The RSPCA made us feel like criminanls

webble said:
Hmmm no one is going to put their hands up and say 'yes fair cop' though are they
Click to expand...

That IS a fair comment BUT - it is pretty obvious from some of those stories (and others that I know of) that the RSPCA choses to go for 'easy hits'! Now if they turned up at my place and tried to kick up a stink about something (perhaps my 22 year old brood mare, due next month, who we've struggled to keep condition on) they would be ordered off the farm - and their police 'entry pass' would be told in NO uncertain terms that the mare is under the care of my vet and they should speak to him if they have any concerns. No RSPCA retained vet will take on a horse who is under treatment by its own vet! (Or if they tried, my vet would take them to BVA and crucify them!)

But most of the people they prosecuted in that article were ignorant of the law, and of the RSPCA's 'powers'!
 
JanetGeorge said:
That IS a fair comment BUT - it is pretty obvious from some of those stories (and others that I know of) that the RSPCA choses to go for 'easy hits'! Now if they turned up at my place and tried to kick up a stink about something (perhaps my 22 year old brood mare, due next month, who we've struggled to keep condition on) they would be ordered off the farm - and their police 'entry pass' would be told in NO uncertain terms that the mare is under the care of my vet and they should speak to him if they have any concerns. No RSPCA retained vet will take on a horse who is under treatment by its own vet! (Or if they tried, my vet would take them to BVA and crucify them!)

But most of the people they prosecuted in that article were ignorant of the law, and of the RSPCA's 'powers'!
Click to expand...

See this is where it really makes me laugh - the amount of people who ACTUALLY believe that the RSPCA prosecute people when their animals are receiving veterinary treatment, and owners are following veterinary orders to the tee. It is so misguided it's untrue. Where they may prosecute, is when someone has taken their animal to a vet, been given treatment, or advice, but has not then continued to provide that.

Also, it is down to each person to be aware of the law, not a charity to then not prosecute them simply because that person neglected their animal through 'ignorance' of the law. That's like saying that if someone isn't aware of the speed limit in a particular area, they shouldn't be prosecuted if they are caught doing 90 in a 40 area.

It is also down to the OWNER of the animal to provide the needs it has, NOT the RSPCA. Any reasonable owner, like yourself by the sounds of things, has their animals under vet treatment if their condition is poor and they require further attention. But in most cases, people who end up going through the courts use the ever popular excuse of "oh, well I used this stuff from the pet shop, but it didn't work, so I didn't know what else to do", or "Well, I was GOING to take it to the vet, but I don't get paid until next week/haven't got transport/am not insured/thought I would see how it went (like the cat with the severely injured tail in that article - what sort of person leaves it a few days to see how it goes?!). I'm afraid, in my world, those excuses don't cut it. You have animals, you look after them, and do your research/save/insure/have a contingency plan for emergencies.
 
TBH I'm not surprised by any of the examples in the article...about 17 years ago I moved into a new property and there were 2 feral cats ( maine coons) in the garden. They were in a bad way and so scared of people, so I started feeding them and gaining their trust. A month later I had a note through the letterbox from the RSPCA stating they were concerned about the welfare of my cats ( I could just about touch them when they were eating at this stage) I contacted the number and got berated about the fact that the cats has matts in their fur....I attempted to explain the situation but was told to 'take more responsibility'....so I did...2 weeks later I managed to get them both to the vets for a full MOT and the vets decided (having consulted me) to shave the worst matts off...cost me ( then a student) over £300 but was the best for the cats. I then received another visit from the RSPCA threatening court action as having shaved the cats they were more likely to get sunburn!! I was damned if I did and damned if I didn't.... I now support a number of different animal charities but not the RSPCA.
 
Alec Swan said:
Moomin, I've asked before, and you've yet to answer me, "Does the senior management of the rspca, and Gavin Grant in particular have your unqualified support"? I realise that the question puts you on a spot, and that isn't really my intention, but you've lambasted me in the past for my views, and I feel that I've the right to ask you to qualify yours. If you feel unable to answer, then most would reasonably conclude that in fact he does NOT enjoy your unquestioning support. If you hang on his every word, then say so.

.......

Alec.
Click to expand...

So are we to gather from your silence that the question's a little tricky, and that Grant's reported bullying of underlings has you fearful?

Alec.
 
Moomin1 said:
See this is where it really makes me laugh - the amount of people who ACTUALLY believe that the RSPCA prosecute people when their animals are receiving veterinary treatment, and owners are following veterinary orders to the tee.
Click to expand...

