Lizzie66
Well-Known Member
The police wouldn't be arresting him for failure to give an interview, they wouuld presumably be arresting him in respect of the alleged breach of the Animal Welfare Act.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The RSPCA made us feel like criminanls
- Thread starter Fenris
- Start date
The police wouldn't be arresting him for failure to give an interview, they wouuld presumably be arresting him in respect of the alleged breach of the Animal Welfare Act.
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
I think the police arrested him for cruelty. Anyone who films themselves eating a live fish and posts it on the internet for entertainment should be arrested.
The RSPCA was founded by a group of men -some MP's, including William Willberforce, the anti slavery and animal welfare campaigner and Richard Martin MP who managed to get one of the first pieces of legislation passed for animal welfare, Martins Act.
It was from their campaigning that they founded the RSPCA, when they realised that magistrates weren't enforcing the Act.
Richard Martin brought the first prosecution against a man who was beating his donkey. He brought the donkey into the court room to show off its wounds and the owner was found guilty. They saw one of the charities role's as increasing legislation for the protection of animals and bringing abusers to justice.
Richard Martin was subjected to ridicule and hostility for his animal welfare work but right from those early days, the RSPCA knew that if legislation wasn't enforced by them, no one would bother.
Nothing's changed, nearly 200 years later. The RSPCA still attracts hostility from some for its work in bringing to justice people who think causing suffering to animals is their right.
The RSPCA was founded by a group of men -some MP's, including William Willberforce, the anti slavery and animal welfare campaigner and Richard Martin MP who managed to get one of the first pieces of legislation passed for animal welfare, Martins Act.
It was from their campaigning that they founded the RSPCA, when they realised that magistrates weren't enforcing the Act.
Richard Martin brought the first prosecution against a man who was beating his donkey. He brought the donkey into the court room to show off its wounds and the owner was found guilty. They saw one of the charities role's as increasing legislation for the protection of animals and bringing abusers to justice.
Richard Martin was subjected to ridicule and hostility for his animal welfare work but right from those early days, the RSPCA knew that if legislation wasn't enforced by them, no one would bother.
Nothing's changed, nearly 200 years later. The RSPCA still attracts hostility from some for its work in bringing to justice people who think causing suffering to animals is their right.
elijahasgal
Well-Known Member
Someone sent the RSPCA out to me. Horses were all in fantastic condition, the only problem was mud on the ground in february.
I got harassed for months.
I had tried to show them the horses in full condition, and the mud was the only thing they could fault, but it didnt stop them.
They did the same to another friend of mine, at the other end of the country, out of over 40 horses in her care, they could only fault that a couple (who were booked in for a couple days and had only just arrived and were very difficult) needed their feet trimmed.
Harassed for months.
We both agree the best answer now is to not allow them any access as they have no right to enter the land. Both we know were phoned in by people who in my case wanted my horse, and in hers, as she was suing a local stud for treatment of her horses while there, by them.
Yes they do some good work, but they have become too political, and the attacks and harassment on mistaken calls, the need to proove their worth by harassment, and not taking action on major cases like spindles farm until it was soooo bad, even though they had been having complaints for years about them have caused a lot of people to loose confidence and trust in them
I got harassed for months.
I had tried to show them the horses in full condition, and the mud was the only thing they could fault, but it didnt stop them.
They did the same to another friend of mine, at the other end of the country, out of over 40 horses in her care, they could only fault that a couple (who were booked in for a couple days and had only just arrived and were very difficult) needed their feet trimmed.
Harassed for months.
We both agree the best answer now is to not allow them any access as they have no right to enter the land. Both we know were phoned in by people who in my case wanted my horse, and in hers, as she was suing a local stud for treatment of her horses while there, by them.
Yes they do some good work, but they have become too political, and the attacks and harassment on mistaken calls, the need to proove their worth by harassment, and not taking action on major cases like spindles farm until it was soooo bad, even though they had been having complaints for years about them have caused a lot of people to loose confidence and trust in them
Fenris
Well-Known Member
The police wouldn't be arresting him for failure to give an interview, they wouuld presumably be arresting him in respect of the alleged breach of the Animal Welfare Act.
Why? Either the police are intending to use their powers to investigate a possible offense or they are abusing their powers. Interestingly PACE Code C appears to state that if the police have arrested someone only the police can interview them:
PACE Code C provides that:
1.13 In this Code:
(a) designated person means a person other than a police officer, designated under the Police Reform Act 2002, Part 4 who has specified powers and duties of police officers conferred or imposed on them;
(b) reference to a police officer includes a designated person acting in the exercise or performance of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on them by their designation.
