I would say, is that maybe that is where the RSPCA do go wrong, they should tackle this issue a bit more.

I'm assuming the likes of Lesley Skipper shouldn't have been prosecuted in your eyes?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the RSPCA is perfect, there is surely room for improvement in some areas, which is a work in progress.

People still need to remember that there are thousands of animals out there that have been saved, rescued, removed and rehomed, and hundreds of people are banned from keeping animals. Like them or not, the RSPCA do a provide a unique service, and until another organisation decides to do that, then we don't have much alternative, other than to stop providing the RSPCA money, and let everyone get away with neglecting and abusing animals. The police very rarely show any interest in prosecuting, and in fact, aren't even trained in the Animal Welfare Act, often approaching inspectors asking what it is even!

Of course people neglecting or abusing animals like Ms Skipper should be prosecuted. You act as if the RSPCA are uniquely qualified and able to do so - my experience has been of RSPCA staff who do not frankly know one end of a horse from another in many cases and I believe the CPS should undertake prosecutions in this country.

I prefer to support knowledgeable non political animal welfare organisations who do not put down healthy animals, undertake political campaigning or think themselves the embodiment of the law.

So instead I support WHW and specific local animal rescue charities. Knowledgeable, accountable, and concentrating on welfare - as they should be.

 

[Moomin1]

Of course people neglecting or abusing animals like Ms Skipper should be prosecuted. You act as if the RSPCA are uniquely qualified and able to do so - my experience has been of RSPCA staff who do not frankly know one end of a horse from another in many cases and I believe the CPS should undertake prosecutions in this country.

I prefer to support knowledgeable non political animal welfare organisations who do not put down healthy animals, undertake political campaigning or think themselves the embodiment of the law.

So instead I support WHW and specific local animal rescue charities. Knowledgeable, accountable, and concentrating on welfare - as they should be.

But they don't prosecute.

And if you think those other charities don't put healthy animals down, you are sadly and grossly mistaken.

On that note - do you HONESTLY think that it's animal welfare to not put healthy animals down, when they quite often sit in kennels for months, if not years going stir crazy?!

 

[lachlanandmarcus]

But they don't prosecute.

And if you think those other charities don't put healthy animals down, you are sadly and grossly mistaken.

On that note - do you HONESTLY think that it's animal welfare to not put healthy animals down, when they quite often sit in kennels for months, if not years going stir crazy?!

Yes, when they are less than upfront about it when soliciting donations....

Im not suggesting CPS and police are brilliant at prosecution rates etc - but the answer to that is to tackle that issue head on - that would be one role RSPCA could do with campaigning on - once it had stepped out of its political and conflict of interest current activities itself.

Noone is suggesting Moomin that individual RSPCA inspectors can and do do some good work. However a LOT of people have issues with aspects of the RSPCA and that fact does not make them anti animal welfare (quite the opposite I would argue). Blind apologist approach will not make the RSPCA the best it can be nor ensure it has the most funds or the most help from people who would otherwise be a natural constituency for support.

Bored of this now - if the RSPCA dont want to reform then thats their funeral....

 

[competitiondiva]

I have to say.... Whilst the rspca might have policies that people don't agree with, they do also do an almighty lot of good, if what they stand or their work isn't what you want, then that's fine. Just like there are aspects of various charities I don't agree with, I show that by not supporting/donating to them, not by bad mouthing them, because whilst I might not agree with those aspects there are others that do. No the rspca cannot possibly meet all expectations and meet everyone's.ideals, when everyone has different expectations and ideals, that would be impossible, especially on a charitable budget!

 

[Shysmum]

I was one of 370 Inspectors IN TOTAL for the whole of England and Wales.

 

[elijahasgal]

What that says then is worse when an inspector picks non stop on one person. only 370 of you. Oh as another story, another friend had an inspectors pony in their yard, pony paddock with very little there, but plenty of hay put out in winter. That same yard got reported for how the ponies were kept......strangly nothing on that went furthur.....

