The RSPCA Told to Stop Trying to Prosecute Fox Hunters

Fox hunting is vermin control. End of. People who disagree with it think nothing of poisoning rats if they are in their house. RSPCA wasted huge amounts of money trying to prosecute hunters. Its definitely time they stopped.
 
Agree.
I see the RSPCA as a charity that should help out animals that are meant to be under human care, being ill-treated. So pets and such like.
I don't think it should focus on wild animals/vermin and how they are treated. They should be there as a safety net for where humans get it wrong with their pets. Those are the people that are more likely to be ignorant of what their pets need, not the hunting community (who collectively know pretty much all there is to know about looking after horses, hounds , foxes and such vermin/quarry in the most humane way possible).

RSPCA have defintely lost their way because of a few politically motiviated people at the top. People on the street donate to help mistreated pets, not to fund anti-hunting political groups (there are other organsiations set up purely to tackle this).

Hopefully the RSPCA can use this report, taken on board the recommendations and get back to doing what they should be in this day and age : looking out for mistreated pets and ignore the political stuff!
 
£327k prosecuting a couple of people invovled in the life of ONE fox and then resultin in £30k of fines is utterly ridiculous. What a waste of £327k raised by the man on the street/donations. £327k that went to line the pockets of barristers. Imagine what real good that £327k had done if it had been used in a charitable way.
 
Moomin1 said:
My thoughts are that people should read the entire report, before ending up red faced from relying on information from a deeply flawed and biased newspaper, which has a political agenda of it's own. ;-)
Click to expand...

Definitely, never believe anything you read in the newspaper, especially if that paper happens to be The Daily Mail. Here's the link to the full report:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf

The RSPCA response to it:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/RSPCAResponseToWoolerReview.pdf
 
Wipeout - think you have posted the same link twice.

£327k spent regarding the mistreatment of one fox.
Don't have to read any reports to know that this was a waste of money. Common sense went out of the window and RSPCA management got locked on to a hunt of their own.
£327,000!!! I can't believe that much was spent. CRAZY!!!
 
Tea Drinker said:
Wipeout - think you have posted the same link twice.

£327k spent regarding the mistreatment of one fox.
Don't have to read any reports to know that this was a waste of money. Common sense went out of the window and RSPCA management got locked on to a hunt of their own.
£327,000!!! I can't believe that much was spent. CRAZY!!!
Click to expand...

I thought the thread was about the thoughts on the report?
 
I think from discussions about it that it perhaps at least highlighted that the RSPCA are a bit between a rock and hard place, if they stop prosecuting can they be sure that the police will take up the animal welfare side of things? Obviously there is a risk that they won't and nobody would be happy with the RSPCA then. But, that there is however a precendent for similar organisations that used to prosecute (RSPB/NSPCC I think were mentioned) whose remit has now been transferred to the CPS as I think the RSPCA's side of things should be.
 
Tea Drinker said:
Wipeout - think you have posted the same link twice.

£327k spent regarding the mistreatment of one fox.
Don't have to read any reports to know that this was a waste of money. Common sense went out of the window and RSPCA management got locked on to a hunt of their own.
£327,000!!! I can't believe that much was spent. CRAZY!!!
Click to expand...

The CPS decided to drop the case due to 'insufficent' evidence. The RSPCA therefore had to take the case and of course, there was sufficent evidence for a successful conviction.

Repeatedly, the CPS has declined to prosecute illegal fox hunting. Most of its (pitifully few) prosecutions for illegal hunting are aimed at hare coursing. The police say fox hunting crime is a low priority for them, which essentially means that some laws can be ignored.

Yes, it is highly unfair that the RSPCA in the 21st century is still having to prosecute animal cruelty cases and law breaking, I would rather that the CPS did the job they are paid to do and stop using a free service funded by a charity.
 
MerrySherryRider said:
The CPS decided to drop the case due to 'insufficent' evidence. The RSPCA therefore had to take the case and of course, there was sufficent evidence for a successful conviction.
.....
Yes, it is highly unfair that the RSPCA in the 21st century is still having to prosecute animal cruelty cases and law breaking, I would rather that the CPS did the job they are paid to do and stop using a free service funded by a charity.
Click to expand...

Mmm yes, it's amazing how a prosecution can suddently become successful when back by £327,000 in funds! A lot of hotshot lawyers were brought in to secure that particular conviction. The CPS probably (rightly) thought that it was not in the public purse's interest to spend that kind of money on this kind of conviction.Looks like the public agree with the CPS insofar as RSPCA donations have droppped significantly in recent times which has been attributed to the handling of this case of the RSPCA.

