The RSPCA Told to Stop Trying to Prosecute Fox Hunters

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

If a defendent pleads guilty at the outset, then prosecution, court time and costs are decreased. However, the criminals of the Heythrop did not plead guilty until the RSPCA had mounted a huge case against them which of course cost the charity a huge amount of money.

Better still, if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't have used up valuable police and court resources, let alone the RSPCA's.


Why do you defend criminals rather than those who try to uphold the law ? The law isn't optional, we all have to abide by it.
 
Moomin1 said:
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..

With regard another route into discussion - I have no idea.

I'm not sure why you would want to tbh.

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?
Click to expand...

Line 1. Where have I suggested that the Courts are corrupt? Gullible, I'll grant you and led by those with more of an interest in their own self promotion, than justice OR animal welfare! Creating a defence by distorting the words of the rspca critics, does little to support your argument.

Line 2. Fending off future enquiries, are we?

Line 3. Well you wouldn't have, the route is closed. The rspca will neither accept dialogue, queries or doubt. They deal with those who see them for what they are, with the traditional approach of an ostrich.

Line 4. For the betterment of a 'Charity' which has failed the question of animal welfare on far more occasions than it has supported them.

Line 5. What would be better? To listen to the everyday caring man who would have an animal welfare charity lead the way in welfare, rather than their current and shameful course. A PM from you will receive my e/mail address, and it will be an address that you can pass on, but we both know what the realities are, don't we?!! :D

Alec.
 
I'm not defending criminals.
I'm pointing out that our judicial system is based on a presumption of innocence and it is up to the prosecutors to prove otherwise. This is at odds with your suggestion that guilty parties should just 'fess up early on to save on the prosecutors' (et al) fees. It's a lovely (if somewhat utopian) idea but it's just not how it is.

Defendants may well view themselves as innocent parties (rightly or wrongly) hence getting their day in court to confirm/disprove this - but the onus on prosecution to prosecute remains the same - innocent until proven otherwise.
 
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...

Alec, I have added a link too, please try that one.
 
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...

It does, actually. You get a third off your sentence of you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. And much, much lower costs
 
Tea Drinker said:
I'm not defending criminals.
I'm pointing out that our judicial system is based on a presumption of innocence and it is up to the prosecutors to prove otherwise. This is at odds with your suggestion that guilty parties should just 'fess up early on to save on the prosecutors' (et al) fees. It's a lovely (if somewhat utopian) idea but it's just not how it is.

Defendants may well view themselves as innocent parties (rightly or wrongly) hence getting their day in court to confirm/disprove this - but the onus on prosecution to prosecute remains the same - innocent until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about proving innocence here though. They should have plead guilty when they were charged, rather than at the 11th hour in order to save prosecution and court costs.

Don't forget that other knife carrying criminal Otis Ferry, who in his latest court appearance for attacking 2 women, was heavily criticised by the judge for his persistent denials, along with his fellow assailant, Deutsch, for dragging the civil case on for 4 years after the criminal case had been concluded.

I just don't get how certain fox hunts and supporters think the law is something they can ignore and outrageously criticise those who seek to uphold the law.
 
ester said:
That link I get not found.

try again?

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

How interesting, and thank you. I haven't read the whole report, but will. From the opening lines, two points stand out clearly;

Firstly, The report is claimed as being 'Independent'. and, ……..

Secondly, The writer is profuse in his gratitude to the rspca for their assistance, and specifically to the lady employee of the body under scrutiny, who kindly typed out the transcript. How thoughtful, and how 'Independent' too!!

The word 'Independent' seems to have taken on a rather watered down stance!!

I'll read the remainder of the report, later.

Alec.
 
Please everyone, read the report. There are some serious criticisms of the RSPCA and they have been offered a poisone chalice in that a position as prosecutor comes with proper oversight and openness. They have also been told that they should involve specialist groups in order to protect vulerable people such and children when making deisions to proecute. Other suggestions are to move whole sectors of animal keeping such as sanctuaries to other specialist regullation and prosecution via a system of licensing. Many of the criticisms raised by the SHG over the years are mentioned in the report - you really must read it.
 