 

[Moomin1]

What that says then is worse when an inspector picks non stop on one person. only 370 of you. Oh as another story, another friend had an inspectors pony in their yard, pony paddock with very little there, but plenty of hay put out in winter. That same yard got reported for how the ponies were kept......strangly nothing on that went furthur.....

Well why would it?!!

You say they had plenty of hay out in winter?!! Not being funny but how many of us have fields or paddocks full of grazing in winter?!

I certainly don't!

If an inspector 'picks' on one person 'non-stop' then if I was that person I would be seriously looking at my management style with my horse! There's clearly something wrong somewhere.

The RSPCA does have disciplinary and capability procedures which are used regularly, and if inspectors were harrassing individuals where there is no need or concern, believe me, they would see the sharp end of the stick.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Its easy to criticise but the RSPCA does a lot of good work. Is this not worth people donations ? Annie the old arthritic elephant is no longer beaten and chained by her feet 24/7. She now lives at Longleat.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sa...47&ssbinary=true&Content-Type=application/pdf

 

[Moomin1]

Its easy to criticise but the RSPCA does a lot of good work. Is this not worth people donations ? Annie the old arthritic elephant is no longer beaten and chained by her feet 24/7. She now lives at Longleat.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sa...47&ssbinary=true&Content-Type=application/pdf

Problem is horserider is we live in a world where nobody likes to comment on the good sides of things, they just like to have a damn good moan about everything!

I have posted links of fantastic results in prosecution cases on here, and either only one or two people respond at how wonderful it is to see a good outcome, or people start slating the RSPCA for not doing this or that. I always question those poster's actual interest in animal welfare, because if they were genuinely concerned for animal welfare, they would be ecstatic to see justice being done, and animals recovered and living a happy life. But instead, they ignore that and start moaning.

 

[Anglebracket]

Well evidently many people believe that the RSPCA does good work otherwise they would be bankrupt by now.

Some people will just keep on acquiring new animals to replace those that have been taken from them. Prosecutions may be the only real disincentive for them.

 

[AmyMay]

Oh as another story, another friend had an inspectors pony in their yard, pony paddock with very little there, but plenty of hay put out in winter. That same yard got reported for how the ponies were kept......strangly nothing on that went furthur.....

Of course it didn't. Why on earth would it?

 

[happyhunter123]

The RSPCA aren't all bad, very much of their work is good. Some of it isn't. I would donate to them if they only did their 'good' work, and if they did it better.
It's their shift towards animal rights thinking that I don't like, and the real reason why I would never donate to them now.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

The RSPCA aren't all bad, very much of their work is good. Some of it isn't. I would donate to them if they only did their 'good' work, and if they did it better.

Pretty much the same as any big organisation but if those of us who care about animal cruelty withhold donations and voluntary work for them, they cease to exist.

Then what do we replace it with ? Local independant charities with varying levels of expertise and competency and very limited funds, plus, the gap left by the RSPCA would leave the door open for the animal collectors and so called rescue rehoming shelters (dealers) that offer a worse option for rescued animals then the one they have come from.

 

[lachlanandmarcus]

Pretty much the same as any big organisation but if those of us who care about animal cruelty withhold donations and voluntary work for them, they cease to exist.

Then what do we replace it with ? Local independant charities with varying levels of expertise and competency and very limited funds, plus, the gap left by the RSPCA would leave the door open for the animal collectors and so called rescue rehoming shelters (dealers) that offer a worse option for rescued animals then the one they have come from.

Umm the local independents I have come across have (in respect of horses at least) had a million times more competency than many of the RSPCA inspectors, some of whom do not appear to know anything about horses!

Agree with you about the plethora of unofficial rescues tho. But not about the knowledge- re horses - Im sure they are very good with dogs and cats.

 

[happyhunter123]

Pretty much the same as any big organisation but if those of us who care about animal cruelty withhold donations and voluntary work for them, they cease to exist.

