The RSPCA REALLY ARE RUBBISH !!

B

BBH

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 April 2007
Messages
9,357
Visit site
The RSPCA said it did not prosecute Mr Hill as the dog did not suffer undue pain.
The private prosecution by Mrs Wales, 60, will have its first hearing at Chichester Magistrates' Court on Friday.
If I had wanted to kill the dog I would have used the sharp end of the garden hoe, but I didn't
Neville Hill
She said: "I have had cheques from people I haven't even come across. People have been supportive of me as they are appalled at what has happened to Wurzel."
Mrs Wales said she and her family were devastated by the death of Wurzel, who had to be put down because of the extent of her injuries. [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

The above is the story of a neighbours dispute resulting in one killing the others Border Terrier. The RSPCA aren't prosecuting because the dog didn't suffer enough when she was killed. She had her head stoved in and didn't die instantly so I don't understand this statement at all. How is that not suffering enough. I am so glad I cancelled my monthly donation to them years ago.The Brook are far more deserving.
 
perhaps people will realise now what an organisation they are! doing good works at times but then this occurs- how much pain and suffering did this little dog have to have before a prosecution???? disgusting, truly disgusting!
 
And the dog burrowed under the fence and was worrying his hens at the time. You are entitled to kill a dog if it is attacking your livestock. If a rottie was biting your foal would you want someone to come and shoot it?Please, unless you personally know the entire story of this, don't just believe what you read in the Daily Mail or wherever. Incidentally, we were plagued with moles many years ago, and my dad would watch them tunnelling, stick the shovel in front, dig them up and banjo them. He certainly wasn't a cruel person and a quick clean death was his priority.
 
The guy killed her dog fgs, it wasn't a quick clean kill, we're not talking about some man eating breed here this was a tiny border terrier. There were other ways of dealing with things and it doesn't sound like this bloke needed an excuse. Its just as well for him he didn't do this to my dog is all I would say. Scummy ba@tard.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The guy killed her dog fgs, it wasn't a quick clean kill, we're not talking about some man eating breed here this was a tiny border terrier. There were other ways of dealing with things and it doesn't sound like this bloke needed an excuse. Its just as well for him he didn't do this to my dog is all I would say. Scummy ba@tard.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK :s
A BT is easily capable of killing a hell of a lot of chickens in a short space of time,so the fact it was a "cute" breed and not one made a demon by the press really doesnt matter in this case.
Lets try another analagy,cute lab is chasing and biting sheep,should it be shot or left to it?

Atacking it wih a garden hoe is not the right thing to do and i agree it could and should have been delt with differently,but for all we know the man acted in heat of the moment and diddnt think untill it was too late.
A dog killing another animal is not the same as a human killing another human,which is why we have laws to stop killing people and to say what circumstances a person can kill a dog to protect thier livestock.

I have no idea if they extend to anything other then sheep and cattle(although I am sure we have someone on the site who could give us the ins and outs,would be interisting reading if nothing else) but it is never ok for a dog to chase or try to kill someones animals.
Short version,if you need someone to dump blame on the owners are at fault for not making sure their dog was kept away form then neighbours chickens.

ETS,if anyone has a link to some facts about this case,I would like to see it
smile.gif
 
From what I can gather the border terrier was attacking the neighbours dog, he hit it with the hoe, it passed out. He carried it unconscious to the owners house and left it still alive on her doorstep.
He said he thought it would come round shortly and felt bad about it.

He clearly overreacted but if a strange dog jumped in my garden and started attacking mine I would hit it with whatever came to hand. The RSPCA actually said that the dog was knocked unconscious and so didn't feel any pain, which is a valid point.
 
[ QUOTE ]
From what I can gather the border terrier was attacking the neighbours dog, he hit it with the hoe, it passed out. He carried it unconscious to the owners house and left it still alive on her doorstep.
He said he thought it would come round shortly and felt bad about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems everyone has heard a different version of events,so we should ALL hold back judgement untill one of us can find a link to some hard facts about the case.

