RSPCA

I think the RSPCA could do to take a good few pages out of the Scottish SPCA's books. The SSPCA do not kill perfectly healthy animals. They do not waste millions on lavish advertising every year. They only distribute the occasional leaflet and never broadcast their adverts outside of Scotland. The only channel I have ever seen their adverts on is STV (Scotland's equivalent of ITV). In fact their advertising is so modest that many people in Scotland still believe the RSPCA have power up here. The RSPCA say they always try to avoid advertising in Scotland and that is a downright lie. Their adverts are plastered all over the web and national TV. Not to mention the fact that their merchandise can be found in Scottish stores. I have looked at the wording on the merchandise and it only says the RSPCA is registered in England and Wales. What it should jolly well say (in bold print) is: DOES NOT HELP ANIMALS IN SCOTLAND. The SSPCA is also a reporting agency to the Crown Office and that is far greater than anything afforded to the RSPCA. Additionally, the SSPCA will act on each and every complaint received.

All in all, I think the RSPCA is a disgrace, and one giant thief for stealing millions in donations from Scotland.
 
Love_my_Lurcher said:
I think the RSPCA could do to take a good few pages out of the Scottish SPCA's books. The SSPCA do not kill perfectly healthy animals. They do not waste millions on lavish advertising every year. They only distribute the occasional leaflet and never broadcast their adverts outside of Scotland. The only channel I have ever seen their adverts on is STV (Scotland's equivalent of ITV). In fact their advertising is so modest that many people in Scotland still believe the RSPCA have power up here. The RSPCA say they always try to avoid advertising in Scotland and that is a downright lie. Their adverts are plastered all over the web and national TV. Not to mention the fact that their merchandise can be found in Scottish stores. I have looked at the wording on the merchandise and it only says the RSPCA is registered in England and Wales. What it should jolly well say (in bold print) is: DOES NOT HELP ANIMALS IN SCOTLAND. The SSPCA is also a reporting agency to the Crown Office and that is far greater than anything afforded to the RSPCA. Additionally, the SSPCA will act on each and every complaint received.

All in all, I think the RSPCA is a disgrace, and one giant thief for stealing millions in donations from Scotland.
Click to expand...

Why on earth should it say they do not help animals in Scotland?!! They are not a Scottish charity. It's a free country to advertise where they like, if people are not intelligent enough to do some research into where they are donating their money then tbh that's their lookout. That's like saying a company who only has branches in England or Wales should not be allowed to advertise on National tv because they are not available to provide goods to the Scottish?!!
 
Moomin1 said:
Why on earth should it say they do not help animals in Scotland?!! They are not a Scottish charity. It's a free country to advertise where they like, if people are not intelligent enough to do some research into where they are donating their money then tbh that's their lookout. That's like saying a company who only has branches in England or Wales should not be allowed to advertise on National tv because they are not available to provide goods to the Scottish?!!
Click to expand...


You have answered your own question. They are NOT a Scottish charity! For a great many years, they led the Scots to believe they did help Scottish animals by not having any kind of wording on merchandise, etc. And why would a company that only sells goods to Wales and England waste money on advertising all over the UK? Besides, it would be rather pointless. I'm just glad the top bosses of the SSPCA don't receive vast sums of money every year. That they don't go round shooting dogs with captive bolts, and that they don't leave animals to suffer because of gross incompetence!

The RSPCA waste millions upon millions upon millions every single year on advertising alone. How can that be justified when they put thousands of HEALTHY animals down every single year? If the RSPCA really cared about welfare, they would significantly cut their costs and help lots more animals!

Please also tell me if you think "Registered in England and Wales" gives crystal clarity. Or the same wording appearing for a couple of seconds at the end of an advert is blatantly obvious to viewers?

Since the RSPCA features in just about every animal rescue show on British TV, and since they advertise all over the place, it does not require a stretch of the imagination to come to the conclusion that Scottish people will think they operate north-of-the-border. It's about time the RSPCA kept themselves to England and Wales!
 