Then what do we replace it with ? Local independant charities with varying levels of expertise and competency and very limited funds, plus, the gap left by the RSPCA would leave the door open for the animal collectors and so called rescue rehoming shelters (dealers) that offer a worse option for rescued animals then the one they have come from.

There are some very competent independent shelters. The RSPCA aren't the only people who can look after abandoned or abused animals, and indeed their are many other shelters currently. And with the RSPCA gone, I doubt their funds would be limited. But as I said it's more their animal rights stance that I really dislike, and at the moment I don't see them moving away from it. It can only damage them in long term.

 

[elijahasgal]

I ask the people who say automatically that if the RSPCA inspectors are harassing individuals, what they would make of this case?

Horses in winter, fully rugged, with Ad lib hay and water on level hard standing, and good shelter, regually wormed, feet under care of. Also free access to field, though not easily visable from outside.

Only thing wrong was owner had seized back so was struggling to clear the manure, so while it was healing, was managing as best by moving the feeder each time it was emptied (aprox once a week) and getting it cleared in one.

RSPCA called. Could not fault the condition of the animals. Was shown the field access.

How many times do you think it was valid for them to go back to that place?

 

[Moomin1]

I ask the people who say automatically that if the RSPCA inspectors are harassing individuals, what they would make of this case?

Horses in winter, fully rugged, with Ad lib hay and water on level hard standing, and good shelter, regually wormed, feet under care of. Also free access to field, though not easily visable from outside.

Only thing wrong was owner had seized back so was struggling to clear the manure, so while it was healing, was managing as best by moving the feeder each time it was emptied (aprox once a week) and getting it cleared in one.

RSPCA called. Could not fault the condition of the animals. Was shown the field access.

How many times do you think it was valid for them to go back to that place?

As many times as they recieve a complaint..within reason. If they were recieving the same allegation exactly, let's say for instance, horses thin with overgrown hooves, and when they attended, the horses were all reasonable body condition with ok hooves. Now if they recieved the same call within a week or two, saying the same thing, about the same horses (provided there's not an allegation of new horses or hidden horses) then they would normally close the call down as a duplicate call. If it goes longer than a few weeks and an allegation comes in again, yes, they will revisit because there is every chance that things may have deteriorated and become like that. They may also be recieving different allegations which they HAVE to attend - ie and emergency complaint of a collapsed horse or severly injured horse (people will often exaggerate greatly when reporting stuff in order to get the officer out there as fast as possible, which is wrong when there really is a collapsed or road traffic accident animal out there).

RSPCA officers have enough on their plate without having time to 'harrass' people without good reason. If you think they do, you are sorely (and sadly for the officers!) mistaken. If your friend (or whoever it may be - can't remember who you said now, and can't be bothered looking back through) is getting repeated visits, advice given, or notices, then yes there is a problem with the welfare of her/his horses that needs attention.

 

[YorksG]

As many times as they recieve a complaint..within reason. If they were recieving the same allegation exactly, let's say for instance, horses thin with overgrown hooves, and when they attended, the horses were all reasonable body condition with ok hooves. Now if they recieved the same call within a week or two, saying the same thing, about the same horses (provided there's not an allegation of new horses or hidden horses) then they would normally close the call down as a duplicate call. If it goes longer than a few weeks and an allegation comes in again, yes, they will revisit because there is every chance that things may have deteriorated and become like that. They may also be recieving different allegations which they HAVE to attend - ie and emergency complaint of a collapsed horse or severly injured horse (people will often exaggerate greatly when reporting stuff in order to get the officer out there as fast as possible, which is wrong when there really is a collapsed or road traffic accident animal out there).

RSPCA officers have enough on their plate without having time to 'harrass' people without good reason. If you think they do, you are sorely (and sadly for the officers!) mistaken. If your friend (or whoever it may be - can't remember who you said now, and can't be bothered looking back through) is getting repeated visits, advice given, or notices, then yes there is a problem with the welfare of her/his horses that needs attention.