I don't agree with the RSPCA using its funds to prosecute in general. I think it is better spent looking after the animals themselves and trying to lobby the government to take up the prosecution side of things. Let charities do charitable things and let politics take care of the political side of things. When you muddy the two up, you have often conflicting interests as happened in the case of the RSPCA and the Heythrop hunt prosection.
 
Tea Drinker said:
Mmm yes, it's amazing how a prosecution can suddently become successful when back by £327,000 in funds! A lot of hotshot lawyers were brought in to secure that particular conviction. The CPS probably (rightly) thought that it was not in the public purse's interest to spend that kind of money on this kind of conviction.Looks like the public agree with the CPS insofar as RSPCA donations have droppped significantly in recent times which has been attributed to the handling of this case of the RSPCA.

I don't agree with the RSPCA using its funds to prosecute in general. I think it is better spent looking after the animals themselves and trying to lobby the government to take up the prosecution side of things. Let charities do charitable things and let politics take care of the political side of things. When you muddy the two up, you have often conflicting interests as happened in the case of the RSPCA and the Heythrop hunt prosection.
Click to expand...

Have you read the full report?
 
Tea Drinker said:
Mmm yes, it's amazing how a prosecution can suddently become successful when back by £327,000 in funds! A lot of hotshot lawyers were brought in to secure that particular conviction. The CPS probably (rightly) thought that it was not in the public purse's interest to spend that kind of money on this kind of conviction.Looks like the public agree with the CPS insofar as RSPCA donations have droppped significantly in recent times which has been attributed to the handling of this case of the RSPCA.

I don't agree with the RSPCA using its funds to prosecute in general. I think it is better spent looking after the animals themselves and trying to lobby the government to take up the prosecution side of things. Let charities do charitable things and let politics take care of the political side of things. When you muddy the two up, you have often conflicting interests as happened in the case of the RSPCA and the Heythrop hunt prosection.
Click to expand...

Ever thought that if the criminals in the Heythropecase had pleaded guilty, it might have saved everyone a lot of time and money ? Funny old world when criminals can waste court time and a charity's resources and no one bothers to question their morality ?

Are the hunts allowed to break all laws or just the one's they don't like ? Can I chose which laws I'd like to break as well ?
 
Horsesforever1 said:
Fox hunting is vermin control. End of. People who disagree with it think nothing of poisoning rats if they are in their house. RSPCA wasted huge amounts of money trying to prosecute hunters. Its definitely time they stopped.
Click to expand...

Off subject I know but please, I wish that people would stop referring to hunting foxes as vermin control. It's a sport..a jolly fun time out or whatever. I'd suspect that far more foxes are killed on the roads each year than were ever killed by hunts and we don't refer to that as vermin control. By all means go and chase foxes until they get ripped to shreds by hounds but stop referring to it as vermin control .. Vermin control implies that it may be some sort of chore which must be done whereas it's patently obvious that hunting is fun.

Regarding RSPCA . it was a waste of money which could have gone to improve shelters or prosecute many if the offenders who seem to be slipping through the net.
 
MerrySherryRider said:
Ever thought that if the criminals in the Heythropecase had pleaded guilty, it might have saved everyone a lot of time and money ? Funny old world when criminals can waste court time and a charity's resources and no one bothers to question their morality ?

Are the hunts allowed to break all laws or just the one's they don't like ? Can I chose which laws I'd like to break as well ?
Click to expand...

No, everyone has the right to defend themselves.
But I thought they did plead guilty?

The Heythrop Hunt Ltd and two of its members recently retired joint master Richard Sumner and former huntsman Julian Barnfield each pleaded guilty at Oxford Magistrates Court to four charges of illegally hunting foxes during the 2011/12 season. The case was prosecuted by the RSPCA and was the first time a hunt faced corporate charges. Extensive footage was supplied to the RSPCA by volunteer hunt monitors and after reviewing the evidence the RSPCA brought fifty two charges against the hunt and four of its members. Shortly before the case was to be heard the hunt and two of its members offered to plead guilty to twelve charges which the RSPCA accepted. District Judge Tim Pattinson fined the hunt £4000, Sumner £1,800 and Barnfield £1,000. The hunt also had to pay £15,000 towards the RSPCA legal costs, Sumner £2,500 and Barnfield £2,000. Each defendant had to pay a £15 victim surcharge.
 
MerrySherryRider said:
Ever thought that if the criminals in the Heythropecase had pleaded guilty, it might have saved everyone a lot of time and money ? Funny old world when criminals can waste court time and a charity's resources and no one bothers to question their morality ?
Click to expand...