Love_my_Lurcher said:
You have answered your own question. They are NOT a Scottish charity! For a great many years, they led the Scots to believe they did help Scottish animals by not having any kind of wording on merchandise, etc. And why would a company that only sells goods to Wales and England waste money on advertising all over the UK? Besides, it would be rather pointless. I'm just glad the top bosses of the SSPCA don't receive vast sums of money every year. That they don't go round shooting dogs with captive bolts, and that they don't leave animals to suffer because of gross incompetence!

The RSPCA waste millions upon millions upon millions every single year on advertising alone. How can that be justified when they put thousands of HEALTHY animals down every single year? If the RSPCA really cared about welfare, they would significantly cut their costs and help lots more animals!

Please also tell me if you think "Registered in England and Wales" gives crystal clarity. Or the same wording appearing for a couple of seconds at the end of an advert is blatantly obvious to viewers?

Since the RSPCA features in just about every animal rescue show on British TV, and since they advertise all over the place, it does not require a stretch of the imagination to come to the conclusion that Scottish people will think they operate north-of-the-border. It's about time the RSPCA kept themselves to England and Wales!
Click to expand...

If you really feel that strongly about advertising laws, campaign to the government. Oh, wait, you probably haven't because you can't actually be arsed!

There is no law against what they are doing. If you don't like it - do something about it, because you clearly feel so strongly about animal welfare, that you would actively do something about it, rather than moan like a wet lettuce.

Whilst you are at it, please campaign against the charities that support ethiopian children etc for NOT CLARIFYING IN THE ADVERTS THAT THEY DO NOT SUPPORT BRITISH CHILDREN
 
Last edited:
Oh, but I DO campaign for animal welfare! I donate money to a number of animal charities. I am also a regular donator of food, etc to the local Dog's Trust. Not to mention the fact that my Mum and I rescued our dog from the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home (which is another rescue organization that does NOT kill healthy animals). I have also written to all the stores in which I have seen RSPCA merchandise. I am also in the process of petitioning the Scottish Government. So, I do NOT moan like 'wet lettuce'!

One thing is for sure and that is the RSPCA will NEVER receive a penny from me until they stop killing perfectly healthy animals, and squandering millions on unnecessary advertising!
 
LmL, how do you know (for a fact) that the RSPCA 'waste' money on advertising? If it generates more money than it costs, raises awareness or brings in funding from areas that may not normally consider donating, then surely it is not a waste.

I'm sure everybody can make a decision about where they want their hard-earned money to be used. People living all over the UK donate abroad. Why would you feel so offended about people in Scotalnd donating to anywhere outside the area? Tell me, would you be offended by someone in Wales to giving a large contribution to a donkey sanctuary...that happened to be located in Scotland?
 
Moomin1 said:
They may also be recieving different allegations which they HAVE to attend
Click to expand...
I have occasionally wondered what would happen if a member of the public made an allegation about a vet school (for instance) or police horse stables. What would the RSPCA do in such a situation? Are they still obliged to attend?
 
Love_my_Lurcher said:
Oh, but I DO campaign for animal welfare! I donate money to a number of animal charities. I am also a regular donator of food, etc to the local Dog's Trust. Not to mention the fact that my Mum and I rescued our dog from the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home (which is another rescue organization that does NOT kill healthy animals). I have also written to all the stores in which I have seen RSPCA merchandise. I am also in the process of petitioning the Scottish Government. So, I do NOT moan like 'wet lettuce'!

One thing is for sure and that is the RSPCA will NEVER receive a penny from me until they stop killing perfectly healthy animals, and squandering millions on unnecessary advertising!
Click to expand...

Well you clearly aren't campaigning hard enough then are you?!! I really can't understand why someone would be stupid enough to actually try and stop a charity from advertising in an area where they don't operate?!! So charities helping orphans in poor countries shouldn't be allowed to advertise in Britain then?!! Seriously?!! :rolleyes:

With regard killing healthy animals, are you aware of the state of the rehoming shelters and the amount of animals that are sitting in them not being rehomed? If anyone thinks for one minute that keeping an animal sitting in a rehoming shelter for month and months, sometimes years on end, is good animal welfare then I'm afraid they are deluded.

I think a lot of people on HHO, given discussions on the situation with horses at the moment and overcrowding at shelters, would agree that pts is actually a welfare tool.