I find this quite strange to be honest. If the same complaint is made by the same people, about the same yard and there were no problems the first time round, then why do the RSPCA not follow the same route as the statutory bodies? If a Mental Health Act Assessment is requested repeatedly, following a decision to take no action, with no significant change in circumstances, then no action is be taken. I would have presumed that the RSPCA would have had the same policy, to not harrass people in response to malicious reporting. Also, while you say that they HAVE to respond, the land owner does not have to allow them access, and after the first time I would doubt that a court would provide a warrant for them.

 

[Moomin1]

I find this quite strange to be honest. If the same complaint is made by the same people, about the same yard and there were no problems the first time round, then why do the RSPCA not follow the same route as the statutory bodies? If a Mental Health Act Assessment is requested repeatedly, following a decision to take no action, with no significant change in circumstances, then no action is be taken. I would have presumed that the RSPCA would have had the same policy, to not harrass people in response to malicious reporting. Also, while you say that they HAVE to respond, the land owner does not have to allow them access, and after the first time I would doubt that a court would provide a warrant for them.

Have you not read my post properly?

I have clearly said that if the SAME complaint is made within a certain time frame, then they won't attend, they will close as a duplicate. If a further complaint is made after that time frame, and it's a different caller, or different allegation then yes they will attend again. If it's a call that's implying an emergency, then it doesn't matter - they will attend because of the nature of the allegation. If the same caller is ringing in constantly, with the same allegation, then the officers will become very aware of the potentially malicious nature of the calls, pop this on the system (they won't block calls about the place, because that could result in the obvious welfare issues should there actually end up being a problem), possibly advise the owner to contact the police if they are experiencing malicious trouble (often if there is real malicious problems then the owner will have recieved visits from other agencies such as trading standards, police, child protection etc etc). Obviously, if the same caller rings after a time frame of a few months, then yes, the officer may be likely to attend because things could have deteriorated in that time. It all depends on what issues have been there in the past, how they have been dealt with etc etc.

Just to add, that it's usually the same officer that covers one particular area, and they will become very aware of nuisance callers, as will they become very aware of problem owners who do have management issues.

 

[YorksG]

Moomin1, yes I have read your post, however you did not specify a time frame, nor indicate whether or not annonymous calls are taken. The attitude which you display on these threads, is that all horse owners MUST be guilty if a 'member of the public' reports them to the RSPCA and that the RSPCA have a right of entry, and to 'arrest' people. I find this disengenuous.

 

[Moomin1]

Moomin1, yes I have read your post, however you did not specify a time frame, nor indicate whether or not annonymous calls are taken. The attitude which you display on these threads, is that all horse owners MUST be guilty if a 'member of the public' reports them to the RSPCA and that the RSPCA have a right of entry, and to 'arrest' people. I find this disengenuous.

Errm. Ok. Where have I ever said that 'all horse owners must be guilty if a member of the public reports them'??!! Surely I have said exactly the opposite!! I have said that if a nuisance malicious caller is repeatedly calling in, and the officer has visited and nothing is ever wrong, then it will be placed on the system that this is a potential malicious ongoing problem. Clearly, calls will not be ignored because one day, there may well be a real issue, so if a really horrendous emergency sounding job comes in (broken leg, collapsed, bleeding to death, rta etc) then the officer will recieve the job, and attend to check. As I have mentioned, local officers soon become very aware of nuisance lying callers, and also of the problem owners, it works both ways.

YorksG, by saying that I have insinuated that the RSPCA can have right of entry, and arrest people, you make yourself look like a fool..Please find where I have said that.

I have said the officer will ATTEND. That, if you know English language, does not in anyway suggest they have a right to GAIN ENTRY.