Quite apart from the fact that the SHG is dealing with several current cases where the RSPCA has seized animals and is prosecuting despite the owners own vet being present at the time and stating that they were responsible for the animals, the RSPCA has done exactly this in the past. Remember the Griffins whose own vet tried to explain to the RSPCA and their vet and was ignored?

http://the-shg.org/28th January 2008.pdf

For those interested in flea cases see

http://the-shg.org/RSPCA hit with bill for cruelty prosecution.pdf

[ . . . ]

Also, it is down to each person to be aware of the law,

[ . . . ]

It is also down to the OWNER of the animal to provide the needs it has, NOT the RSPCA.

[ . . . . ]

what sort of person leaves it a few days to see how it goes?!).

[ . . . ]

.
Click to expand...

And here was me thinking that the meaning of the word charity included compassion and helping people who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

No doubt in the RSPCA's world we would prosecute third world parents for having thin children in a famine.

And no doubt each of us who gets a headache will present ourselves at A&E demanding a brain scan in case we have a tumour instead of taking a couple of aspirin and seeing how it goes. Pity about the NHS budget -What? Can't we afford such a level of care? But that is what the RSPCA is demanding of animal owners/keepers.
 
Moomin1 said:
........ I'm afraid, in my world, those excuses don't cut it. You have animals, you look after them, and do your research/save/insure/have a contingency plan for emergencies.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to advise you that not everyone lives in your perfect and well ordered world. The lives of some change, and being cyclical those who once could cope, perhaps now can't, and with an attitude such as yours, is it any wonder that the charity which you support is loosing support daily, and in droves many are seeing the incompetence, bias and what should be an embarrassing self promoting stance, for what it is?

Moomin, you seem to roundly ignore, or fail to answer my questions, so I'll ask another, and this is just for clarity, "Could you explain away the weighted rebukes which High Court Judges, amongst others of the bench, are now handing down, regarding the waisting of Court time, and the justification of such expense"?

Sadly, I suspect that your silence is because you have no clear answer.

Alec.
 
Fenris said:
Quite apart from the fact that the SHG is dealing with several current cases where the RSPCA has seized animals and is prosecuting despite the owners own vet being present at the time and stating that they were responsible for the animals, the RSPCA has done exactly this in the past. Remember the Griffins whose own vet tried to explain to the RSPCA and their vet and was ignored?

http://the-shg.org/28th January 2008.pdf

For those interested in flea cases see

http://the-shg.org/RSPCA hit with bill for cruelty prosecution.pdf

[ . . . ]



And here was me thinking that the meaning of the word charity included compassion and helping people who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

No doubt in the RSPCA's world we would prosecute third world parents for having thin children in a famine.

And no doubt each of us who gets a headache will present ourselves at A&E demanding a brain scan in case we have a tumour instead of taking a couple of aspirin and seeing how it goes. Pity about the NHS budget -What? Can't we afford such a level of care? But that is what the RSPCA is demanding of animal owners/keepers.
Click to expand...

The RSPCA helps people day in day out Fenris, but of course, this doesn't make good reading in the Daily Fail, which is mainly fuelled by followers of your wonderful SHG.

I suppose this guy needed to be 'helped' by the RSPCA did he?

http://www.winsfordguardian.co.uk/news/9723030.Cockfighting_offender_fined___50_000/

I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have recieved all the support he needed from the SHG too.
 
Moomin1 said:
The RSPCA helps people day in day out Fenris, but of course, this doesn't make good reading in the Daily Fail, which is mainly fuelled by followers of your wonderful SHG.

I suppose this guy needed to be 'helped' by the RSPCA did he?

http://www.winsfordguardian.co.uk/news/9723030.Cockfighting_offender_fined___50_000/

I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have recieved all the support he needed from the SHG too.
Click to expand...

Yes he did. Note that he pleaded not guilty. But of course, the RSPCA knew all about certain problems that were never aired in court. They always seem to target the elderly and vulnerable.
 
Moomin1 said:
See this is where it really makes me laugh - the amount of people who ACTUALLY believe that the RSPCA prosecute people when their animals are receiving veterinary treatment, and owners are following veterinary orders to the tee. It is so misguided it's untrue. Where they may prosecute, is when someone has taken their animal to a vet, been given treatment, or advice, but has not then continued to provide that.

Also, it is down to each person to be aware of the law, not a charity to then not prosecute them simply because that person neglected their animal through 'ignorance' of the law. That's like saying that if someone isn't aware of the speed limit in a particular area, they shouldn't be prosecuted if they are caught doing 90 in a 40 area.