Oh, and you didn't 'rescue' your dog from the dogs home (unless of course the dog's home was neglecting it). You rehomed it from the dog's home. The people out there knocking on doors and removing severly neglected animals from them and taking lots of abuse and hassle over it and going home stinking of pee and crap from wading through filthy households, are the people that 'rescue' animals, not people that meander into a shelter, pick a nice pooch and take it home.
 
Last edited:
fburton said:
I have occasionally wondered what would happen if a member of the public made an allegation about a vet school (for instance) or police horse stables. What would the RSPCA do in such a situation? Are they still obliged to attend?
Click to expand...

Yes it would still be dealt with in the same manner. Obviously, if the allegation made is not relating to animal welfare (ie some people may call and complain about barking dogs, which clearly isn't a welfare issue) then it will still be looked into (doesn't always require a visit - it may well be something that can be dealt with via phone call etc). :)
 
Moomin1 said:
Well you clearly aren't campaigning hard enough then are you?!! I really can't understand why someone would be stupid enough to actually try and stop a charity from advertising in an area where they don't operate?!! So charities helping orphans in poor countries shouldn't be allowed to advertise in Britain then?!! Seriously?!! :rolleyes:

With regard killing healthy animals, are you aware of the state of the rehoming shelters and the amount of animals that are sitting in them not being rehomed? If anyone thinks for one minute that keeping an animal sitting in a rehoming shelter for month and months, sometimes years on end, is good animal welfare then I'm afraid they are deluded.

I think a lot of people on HHO, given discussions on the situation with horses at the moment and overcrowding at shelters, would agree that pts is actually a welfare tool.

Oh, and you didn't 'rescue' your dog from the dogs home (unless of course the dog's home was neglecting it). You rehomed it from the dog's home. The people out there knocking on doors and removing severly neglected animals from them and taking lots of abuse and hassle over it and going home stinking of pee and crap from wading through filthy households, are the people that 'rescue' animals, not people that meander into a shelter, pick a nice pooch and take it home.
Click to expand...

I am NOT being stupid! I am just sick and tired of the RSPCA muscling in on the Scottish SPCA by relentlessly advertising in Scotland. Despite them saying that they go to great lengths to avoid doing so. If the SSPCA will only advertise in Scotland, then why on earth can't the RSPCA restrict their campaigns to England and Wales? How blooming hard is that to do? The answer is that it would be extremely easy for them to do that, but they choose to advertise on most of the major digital channels, plus Channel 5 and 4. Also in national papers, magazines, and online. For years and years and years, people have been led to think the Scottish SPCA is just the Scottish branch of the RSPCA. That they are one and the same. The RSPCA have NEVER gone out of their way to make that clear. The SSPCA save as much money as possible by NOT spending elaborately on big fancy adverts. That is no doubt why they have a no-kill policy. Oh, and I don’t have a problem with charities (whose funds go abroad) advertising on British TV. That is due to the fact that the charities make it abundantly clear to viewers/readers/listeners that the money goes to different countries! Something the RSPCA does NOT do! In fact, for years the RSPCA refused to sign anything that would guarantee them changing their wording. When they did, it still implied that they might help animals in Scotland. You also did not answer my questions, so I will ask them again. Do you think that "Registered in England and Wales" gives crystal clarity. Or the same wording appearing for a couple of seconds at the end of an advert is blatantly obvious to viewers? Have a read of this and this too. It should also be noted that when they re-built their centre in Swansea, it went from being able to accommodate 140 dogs to just 27! Most of the space was taken up by admin offices. Explain that away for me please.

In 2011, the RSPCA killed 53,183 animals. Many of those would have been perfectly healthy. Using any old excuse to kill them including the one you just mentioned. That putting to sleep is a welfare tool. I know that the local Dog’s Trust has quite a few long term residents. One (Trixie) has been there for years. Has she gone insane, is she suffering? Hell no - she has settled into her environment and staff are concerned that she wouldn’t be able to cope in a home! If it had been up to the RSPCA she wouldn’t have been granted the gift of life! The same goes for many other animals who are actually happy in shelters. Now, please justify that staggering number of deaths when they pay those at the top of the ladder ridiculous amounts of money. The former director (Peter Davies) received at least £90,000 per year! Then, they bleat about how hard up they are, and how they must kill animals in order to free up space! Can you not flaming see that they could easily re-direct millions from their fund raising and salary accounts, and actually use donations to build more centres?! Centres that will actually create more space for the animals!