1.15 Nothing in this Code prevents the custody officer, or other officer given custody of the detainee, from allowing police staff who are not designated persons to carry out individual procedures or tasks at the police station if the law allows. However, the officer remains responsible for making sure the procedures and tasks are carried out correctly in accordance with the Codes of Practice. Any such person must be:
(a) a person employed by a police authority maintaining a police force and under the
control and direction of the Chief Officer of that force;
(b) employed by a person with whom a police authority has a contract for the
provision of services relating to persons arrested or otherwise in custody.
1.16 Designated persons and other police staff must have regard to any relevant
provisions of the Codes of Practice.
It therefore appears to be unlawful for anyone other than a police officer or person employed by the police authority and under the control and direction of the Chief Officer of that force to interview a person who has been arrested.
Fenris
Well-Known Member
So, realistically, your opinions are going to be as biased as someone who unfalteringly supports the RSPCA. You won't look at the bigger picture and will, in fact, actively seek to discredit. I'll bear that in mind when I read your posts.
I hope that I have always been able to supply sources or good reasoning to back my posts. It has never been my aim to discredit for the sake of discrediting. My aim is proper, professional prosecutions when necessary by an organization that is properly regulated and which has an independent complaints procedure or ombudsman. If that is bias then so be it.
Fenris
Well-Known Member
For those with 'fishy' interests.
http://theterramarproject.org/thedailycatch/do-fish-feel-pain-the-debate-continues/
Note that I think the issue should not be whether fish feel pain in the same way as humans feel it.
It is very clear that every organism is supplied with a feedback mechanism designed to encourage it to avoid harmful situations. Even an amoeba moves away from adverse stimuli. Why? Because failing to do so is unpleasant in some way.
No-one can tell you if you and I feel pain in the same way. Some people have a high pain threshold. Some will yell for what appears no good reason. The bottom line is that if it hurts you or is in some way unpleasant then you want it to stop.
Do I think that fishing should be stopped? No. Big fish eat little fish live. Do fish suffer more or less if eaten by a human? If no difference then is the welfare issue anything other than a wish to control the actions of others?
http://theterramarproject.org/thedailycatch/do-fish-feel-pain-the-debate-continues/
Note that I think the issue should not be whether fish feel pain in the same way as humans feel it.
It is very clear that every organism is supplied with a feedback mechanism designed to encourage it to avoid harmful situations. Even an amoeba moves away from adverse stimuli. Why? Because failing to do so is unpleasant in some way.
No-one can tell you if you and I feel pain in the same way. Some people have a high pain threshold. Some will yell for what appears no good reason. The bottom line is that if it hurts you or is in some way unpleasant then you want it to stop.
Do I think that fishing should be stopped? No. Big fish eat little fish live. Do fish suffer more or less if eaten by a human? If no difference then is the welfare issue anything other than a wish to control the actions of others?
FairyBasslet
Active Member
Aha, do you really think the only people who dislike what the organisation has become have a more sinister axe to grind?Nothing's changed, nearly 200 years later. The RSPCA still attracts hostility from some for its work in bringing to justice people who think causing suffering to animals is their right.
Laughable!
The origins of the RSPCA are noble and we should thank them for being a beacon in dark times.
However the task of enforcing law is for the police alone. The RSPCA should long ago have focused on working with MP's towards the creation of an "animal cops" specialist division so that those with the proper powers to arrest,investigate and prosecute were making sure the law is abided by.
They did not. They choose to cling onto a think veil of imagined power and the ego kick of being (in their minds) the only ones who care about animal welfare.
THAT is the problem.
Quite so.No-one can tell you if you and I feel pain in the same way. Some people have a high pain threshold. Some will yell for what appears no good reason. The bottom line is that if it hurts you or is in some way unpleasant then you want it to stop.
And of course that is why we need to give a swift end to anything we intend to eat/cull ect.- I have never understood why some people persist in thinking some animals do not feel pain, as it is clear that everything living wants to go on living and is capable of feeling pain.
It is inhumane to let pain go on for longer then then absolutely necessary.
You can see them poor b*ggers trying to find an escape after being eaten by a frog fish, they live for a fair bit after.Do I think that fishing should be stopped? No. Big fish eat little fish live. Do fish suffer more or less if eaten by a human? If no difference then is the welfare issue anything other than a wish to control the actions of others?
Difference is of course that if we continue to pretend we are more then simply another animal and maintain the illusion of civilisation we place upon ourselves a duty of care to the animals we have for companions,work and food.
I also would not advocate the end of fishing, but I think the how needs to change.