It is also down to the OWNER of the animal to provide the needs it has, NOT the RSPCA. Any reasonable owner, like yourself by the sounds of things, has their animals under vet treatment if their condition is poor and they require further attention. But in most cases, people who end up going through the courts use the ever popular excuse of "oh, well I used this stuff from the pet shop, but it didn't work, so I didn't know what else to do", or "Well, I was GOING to take it to the vet, but I don't get paid until next week/haven't got transport/am not insured/thought I would see how it went (like the cat with the severely injured tail in that article - what sort of person leaves it a few days to see how it goes?!). I'm afraid, in my world, those excuses don't cut it. You have animals, you look after them, and do your research/save/insure/have a contingency plan for emergencies.
Click to expand...

Reality is not so clear cut, the average owner will try off the shelf treatment for something such as fleas in the first instance, give it a few days to see if it works before trying something else or going to the vets.

As for injured animals, yes a vet should be involved but they are not infallible and often say give it a few days and see how it goes, even when the owner asks for further tests and xrays, is fully insured, a horse of mine went nearly 6 weeks with a fracture because of a stubborn vet refusing to look beyond her original, incorrect diagnosis, if the RSPCA had seen him when he was stressed and in pain they may have wanted to intervene, who would have been open to prosecution me or the vet?
 
be positive said:
Reality is not so clear cut, the average owner will try off the shelf treatment for something such as fleas in the first instance, give it a few days to see if it works before trying something else or going to the vets.

As for injured animals, yes a vet should be involved but they are not infallible and often say give it a few days and see how it goes, even when the owner asks for further tests and xrays, is fully insured, a horse of mine went nearly 6 weeks with a fracture because of a stubborn vet refusing to look beyond her original, incorrect diagnosis, if the RSPCA had seen him when he was stressed and in pain they may have wanted to intervene, who would have been open to prosecution me or the vet?
Click to expand...

I can guarantee you, in that instance, no. If the owner has sought vet attention, and are following all veterinary advice, then no owner will be prosecuted. They may however be advised that perhaps they seek a second opinion from a different vet, if it is glaringly obvious that the vet used is making a dire mistake.

As for the fleas - yes, you are right, a lot of people would try over the counter stuff, which is why I think it should be banned tbh. I also agree, that most reasonable owners would try it, and if it didn't work, would then consult a vet, try a different product ie one from a vet. I would bet every penny in my account that the person in that article in fact DID NOT do so, and that the allergy/reaction had been a long ongoing problem and they did not follow advice given.

I am finding it almost amusing the warping on these cases that the Daily Fail and such like undertake. One thing that I don't find amusing, is the potential damaging effect on animal welfare they may cause.
 
Having previously worked at a local rspca branch I would never support this 'charity' again.
During the time I worked there I witnessed animals being PTS for financial reasons.

I also witnessed the rspca refusing to attend to stray, injured animals and therefore leaving animals to suffer - strangely they never prosecuted themselves for this.:rolleyes:
 
moosea said:
Having previously worked at a local rspca branch I would never support this 'charity' again.
During the time I worked there I witnessed animals being PTS for financial reasons.

I also witnessed the rspca refusing to attend to stray, injured animals and therefore leaving animals to suffer - strangely they never prosecuted themselves for this.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Can I ask who said the RSPCA wouldn't attend an injured stray animal? Do you mean the branch you worked for?
 
I'm not prepared to go into great detail of either incident.

However, I can tell you that one incident was reported to the local branch by a member of the public while I worked there, regarding an injured cat. They were told that no help could be given as it was a stray.

The second incident was reported by myself to the telephone centre, regarding an injured dog. I was told that the rspca do not attend strays.
 
moosea said:
I'm not prepared to go into great detail of either incident.

However, I can tell you that one incident was reported to the local branch by a member of the public while I worked there, regarding an injured cat. They were told that no help could be given as it was a stray.

The second incident was reported by myself to the telephone centre, regarding an injured dog. I was told that the rspca do not attend strays.
Click to expand...

And so the local branch was at fault in first instance. If you worked there, why didn't you do something?

Secondly, what did you say was wrong with this stray dog? What were the circumstances? Why are you reluctant to go into detail? You are not releasing names or places, so no probs
 
It was not within my remit to provide a response to the first incident.

I will not go into further details because I do not wish to do so with strangers on a public forum.

The rspca, in my opinion has become a politically motivated organisation, which I suppose is better than the ' cash cow' which it became several years previously.
I see no evidence that animal welfare is at the heart of the organisation.

I realise that it is hard for you and some other supporters of the rspca to accept criticism of the organisation. While your loyalty is admirable, it is my opinion that the rspca has lost touch with the expectations of the general public and risk a funding crisis in the future.