Oh, and I’m sorry that my Mother and I "meandered" into the EDCH and "picked a nice pooch". I am sorry we bothered to rescue a dog who had been ABUSED, then tossed out onto the streets. Why should we have bothered when somebody like you is going to make a sarcastic comment about us doing so? Oh, and we DID rescue him from being stuck in a kennel. No need to get pedantic!
 
Love_my_Lurcher said:
I am NOT being stupid! I am just sick and tired of the RSPCA muscling in on the Scottish SPCA by relentlessly advertising in Scotland. Despite them saying that they go to great lengths to avoid doing so. If the SSPCA will only advertise in Scotland, then why on earth can't the RSPCA restrict their campaigns to England and Wales? How blooming hard is that to do? The answer is that it would be extremely easy for them to do that, but they choose to advertise on most of the major digital channels, plus Channel 5 and 4. Also in national papers, magazines, and online. For years and years and years, people have been led to think the Scottish SPCA is just the Scottish branch of the RSPCA. That they are one and the same. The RSPCA have NEVER gone out of their way to make that clear. The SSPCA save as much money as possible by NOT spending elaborately on big fancy adverts. That is no doubt why they have a no-kill policy. Oh, and I don’t have a problem with charities (whose funds go abroad) advertising on British TV. That is due to the fact that the charities make it abundantly clear to viewers/readers/listeners that the money goes to different countries! Something the RSPCA does NOT do! In fact, for years the RSPCA refused to sign anything that would guarantee them changing their wording. When they did, it still implied that they might help animals in Scotland. You also did not answer my questions, so I will ask them again. Do you think that "Registered in England and Wales" gives crystal clarity. Or the same wording appearing for a couple of seconds at the end of an advert is blatantly obvious to viewers? Have a read of this and this too. It should also be noted that when they re-built their centre in Swansea, it went from being able to accommodate 140 dogs to just 27! Most of the space was taken up by admin offices. Explain that away for me please.

In 2011, the RSPCA killed 53,183 animals. Many of those would have been perfectly healthy. Using any old excuse to kill them including the one you just mentioned. That putting to sleep is a welfare tool. I know that the local Dog’s Trust has quite a few long term residents. One (Trixie) has been there for years. Has she gone insane, is she suffering? Hell no - she has settled into her environment and staff are concerned that she wouldn’t be able to cope in a home! If it had been up to the RSPCA she wouldn’t have been granted the gift of life! The same goes for many other animals who are actually happy in shelters. Now, please justify that staggering number of deaths when they pay those at the top of the ladder ridiculous amounts of money. The former director (Peter Davies) received at least £90,000 per year! Then, they bleat about how hard up they are, and how they must kill animals in order to free up space! Can you not flaming see that they could easily re-direct millions from their fund raising and salary accounts, and actually use donations to build more centres?! Centres that will actually create more space for the animals!

Oh, and I’m sorry that my Mother and I "meandered" into the EDCH and "picked a nice pooch". I am sorry we bothered to rescue a dog who had been ABUSED, then tossed out onto the streets. Why should we have bothered when somebody like you is going to make a sarcastic comment about us doing so? Oh, and we DID rescue him from being stuck in a kennel. No need to get pedantic!
Click to expand...

I would re-read your comments about how it's fine for Dog's homes to keep some dogs for years in kennels, then re-read your very last two sentences of your post.