I'm getting very confused as I can't seem to find the full report (not the 11 page RSPCA response) anywhere, all the links on this post take me to the response, search of RSPCA website brings up only their response, google hasn't found it and links from other online articles all take me to the response. Has the RSPCA taken the full report off their website leaving only their response in the public domain????
 
Fenris said:
Yes it is old. How much of the attitudes do you think have changed?
Click to expand...

Massively. No Magistrates automatically believe police officers in court any longer. Look at the paedophile teacher who killed himself. The JPs wouldn't sign the search warrant. They are also fully aware of the need for a guilty verdict to be beyond reasonable doubt. And clerks now do have to be legally qualified. Those are just the ones that struck me from a brief glimpse, I could probably find more.

Magistrate selection and training changed beyond recognition, as did sentencing guidelines, since that report was written.
 
Last edited:
joycec said:
Massively. No Magistrates automatically believe police officers in court any longer. Look at the paedophile teacher who killed himself. The JPs wouldn't sign the search warrant. They are also fully aware of the need for a guilty verdict to be beyond reasonable doubt. And clerks now do have to be legally qualified. Those are just the ones that struck me from a brief glimpse, I could probably find more.

Magistrate selection and training changed beyond recognition, as did sentencing guidelines, since that report was written.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the Shg submission to the Wooler Inquiry.

http://the-shg.org/Notes for Independent Review of RSPCA Prosecutions.pdf

The courts are not a sufficient safeguard.
 
I'm still getting the full report full code is:


to stop hho adding url thingys-http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf- ends here
 
Fenris said:
Take a look at the Shg submission to the Wooler Inquiry.

http://the-shg.org/Notes for Independent Review of RSPCA Prosecutions.pdf

The courts are not a sufficient safeguard.
Click to expand...

I am not happy that a charity has become the animal police.

I am also not happy about the widespread illegal hunting of fox and the difficulty and expense of prosecuting those who are ignoring the hunting law, bringing the law in general into disrepute and showing contempt for the will of Parliament.
 
joycec said:
I am not happy that a charity has become the animal police.

I am also not happy about the widespread illegal hunting of fox and the difficulty and expense of prosecuting those who are ignoring the hunting law, bringing the law in general into disrepute and showing contempt for the will of Parliament.
Click to expand...

Agree. How ridiculous is it to make animal mistreatment a criminal offence and then have a charitable origination policing it and responsible for prosecuting offenders. No wonder the whole thing is a farce.
 
TrasaM said:
Agree. How ridiculous is it to make animal mistreatment a criminal offence and then have a charitable origination policing it and responsible for prosecuting offenders. No wonder the whole thing is a farce.
Click to expand...

It is and it's wrong .
It's the duty of the state to do this .
The CPC decides to take forward a prosecution based on the many thing part of which is the case in the public interest one of things considered is the cost of bringing the case.
The RSPCA can take forward a case based on whatever it likes .
It's not a good situation for the public the RSPCA or the law.
 
joycec said:
……..

I am also not happy about the widespread illegal hunting of fox and the difficulty and expense of prosecuting those who are ignoring the hunting law, bringing the law in general into disrepute and showing contempt for the will of Parliament.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about British troops being sent out to invade other countries and in to wars which are none of our concern? How to you feel about Guantanamo Bay and the inmates, just about all of whom have never been charged with any offence, and how do you feel about OUR collusion in Operation Rendition and did you and do you agree with the decisions of Parliament? If you don't agree with Parliament, did you feel strongly enough to march on London and voice your protest?

The CLA and many of its members marched on London to protest at the curtailing of our civil liberties and the removal of our freedom of choice. Parliament didn't listen and still won't. There's nothing that we can do about the decision made which takes us to war, but there is against an unjust and a perceived class centred law. We ignore it. It's called civil disobedience. There's nothing that we can do to prevent our troops being sent to foreign lands, but there is about biased and deceitful legislation.