When independent judges are criticising the decision to prosecute vulnerable individuals the rspca should take notice and act appropriately to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated.

In my opinion, every prosecution is a failure of 'inspectors', as it is their job to inform and assist people with animal welfare issues. And, yes I do understand that there are cases where this failure has no other option but to to lead to prosecution, but this should be a last resort.

While monies donated by the public is used to prosecute pensioners and vulnerable pet owners I will not support the rspca. Nor will I support an organisation where animals are pts for financial reasons while funds are spent on the pursuit of petty cases through the courts.
 
Moomin1 said:
Also, it is down to each person to be aware of the law, not a charity to then not prosecute them simply because that person neglected their animal through 'ignorance' of the law.
Click to expand...
If everyone was fully aware of the l the RSPCA would be unable to operate as they rely on people not knowing that the organisation has no power over them! :rolleyes:

What we really need is a police division to deal with animal welfare.
They would be accountable to the public(unlike the RSPCA) and bring prosecutions in line with the law via the CPS(unlike the RSPCA) to enforce welfare legislation without political bias (unlike the RSPCA, who are consumed with their own agenda).




Moomin1 said:
I am finding it almost amusing the warping on these cases that the Daily Fail and such like undertake. One thing that I don't find amusing, is the potential damaging effect on animal welfare they may cause.
Click to expand...
The RSPCA damage the cause for animal welfare all by themselves.
We desperately need this unregulated,uncountable organisation disbanded or at least kicked back into it's kennel.

We ask the government to investigate the RSPCA's activities, especially where they infringe civl or legal rights.

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The RSPCA use "bully boy" tactics against innocent members of the public to bring prosecutions. They often infringe on citizens civil and legal rights.
They misuse funds which have been donated by members of the public specifically for animal welfare for their own political gain in bringing these often vexatious prosecutions. This petition asks that the government investigate fully the actions of the RSPCA, ensure that they are unable to prosecute anyone as that is the remit of the CPS and ensure tighter rules are in place from the charities commission to prevent registered charities from using funds for political lobbying or bringing private prosecutions.
Click to expand...
The petition is at around 8,800 signatures. I and many others would very much like to put this un democratic organisation under scrutiny if it wishes to continues to exist on public money.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807
 
This is very interesting reading! I hope you all don't mind if I put my oar in... Firstly, I'm in Scotland, so we don't have the RSPCA here, but I can input on some points compared to our SSPCA.

Firstly, Alec's point about owner's providing adequate treatment depends on what that treatment is. According to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there's a hell of a lot of things owner's aren't allowed to do, including diagnose their own animals. Your example of sheep isn't a particularly applicable one as one of the exemptions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act is farmers medicating and treating their livestock (not including surgical intervention). General pet owners CAN'T do this with their own pets, by law. So acting to provide adequate treatment is dodgy ground, really. Even wormers and de-flea treatments are technically supposed to be controlled sale substances, and only Suitably Qualified Persons (SQPs) are allowed to sell these, so technically you are seeking a form of veterinary treatment in purchasing these.

Secondly the point about strays. I know our local SSPCA takes in stray cats and small animals, but the local council Dog Warden deals with stray dogs - therefore the SSPCA centre and inspectorate aren't allowed the deal with stray dogs. However, my auntie's local branch has the local stray dog contract with the council, so they do deal with strays in their area. Therefore, different branches may have different procedures with strays according to council contracts etc - not just because they don't want to attend strays! WRT cats, our local branch does accept stray cats, but works with Cats Protection so that CP deals with ferals, and the SSPCA doesn't.

Not that I'm defending these organisations, because there is a huge gap between the high ups and those at ground level looking after the animals and dealing with public, which puts a lot of pressure on those just trying to do a good job. However, I think they do a lot more good than they do harm, which people do forget about...
 
This is very interesting reading! I hope you all don't mind if I put my oar in... Firstly, I'm in Scotland, so we don't have the RSPCA here, but I can input on some points compared to our SSPCA.

Firstly, Alec's point about owner's providing adequate treatment depends on what that treatment is. According to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there's a hell of a lot of things owner's aren't allowed to do, including diagnose their own animals. Your example of sheep isn't a particularly applicable one as one of the exemptions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act is farmers medicating and treating their livestock (not including surgical intervention). General pet owners CAN'T do this with their own pets, by law. So acting to provide adequate treatment is dodgy ground, really. Even wormers and de-flea treatments are technically supposed to be controlled sale substances, and only Suitably Qualified Persons (SQPs) are allowed to sell these, so technically you are seeking a form of veterinary treatment in purchasing these.