:D
 
Love_my_Lurcher said:
I am NOT being stupid! I am just sick and tired of the RSPCA muscling in on the Scottish SPCA by relentlessly advertising in Scotland. Despite them saying that they go to great lengths to avoid doing so. If the SSPCA will only advertise in Scotland, then why on earth can't the RSPCA restrict their campaigns to England and Wales? How blooming hard is that to do? The answer is that it would be extremely easy for them to do that, but they choose to advertise on most of the major digital channels, plus Channel 5 and 4. Also in national papers, magazines, and online. For years and years and years, people have been led to think the Scottish SPCA is just the Scottish branch of the RSPCA. That they are one and the same. The RSPCA have NEVER gone out of their way to make that clear. The SSPCA save as much money as possible by NOT spending elaborately on big fancy adverts. That is no doubt why they have a no-kill policy. Oh, and I don’t have a problem with charities (whose funds go abroad) advertising on British TV. That is due to the fact that the charities make it abundantly clear to viewers/readers/listeners that the money goes to different countries! Something the RSPCA does NOT do! In fact, for years the RSPCA refused to sign anything that would guarantee them changing their wording. When they did, it still implied that they might help animals in Scotland. You also did not answer my questions, so I will ask them again. Do you think that "Registered in England and Wales" gives crystal clarity. Or the same wording appearing for a couple of seconds at the end of an advert is blatantly obvious to viewers? Have a read of this and this too. It should also be noted that when they re-built their centre in Swansea, it went from being able to accommodate 140 dogs to just 27! Most of the space was taken up by admin offices. Explain that away for me please.

In 2011, the RSPCA killed 53,183 animals. Many of those would have been perfectly healthy. Using any old excuse to kill them including the one you just mentioned. That putting to sleep is a welfare tool. I know that the local Dog’s Trust has quite a few long term residents. One (Trixie) has been there for years. Has she gone insane, is she suffering? Hell no - she has settled into her environment and staff are concerned that she wouldn’t be able to cope in a home! If it had been up to the RSPCA she wouldn’t have been granted the gift of life! The same goes for many other animals who are actually happy in shelters. Now, please justify that staggering number of deaths when they pay those at the top of the ladder ridiculous amounts of money. The former director (Peter Davies) received at least £90,000 per year! Then, they bleat about how hard up they are, and how they must kill animals in order to free up space! Can you not flaming see that they could easily re-direct millions from their fund raising and salary accounts, and actually use donations to build more centres?! Centres that will actually create more space for the animals!

Oh, and I’m sorry that my Mother and I "meandered" into the EDCH and "picked a nice pooch". I am sorry we bothered to rescue a dog who had been ABUSED, then tossed out onto the streets. Why should we have bothered when somebody like you is going to make a sarcastic comment about us doing so? Oh, and we DID rescue him from being stuck in a kennel. No need to get pedantic!
Click to expand...

With regard to 'Trixie' who has been in the dogs' home for a number of years now... you say she is happy and not gone stir crazy. You also say the staff are concerned she may not cope back in normal home environment. In animal welfare circles, this is called INSTITUTIONALISATION. Dogs (in particular) become so institutionalised in kennels that they are unable to cope in the big wide world anymore, and literally have a meltdown and usually end up being pts for various temperamental reasons.

http://old.wspa.ca/nd/Alternatives_to_Shelters.pdf


Animal welfare?
 
Last edited:
Comments are open on the site.

http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/10064510.Outrage_at_plight_of_pony/

Outrage at plight of pony

3:00pm Thursday 22nd November 2012 in News

A WOMAN is outraged after a pony was left in “excruciating pain” by the RSPCA.

Donna Halcrow found the Shetland pony loose on Belhus football field, in Aveley, on the afternoon of Halloween.

He had gaping wounds on both sides of his neck which were filled with maggots, and was trembling with pain.

Ms Halcrow was concerned not only about the pony’s welfare, but also that there could be an accident if he got on to the busy dual carriageway nearby.

Her first call was made to the animal charity at 2pm, and the RSPCA said it would send someone out within 20 minutes, but no one arrived.

Ms Halcrow took the pony to her friend’s garden, where he would be safer, and was shocked to be told by the RSPCA it had spoken to the owner, there was nothing more it could do and she should leave the pony loose on the field.

After she phoned the police, Ms Halcrow was told the RSPCA would send someone out that evening, but she was eventually told at 11.30pm no one was coming until the following morning.

When a vet arrived at 11am the next day, nothing could be done for the pony and he had to be put to sleep.

Ms Halcrow said: “ It was totally disgusting to leave the poor pony overnight as it was in excruciating pain. It pains me deeply a vet was not sent out that night.”