Those who've brought the Law in to disrepute are those who used it to curtail the rights and the freedoms of the everyday man. The Law, in the case of hunting is unworkable and largely unenforceable, and that's because Society, in general has no appetite to pursue those who resent having their freedoms curtailed for no other reason than to appease a few crack-pots.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
How do you feel about British troops being sent out to invade other countries and in to wars which are none of our concern? How to you feel about Guantanamo Bay and the inmates, just about all of whom have never been charged with any offence, and how do you feel about OUR collusion in Operation Rendition and did you and do you agree with the decisions of Parliament? If you don't agree with Parliament, did you feel strongly enough to march on London and voice your protest?

The CLA and many of its members marched on London to protest at the curtailing of our civil liberties and the removal of our freedom of choice. Parliament didn't listen and still won't. There's nothing that we can do about the decision made which takes us to war, but there is against an unjust and a perceived class centred law. We ignore it. It's called civil disobedience. There's nothing that we can do to prevent our troops being sent to foreign lands, but there is about biased and deceitful legislation.

Those who've brought the Law in to disrepute are those who used it to curtail the rights and the freedoms of the everyday man. The Law, in the case of hunting is unworkable and largely unenforceable, and that's because Society, in general has no appetite to pursue those who resent having their freedoms curtailed for no other reason than to appease a few crack-pots.

Alec.
Click to expand...


No, Alec, we live in a democracy. Not everyone gets what they want. You cannot pick and choose what laws you are going to abide by and what laws you are not.

Well you can, but it is completely unreasonable to complain about being prosecuted if you do and are caught.

You insult millions of people who disagree with hunting fox with hounds followed by a group of riders on horses by calling them crack pots.
 
Last edited:
Alec Swan said:
an [perceived] unjust and a perceived class centred law. We ignore it.

Alec.
Click to expand...



I am pleased that you are finally admitting that illegal hunting is widely happening. Now perhaps all the people who have accused me of lying about it every time I have posted saying it is happening will apologise?

And pigs might fly.
 
The use of the word 'We' was as one might be a Royal! I speak only for myself, and not for others. I'm also none too sure that others have accused you of lying, being consistently mistaken and refusing to accept reason, possibly, but not lying.

Alec.
 
Last edited:
Teadrinker, the RSPCA stands for Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ANIMALS, not PETS. Do you truly believe that wild animals should not have protection from the cruelty of humans ?
 
It's the insistence that they are providing a public service in ridding the world of foxes that gets to me!
CPT. I had a very scary time last week as I found myself trying to get past the hounds who were in a copse alongside the footpath and I was directly in their path.
I had both dogs with me and could hear the whips cracking. I admit that I panicked. I guess they were hunting fog!
 
Whilst foxhunting is illegal anyone can bring a prosecution against the anyone they think is carrying out that activity. The RSPCA think foxhunting is cruel , but in the scale of things there very few people that carry it out yet they continue to spend large amounts of money on it, yet there is far more every cruelty and lack of animal care that goes on that the RSPCA says they can do nothing about.
In their title they are founded to prevent cruelty, so why are they not spending more of their funds on education, monitoring and promotion of farm welfare standards and feeding starving animals who ever they belong too? The CPS has to justify what its spends and how it spends it, it is accountable to us, they are paid out of the public purse. The RSPCA is funded by donations which from the advertising they use comes from people wanting them to look after starving dogs and the I suggest the average donor has no idea how it is spent and has little power in any case to direct spending. Perhaps the charities commission will finally call them to account.

Whilst the RSPCA is a charity it is also a business, it has a large staff which want to be paid and were ever you get an unaccountable business with a lack of scrutiny you get middle management and upper management empire building and I am afraid I always look at these headline cases and wonder who is up for adding to their unit, up for promotion, adding to their CV and looking for the next job. Yes I am a cynic, but you only have to look at scandals in public office to see that people who start off with the best intentions can often be misdirected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top