What I have said all through this thread is if the op's friend or whoever has had repeated visits, then I hazard a very strong guess that there are real issues that need dealing with there, because an officer simply would not waste their time repeatedly visiting over the same type of call if there was not an issue. It would get closed.

I certainly do not think that everyone is guilty just because a member of public says they are - quite the opposite - personally I think most horsey people make a song and dance over jack all!

As for the right of entry - I have said this before - no, the RSPCA are not awarded any powers whatsoever. The police, on the other hand are, and if the RSPCA provide enough evidence that an offence is being committed or has been committed, or potentially being committed, then the police work very closely with the RSPCA and use their powers. Simples! And that is how neglected and abused animals are removed from people! Thank god for the Animal Welfare Act and the help from the police!

 

[YorksG]

Errm. Ok. Where have I ever said that 'all horse owners must be guilty if a member of the public reports them'??!! Surely I have said exactly the opposite!! I have said that if a nuisance malicious caller is repeatedly calling in, and the officer has visited and nothing is ever wrong, then it will be placed on the system that this is a potential malicious ongoing problem. Clearly, calls will not be ignored because one day, there may well be a real issue, so if a really horrendous emergency sounding job comes in (broken leg, collapsed, bleeding to death, rta etc) then the officer will recieve the job, and attend to check. As I have mentioned, local officers soon become very aware of nuisance lying callers, and also of the problem owners, it works both ways.

YorksG, by saying that I have insinuated that the RSPCA can have right of entry, and arrest people, you make yourself look like a fool..Please find where I have said that.

I have said the officer will ATTEND. That, if you know English language, does not in anyway suggest they have a right to GAIN ENTRY.

What I have said all through this thread is if the op's friend or whoever has had repeated visits, then I hazard a very strong guess that there are real issues that need dealing with there, because an officer simply would not waste their time repeatedly visiting over the same type of call if there was not an issue. It would get closed.

I certainly do not think that everyone is guilty just because a member of public says they are - quite the opposite - personally I think most horsey people make a song and dance over jack all!

As for the right of entry - I have said this before - no, the RSPCA are not awarded any powers whatsoever. The police, on the other hand are, and if the RSPCA provide enough evidence that an offence is being committed or has been committed, or potentially being committed, then the police work very closely with the RSPCA and use their powers. Simples! And that is how neglected and abused animals are removed from people! Thank god for the Animal Welfare Act and the help from the police!

The police have the power of entry, if it is strongly suspected that there is an urgent need to prevent harm to people. They may attend with the RSPCA to prevent a breach of the peace (potentially committed by the RSPCA inspector) A warrant would need to be obtained from magistrates or district judge in other cases. I do feel that in the instances described by the OP (obviously only on the story given by him/her) that they would have good grounds to request a police harrassment notice against an inspector who continues to attend, despite adequate care being given.

 

[Moomin1]

The police have the power of entry, if it is strongly suspected that there is an urgent need to prevent harm to people. They may attend with the RSPCA to prevent a breach of the peace (potentially committed by the RSPCA inspector) A warrant would need to be obtained from magistrates or district judge in other cases. I do feel that in the instances described by the OP (obviously only on the story given by him/her) that they would have good grounds to request a police harrassment notice against an inspector who continues to attend, despite adequate care being given.

Ahh the 'knowledgeable' YorksG!! Unfortunately, this is where you are slightly out of touch!

Police have power of entry under PACE section 17 to 'prevent damage to property'. Animals are included as property. They can also enter property under the Animal Welfare Act section 19 if there is believed to be a suffering animal or animal likely to suffer on the premises, and it is believed to be detrimental to the animal's welfare to wait for a warrant.

Anyhow, despite any of this, warrants are routinely used by police in conjunction with the RSPCA if needed, so I don't really see what your argument is. Are you saying that RSPCA can't ask police to apply for a warrant or something?!!

Humour me YorksG, could you let me know how many RSPCA inspectors have actually been charged with a 'breach of the peace' by a police officer that has attended with the RSPCA to a potential offence?