The RSPCA has apologised for the way her calls were handled. A spokesman said: “We are extremely sorry the caller felt the complaint regarding the Shetland pony was not dealt with seriously by the member of staff who answered the call.

“There appears to have been some miscommunication and we are currently looking into this further.

“An officer did not attend the incident in the evening as we have very few staff covering very large areas at night and at weekends and have to prioritise those incidents where animals are in imminent danger.”

She added: “An officer did telephone a specialist equine vet, relaying the exact information we had received about the pony’s condition.

“The vet felt that, as the injury had been present for some time and the horse wasn’t at imminent risk, someone should come out to provide treatment the following morning.

“Without a vet present to confirm an animal was suffering, our officers would be legally unable to move the animal from the location and we must act within the law.

“Readers should be assured we do take all incidents of suffering very seriously and we are sorry for any distress caused on this occasion.”
 
elijahasgal said:
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?
Click to expand...

of course we only have your word on the situation here (no offence intended, but this is an anonymous forum after all!?), which may also not be the full extent of the situation only what you have seen/know of yourself.

But with only 278 Inspectors investigating 150,000 complaints every year, adding to that rescuing and collecting 119,126 animals (with 140 welfare officers and collection officers aiding in the latter) I really don't think an inspector has the time to 'harrass' needlessly!????
http://www.rspca.org.uk/media/facts
 
Moomin1 said:
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?!! :confused:

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?
Click to expand...

Ahh the 'knowlegable' Moomin1
The POLICE may have right of entry, the RSPCA do not, even if they are with the police, the landowner has every right to refuse entry to the RSPCA staff, unless the RSPCA staff are specifically included on the warrant, then they cannot enter with the police if the police have obtained the warrant.
 
YorksG said:
Ahh the 'knowlegable' Moomin1
The POLICE may have right of entry, the RSPCA do not, even if they are with the police, the landowner has every right to refuse entry to the RSPCA staff, unless the RSPCA staff are specifically included on the warrant, then they cannot enter with the police if the police have obtained the warrant.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know Fenris, which is why I said THE POLICE have powers under the animal welfare act. :rolleyes:

The police are more than happy to gain a warrant and name the RSPCA officer on it, and it happens all the time!

Even if, for some bizarre reason, the RSPCA weren't named on a warrant, then the police can gather the evidence needed, they can call in a vet, who will possibly authorise a Section 18(5) AWA or a Section 19 PACE. Or possibly even a Section 18(3) destruction. The police then secure the evidence under PACE, and either take the prosecution themselves, or hand the evidence to the RSPCA. Simples. Or, if there is no issue, the police can see there's no issue, leave the premises, inform the RSPCA officer, and hey presto, everyone can go for a brew and a loo stop!

I wouldn't bother trying to insinuate I am not aware of how it all works Fenris.
 
Moomin1 said:
Yes, I know Fenris, which is why I said THE POLICE have powers under the animal welfare act. :rolleyes:

The police are more than happy to gain a warrant and name the RSPCA officer on it, and it happens all the time!

Even if, for some bizarre reason, the RSPCA weren't named on a warrant, then the police can gather the evidence needed, they can call in a vet, who will possibly authorise a Section 18(5) AWA or a Section 19 PACE. Or possibly even a Section 18(3) destruction. The police then secure the evidence under PACE, and either take the prosecution themselves, or hand the evidence to the RSPCA. Simples. Or, if there is no issue, the police can see there's no issue, leave the premises, inform the RSPCA officer, and hey presto, everyone can go for a brew and a loo stop!

I wouldn't bother trying to insinuate I am not aware of how it all works Fenris.
Click to expand...


Not me you are answering. However . . . .

Warrants are usually worded so that the police may bring in whoever they believe they need.

There are concerns about the police using the powers granted to them by Parliament to pass confidential information/data that a suspect gives to them (or that they take as evidence in the form of computers of phones or paperwork) on to a non-government body thus bypassing all of the protections that parliament imposed on the police.

If you think about it, people tell the police things they would not let anyone else know. They do this because the police have a special position of trust in society. If the police regularly pass on information then we could see people become more and more reluctant to put their trust in the police.

There is also an argument that the powers used should cease and all items be handed back once the police decide not to continue with an investigation.