Secondly the point about strays. I know our local SSPCA takes in stray cats and small animals, but the local council Dog Warden deals with stray dogs - therefore the SSPCA centre and inspectorate aren't allowed the deal with stray dogs. However, my auntie's local branch has the local stray dog contract with the council, so they do deal with strays in their area. Therefore, different branches may have different procedures with strays according to council contracts etc - not just because they don't want to attend strays! WRT cats, our local branch does accept stray cats, but works with Cats Protection so that CP deals with ferals, and the SSPCA doesn't.

Not that I'm defending these organisations, because there is a huge gap between the high ups and those at ground level looking after the animals and dealing with public, which puts a lot of pressure on those just trying to do a good job. However, I think they do a lot more good than they do harm, which people do forget about...
 
I have said it before but I will say it again the state should be taking the lead in prosecuting animal welfare causes not a charity.
The charity could then follow it own agenda at will and everyone could be 'happy' .the situation will become in time untenable on both sides.
At least the police and the CPS are accountable and monitored.
This is no longer a benign organisation I would help without question.
 
Also flea allergies are pretty common how can a competent owner not know about it as a possibility??[/QUOTE]

i think this is a very unfair comment as firstly the reaction was caused by using the shampoo which was done with the intention of helping their dog and it doesn't matter how competent you are in any sphere you will never know everything and just because they made a mistake it does not mean they are abusing/neglecting their animal....we all make mistakes none of us are perfect not even the most 'competent owner'.
 
Alec Swan said:
Moomin, you seem to roundly ignore, or fail to answer my questions, so I'll ask another, and this is just for clarity, "Could you explain away the weighted rebukes which High Court Judges, amongst others of the bench, are now handing down, regarding the waisting of Court time, and the justification of such expense"?


.
Click to expand...

I too am interested in Moomin's answer to this.

They won't answer though. They would rather ignore it and pretend it isn't happening.

Also, no idea why they keep citing the Fail when that is a Telegraph article?


Moomin, I am sorry but I think you do the RSPCA more harm than good with your refusal to concede that there may, just possibly, be some less than perfect parts to the charity. I am realistic, I see they do lots of good, I am curious as to how they justify these cases,I suspect they can't and don't when a high court judge tells them to stop time wasting which is why they don't comment when journos ask them, and yet you are convinced they can do no wrong. If you were more realistic then people would listen to you more. You just sound like someone with their head buried in the sand which means everyone just writes you off as a maniacal loony which does the cause you are so keen on no good what so ever.
 
khalswitz said:
.......

....... According to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there's a hell of a lot of things owner's aren't allowed to do, including diagnose their own animals.
....... General pet owners CAN'T do this with their own pets, by law. So acting to provide adequate treatment is dodgy ground, really.

..........
Click to expand...

To diagnose is to consider, in the case of a health or injury question, and then form an opinion and I can assure you that there is no Law in this land to prevent an owner from forming a diagnosis. I'm none too sure what you mean by "Dodgy ground", but if an animal owner wishes to diagnose, and as far as they are able, to treat their animal, then the choice is still there's, for now!

There are certain medicines and drugs which are on sale to the public as over the counter requests, and can be passed from one person to another and without licence, and then there are what used to be known as the PMLs, but are now known as POMs. If you google NOAH, it'll give you the facts.

There are still, a great many medications which are freely available and without prescription or licence.

Alec.
 
Jesstickle said:
I too am interested in Moomin's answer to this.

They won't answer though. They would rather ignore it and pretend it isn't happening.

Also, no idea why they keep citing the Fail when that is a Telegraph article?


Moomin, I am sorry but I think you do the RSPCA more harm than good with your refusal to concede that there may, just possibly, be some less than perfect parts to the charity. I am realistic, I see they do lots of good, I am curious as to how they justify these cases,I suspect they can't and don't when a high court judge tells them to stop time wasting which is why they don't comment when journos ask them, and yet you are convinced they can do no wrong. If you were more realistic then people would listen to you more. You just sound like someone with their head buried in the sand which means everyone just writes you off as a maniacal loony which does the cause you are so keen on no good what so ever.
Click to expand...

Lol, that made me laugh! Actually, I have no opinion on the RSPCA because I've not had any direct dealing with them, but I have been following the threads/stories - although as I live in Ireland it's not really applicable to me. However, I will say this - that if you work for the RSPCA Moomin (although you say you don't), I would have fired you long ago for your appalling customer liaison. And if you don't - then I would be frantically trying to stop you from acting as some sort of unofficial spokesperson. You seem to be doing more harm than good. For instance - why are you arguing on a forum instead of privately trying to find out why people are seemingly having problems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top