[ QUOTE ]
He clearly overreacted but if a strange dog jumped in my garden and started attacking mine I would hit it with whatever came to hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think most of us would react first,think later if ANY type of dog ws being agressive to us,our children or animals.

[ QUOTE ]
The RSPCA actually said that the dog was knocked unconscious and so didn't feel any pain, which is a valid point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.
 
I haven't read anything about THIS case - but for a prosecution for cruelty to succeed, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant caused UNNECESSARY suffering. Whether the animal suffers or not is not the focus of the case - it's whether the suffering was caused by the defendant and whether it was unnecessary.

IF a 'stray' dog (i.e. any dog that is not mine and is on my property without my agreement) attacked one of my dogs I would do whatever was necessary to break up the fight - preferably without being bitten myself. IF I happened to grab a nearby tool - be it a broom, or a hoe, to avoid being bitten and to protect my own dog, then EVEN if the dog suffered, I would base my defence on the fact that my action was NECESSARY to prevent my own dog being injured or killed. I would feel bad if the attacking animal was badly hurt as a result - but not as bad as I'd feel if my own 'innocent' animal was hurt or killed because I'd done nothing!

Mind you, the RSPCA is not always so concerned about whether suffering was 'necessary'. Some of you will remember the 'horse on the gate' case - which the RSPCA prosecuted - AND gained a conviction which was over-turned on appeal. The owners had acted to get a horse off a gate (it had jumped it and come down on it - front legs one side, back legs the other - and froze!) But of course the owner was an MFH - so he got prosecuted - even though he had acted very correctly to get the horse off the gate as quickly and safely as possible!
 
Another reason I dont support the RSPCA its a stupid stupi organisation with one rule for one one rule for another...

Who on this bloody earth sacks a vet ( a bloody excellent one at that ) Just because he wont sign to say he agrees completly with the hunting act.. ARSES!

Lou x
 
Why would you assume the RSPCA had to bring the case? Its pretty obvious that the guy killed the dog....thats a civil case and straight forward.

Much as I dont support the RSPCA people do seem to have a rather odd idea of what sort of organisation they are. The RSPCA are not some sort of government body like the police or NHS, they are a charity and as such can do pretty much what they like when they like as long as poeple keep giving them money.
 
I haven't heard anything about this case but as spaniel says this sounds like a civil case and nothing to do with the rspca, unfortunately people see any case involving animals and they automatically assume that the rspca are responsible for prosecuting! Actually they are not! The rspca will bring private prosecutions but they are not government funded like the police and local council animal health offices.

I do support the rspca as without them alot of animals would have been left suffering and dieing without anyone prepared (or financially able!!) to fight for them. Yes they don't always get it right, but nor do the police, social services or local councils 'always' get it right!!!! and those organisations are government funded!!
 
I'm not a law expert but these quotes from the sky and daily mail links:
'Mrs Wales, 60, of Yapton, near Arundel, Sussex, has launched a private prosecution against Mr Hill, alleging criminal damage'
'Mrs Wales, who is prosecuting her neighbour for criminal damage'
Infers that this is being tried as a civil case regarding criminal damage of property (property being the dog) not animal cruelty.
 
Sound like she has applied to the Mags court for a summons to prosecute the criminal charge of crriminsl damage. Not sure that she will get that home......
 
The dog is property and technically he has damaged it. Incidentally I attended a report of a pit bull attacking another dog in its own kennel. Myself and my colleagues tried everything to get it off the other dog, water on it, in its mouth, prising its mouth open. You could hear it biting into the other dogs flesh. The other dog had wet itself in fear. In then end we dragged it out of the kennel still attached to the other dog and I hit it on the top of its head with a big torch until it let go.

Obviously none of us know the full circumstances and it must be heartbreaking for the lady in question. But we all have a right to defend our animals and use reasonable force.

I would have no qualms in kicking a dog that attacked my horse/cats/chickens to get it off. I would not however continue once it had left them alone as that is punishment and cruelty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top