Unfortunately the police seem to see it as their duty to give special dispensation and consideration to the RSPCA. We will see how long that continues as some police forces are currently dealing with complaints that might not be as easy to shrug off as some in the past have been.
 
Moomin1 said:
Yes, I know Fenris, which is why I said THE POLICE have powers under the animal welfare act. :rolleyes:

The police are more than happy to gain a warrant and name the RSPCA officer on it, and it happens all the time!

Even if, for some bizarre reason, the RSPCA weren't named on a warrant, then the police can gather the evidence needed, they can call in a vet, who will possibly authorise a Section 18(5) AWA or a Section 19 PACE. Or possibly even a Section 18(3) destruction. The police then secure the evidence under PACE, and either take the prosecution themselves, or hand the evidence to the RSPCA. Simples. Or, if there is no issue, the police can see there's no issue, leave the premises, inform the RSPCA officer, and hey presto, everyone can go for a brew and a loo stop!

I wouldn't bother trying to insinuate I am not aware of how it all works Fenris.
Click to expand...
Who were you answering in that post? I think you are a little confused, as well as rude.
 
YorksG said:
Who were you answering in that post? I think you are a little confused, as well as rude.
Click to expand...

I do apologise YorksG, I was somewhat tired and bleary eyed after just getting in at 2:15am and being called out on emergencies.

Whether you think I come across as rude matters not to me one bit, as personally I find you to be quite obnoxious and rude in your manner too!
 
Fenris said:
Not me you are answering. However . . . .

Warrants are usually worded so that the police may bring in whoever they believe they need.

There are concerns about the police using the powers granted to them by Parliament to pass confidential information/data that a suspect gives to them (or that they take as evidence in the form of computers of phones or paperwork) on to a non-government body thus bypassing all of the protections that parliament imposed on the police.

If you think about it, people tell the police things they would not let anyone else know. They do this because the police have a special position of trust in society. If the police regularly pass on information then we could see people become more and more reluctant to put their trust in the police.

There is also an argument that the powers used should cease and all items be handed back once the police decide not to continue with an investigation.


Unfortunately the police seem to see it as their duty to give special dispensation and consideration to the RSPCA. We will see how long that continues as some police forces are currently dealing with complaints that might not be as easy to shrug off as some in the past have been.
Click to expand...

Maybe so Fenris, who knows, time will tell!

With regard police passing information on to other organisations - I assume you refer to my comment about police informing RSPCA if there is or isn't a problem?

Well at the end of the day, police always give outcomes to MOP's when they ring in and make an allegation. It is usually a brief and undetailed outcome, but they will let them know the basics. That is all that needs to happen in this case - the RSPCA may make an allegation of concern to the police. The police go and have a look, if there's no issue, they simply give the RSPCA the outcome telling them that they have no concern and no further action is needed. That is the same outcome that MOP's get.

The police utilise the RSPCA often for many matters, just as they use social services, doctors etc etc. It's a good thing in many ways that this does take place, as quite often all of the organisations form a network to try and safeguard both people and animals. This quite often may involve an RSPCA officer showing concerns over the care of children in a household, and further checks resulting on those households with regard to children.

I would be quite shocked and appauled if anybody, fan or no fan of the RSPCA, could say that this was a bad thing. Sometimes the RSPCA officer's actions have turned the life of somebody around for the better, by helping them to improve the living conditions they and their family are in.

The problem is many people don't actually know that this goes on, and the good that can come out of what is initially a very serious situation.

It's not right that people and their children (or pets) should live in squalor, and to be quite frank, I don't care whether it's Joe Bloggs down the road who goes and knocks on the door, powers or no powers. If that family's living conditions are improved, or that pet or child is removed from harm, neglect or danger then a good job has been done. Of course, the person who is guilty of allowing their conditions to become like that may not see it like that, and scream harrassment and unfair investigation. They are the ones who end up red faced when the photos become public.
 
Moomin1 said:
The police utilise the RSPCA often for many matters, just as they use social services, doctors etc etc.
Click to expand...

The difference is that social services and doctors are professionals who are subject to a proper regulatory regime and also to their professional code of conduct. Complaints that are not properly investigated can and are booted upstairs to independent bodies.