Shark fishing for example was leading to the near extinction of many species, until some bright spark had the genies idea of only allowing fishing IF the sharks were tagged, measured and the data returned to a welfare group to help protect them.
The fisherman still gets the thrill of landing a whopper, but also the warm fuzzy feeling of protecting and not harming our oceans.
Fenris
Well-Known Member
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
Aha, do you really think the only people who dislike what the organisation has become have a more sinister axe to grind?
Laughable!
The origins of the RSPCA are noble and we should thank them for being a beacon in dark times.
However the task of enforcing law is for the police alone. The RSPCA should long ago have focused on working with MP's towards the creation of an "animal cops" specialist division so that those with the proper powers to arrest,investigate and prosecute were making sure the law is abided by.
They did not. They choose to cling onto a think veil of imagined power and the ego kick of being (in their minds) the only ones who care about animal welfare.
'Creation of animal cops' ? Good luck with that one. I'm sure the RSPCA and all the other welfare agencies that use their specialist prosecutions dept, (the RSPB, WHW and others) would love the CPS to save them money and resources so they could just care for animals in need.
Perhaps the anti's could campaign for the creation of a state funded animal welfare prosecution service- particularly as DEFRA had to hand over their own role in legal prosecutions to the CPS as they weren't competent enough.
I guess it's easier for its critics to whinge about the RSPCA's faults than it is to do something positive.
I have little respect for that.
Yes, I do think a large number of critics are malicious, like those who set up web sites solely to discredit and write propaganda or join forums to post only with malicious intent.
Some critics simply aren't informed enough about the work of the RSPCA and its orgins and jump in the bandwagon.
Others are politically motivated and are prepared to try and destory our National welfare charity because it supports a law they disagree with. -The cock fighters, the Fox and Stag hunters and those who wish to kill birds of prey to protect game birds.
And the last group- the abusers who think they have a right to starve and beat an animal because they own it.
1life
...
There is no doubt that MOST RSPCA inspectors - and virtually ALL the people who work at local branch level - ARE there for the right reasons and are striving to improve animal welfare. Unfortunately, their jobs are often made harder by the people at the top (who control the purse strings!!) Animal WELFARE drives them - but the politics often makes it difficult (at least!)
Which is how it is in so many organisations...including our local pc!
The workers on the front line must find it very annoying when the only thing that gets attention is negative publicity that some people seem intent on finding. The 'good news' paper never was a success though, I suppose.
Alec Swan
...
.......
The workers on the front line must find it very annoying when the only thing that gets attention is negative publicity that some people seem intent on finding. The 'good news' paper never was a success though, I suppose.
What intrigues me is the display of blind faith, when the obviously disillusioned, armed with the fact that those who direct them have lost their way, seem incapable of revolt. Few would contest or disagree that those on the front line are committed and caring people.
Change is better when it comes from within, and legislation and demands (the clipping of wings) are far less effective.
The welfare of animals is a subjective topic. It isn't a topic which has clear boundaries, and I suppose that it isn't a question which can be easily dealt with by the Police or the CPS, UNLESS it falls within the bounds of the breaking of, or the disregard for clear and established statute book legislation. For example, those who can provide evidence of people hunting, should present that evidence to the CPS and allow them to decide upon whether to prosecute, or not. It is not the place for a charitable society to decide upon who faces prosecution, and who doesn't. Regardless of whether an rspca prosecution is successful, or not, its very existence will assure the charity of a swelling of the coffers derived from donations.
The CPS is governed by and generally follows, guide lines. The rspca, having been given a freedom, a freedom I'd add which has no support in law (they have no right of entry, and no right to seize goods), has and continues to behave in a fashion which has nothing to do with justice or fairness, and everything to do with a political and a perceived class bias, a bias which doesn't actually exist but is manufactured.
The rspca also seem to wield a banner of a self proclaimed authority, and one which few seem able to, or willing to stand up against. The said charity have their opinions sought on subjects as varied as NH jump fences, and the welfare conditions of animals going for live export, and the reality is that they generally seem to manage to make matters worse!! Why others listen to them, is beyond me.
I've still to get my head around the fact that the hunting of a fox is considered to be cruel, whilst commercially farmed and fished, fish, which are drowned in oxygen to end their lives, and the fact that animals follow one another in to a slaughter hall, possibly aware that all is not well, and complete with the attendant stress, are facts which are overlooked by the charity concerned. The charity concerned would probably argue that one case is achievable, but the other isn't, which would lead us to consider that the said charity are only interested in achievable targets.
I will repeat my previous thoughts; We need an rspca, but not as it is in its current form and with its current and apparent objectives.
Alec.