Oh Lordy. Guessing you've never given much thought to how court works then :-D
 
Moomin1 said:
And how does court work then Tea Drinker?
Click to expand...

Well, it doesn't work on the expectation that anyone who is guilty, 'fesses up on day 1 and saves everyone time and money. It's more along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". Google it, why don't you? You'll find it's a fairly central theme to the British Justice system although in your opinion, that makes it a "funny old world".
 
ester said:
The first one takes me to the review, the second to the rspca response to it.....
Click to expand...

Weird. I get taken to the same report each time. (Both being the RSPCA's response. )
Anyway, not massively important to this debate. None of us hang out on HHO because we are computer specialists! (Clearly I am NOT!)
 
Last edited:
Tea Drinker said:
Well, it doesn't work on the expectation that anyone who is guilty, 'fesses up on day 1 and saves everyone time and money. It's more along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". Google it, why don't you? You'll find it's a fairly central theme to the British Justice system although in your opinion, that makes it a "funny old world".
Click to expand...

I don't need to - I attend court regularly. I am just interested in your knowledge of it, which judging by your above comment, is very little.

Oh and by the way, it wasn't me who said it's a funny old world...

It appears you don't read things at all, or properly.
 
Last edited:
Moomin1 said:
I don't need to - I attend court regularly. …….. .
Click to expand...

Excellent, so could you advise us how the board of directors of the rspca are appointed, by whom and which would be the best route to altering the self promoting and self enlargement of a group which have rather lost their way, in the carefully considered opinions of many?

In short, and whilst accepting that the ears of the rspca are firmly closed, could you offer an opinion as to how the common man may assist the august body which you support, and towards a realignment with an informed and concerned public opinion?

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Excellent, so could you advise us how the board of directors of the rspca are appointed, by whom and which would be the best route to altering the self promoting and self enlargement of a group which have rather lost their way, in the carefully considered opinions of many?

In short, and whilst accepting that the ears of the rspca are firmly closed, could you offer an opinion as to how the common man may assist the august body which you support, and towards a realignment with an informed and concerned public opinion?

Alec.
Click to expand...

What have either of those points got to do with going to court and the way courts operate? Absolutely nothing.

I suggest you direct your questions to someone within the board of directors of the RSPCA, and perhaps also read the second link, which is the RSPCA's response to the report. You may find that their response shows they are not in any way closed to the suggestions made.
 
Moomin1 said:
What have either of those points got to do with going to court and the way courts operate? Absolutely nothing.

I suggest you direct your questions to someone within the board of directors of the RSPCA, and perhaps also read the second link, which is the RSPCA's response to the report. You may find that their response shows they are not in any way closed to the suggestions made.
Click to expand...

The way that the Courts operate seem to be curiously influenced by a charity which claims a level of expertise which it lacks.

I've been unable to source the opening report. I'd be grateful if you could post it. As Tea Drinker, the report offerings are identical.

I've previously attempted to contact the Directors, on several occasions, and been ignored. Perhaps there's another route to discussion.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
The way that the Courts operate seem to be curiously influenced by a charity which claims a level of expertise which it lacks.

I've been unable to source the opening report. I'd be grateful if you could post it. As Tea Drinker, the report offerings are identical.

I've previously attempted to contact the Directors, on several occasions, and been ignored. Perhaps there's another route to discussion.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Oh of course, the courts are corrupt now..Dear me Alec, really? Next I imagine you and others will suggest (oh wait, it would appear that some already have out there!) that the report was biased and influenced by a pay off or something..

I haven't got time to find an alternative way to source the link I'm afraid as I have to head out to my horse.

With regard another route into discussion - I have no idea. I'm not sure why you would want to tbh. Read the report in it's entirety and the RSPCA's response, and then just wait and see what transpires. Not sure what the obsession with trying to continuously find fault is. The anti RSPCA brigade called for an independent review, the RSPCA fully cooperated and one took place. You now all have the findings of that report, and the RSPCA response and proposals for a way forward. If that isn't good enough, then what is?
 
Horsesforever1 said:
Fox hunting is vermin control. End of. People who disagree with it think nothing of poisoning rats if they are in their house. RSPCA wasted huge amounts of money trying to prosecute hunters. Its definitely time they stopped.
Click to expand...

I believe one of the arguements is that fox hunting is not effective pest control anyway, and putting down rat poison (which I personally do not do as I don't like that either) isn't considered the same as the problem most of us have with fox hunting is that fun is had doing it.

I really would not believe anything printed in the Daily Mail either...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top