The RSPCA claims it has its own internal investigations. Fine. But there is then nowhere for a dissatisfied complainant to go other than the highly expensive legal system. The Charities Commission openly admit that it is not their remit to deal with the vast number of complaints about charities.

The issue is one of transparency and trust.

No transparency = no reason to trust.
 
Moomin1 said:
It's a good thing in many ways that this does take place, as quite often all of the organisations form a network to try and safeguard both people and animals. This quite often may involve an RSPCA officer showing concerns over the care of children in a household, and further checks resulting on those households with regard to children.

I would be quite shocked and appauled if anybody, fan or no fan of the RSPCA, could say that this was a bad thing.
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...6073914/Secret-agenda-to-score-adoptions.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...tion-another-win-for-the-child-snatchers.html

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/3894/

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn350.pdf
 
Fenris said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...6073914/Secret-agenda-to-score-adoptions.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...tion-another-win-for-the-child-snatchers.html

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/3894/

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn350.pdf[/QUOTE

Right, so now you are actually implying that there is some sort of mass conspiracy between the RSPCA, police and social services to 'snatch children'. :rolleyes:

You have used one example, of a scorned couple who say they did nothing wrong (despite having their children removed and adopted), and that the disgusting conditions in their house was all down to the police and the RSPCA on a raid?!! Seriously?

Of course, the police and RSPCA have nothing better to do than go around spending money on organising and executing raids involving 18 police officers, and then of course the social services and adoption services waste their time and resources into removing children (because they love to do that) from respectable 'middle class' people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

It seems you have an issue with all levels of authority Fenris. And before you say it, no, I don't think the RSPCA are an 'authority'. They are merely a charity.
Click to expand...
 
Moomin1 said:
It seems you have an issue with all levels of authority Fenris.
Click to expand...


Just quoting media reports that incidentally missed quite a few horrors from the tale. No doubt you will be claiming that all of the authors and their editors also have issues with authority? Including the writer of the government Post note?
 
This is an article by Barney White Spunner:

Countryside Alliance Chairman Barney White-Spunner writes: Last Friday, whilst the eyes of the nation were understandably elsewhere, the RSPCA quietly dropped the private prosecution it had brought against Heythrop huntsman Julian Barnfield relating to two allegations from the 2010/11 hunting season. In offering no evidence the RSPCA admitted what we had always believed; that the allegations were spurious and completely without merit. This retreat should not go unnoticed, however, not least as the RSPCA has launched a second, larger prosecution involving Heythrop hunt staff, masters and the hunt as a whole.
There is something very unseemly about the RSPCA using the court system to pursue its political agenda. Worse than that, the costs of these legal adventures are being borne by you and me. The bill for preparing and fighting Julian's case is well into 5 figures and common sense would suggest that the organisation that chose to prosecute should meet that cost. The court, however, decided that the taxpayer should pay for the failure of the RSPCA's prosecution through public funds.

Simon Hart MP recently asked the Ministry of Justice how much money had been paid from public funds to meet the cost of failed RSPCA prosecutions. He was told that the Ministry did not hold such figures. When Legal Aid funding is being cut to the bone it cannot be right that the Government is signing cheques to meet the cost of failed RSPCA prosecutions without even the most basic of scrutiny.

Of course there are also significant costs to the RSPCA in bringing prosecutions, whether they win or lose. Solicitors and barristers do not come cheap, especially for a huge case like that it plans against the Heythrop. Yet the RSPCA is currently making a 130 staff redundant and imposing cuts that will undoubtedly impact on its important animal welfare work.

The RSPCA faces charges of politicising the legal process, skewed internal priorities and wasting public money. It would be well advised to leave the hunting field and concentrate on real animal welfare issues.
 
Moomin1: You still haven't answered my questions. Do you think the RSPCA's wording is clear and concise enough? Do you think they display it for long enough on their adverts? Justify their downgrading of facilities instead of upgrading them. Justify their bosses extortionate salaries. Justify the money they steal from Scotland every year (which averages a seven figure sum). Justify their conduct regarding the poor pony that Fenris told us about. Why are there so many anti-RSPCA sites and blogs? Why do so many people hate a charity that is supposed to help animals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top