# RSPCA



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

So something did come from all the complaints and bad publicity. They haven't admitted wrong doing openly but this is as good as............................
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...t-vets-evidence-after-years-of-criticism.html

"
The RSPCA has banned its inspectors from rehoming animals unless vets have personally seen evidence of suffering, in what critics said was an admission that they have been acting "over-zealously".

The ban is part of a major overhaul of how the charity investigates animal cruelty after years of criticism about the behaviour of one of the world's oldest animal welfare charities."

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


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I think this quote sums it up a treat
_The vast majority of RSPCA inspectors are genuinely well intentioned and care about animal welfare. Neither their interests nor the interests of animal welfare have been well served by the Society's animal rights agenda and we are glad to see the Society turn back from that path_

Hopefully the organisation can start to regain the trust of the public. It's a great shame it was lost.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

It continues to unravel
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/two-rs...overnance-concerns/governance/article/1385474

"Two *RSPCA *trustees have resigned citing concerns about the management and governance of the charity."


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I find it so sad. The organisation used to be universally respected and a few political types with personal agendas have come close to ruining it. Unfortunately there is now a whole generation of employees who have been indoctrinated in the current culture and therefore believe it to be a right and proper path. I do hope it can be turned round but it will take time and I don't think it's an easy fix.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Well done the blood sports brigade. All they need to do now is stop the sabs and the few other organisations that stand in their way, then its job done! Let the unfettered killing of wildlife commence!


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Well done the blood sports brigade. All they need to do now is stop the sabs and the few other organisations that stand in their way, then its job done! Let the unfettered killing of wildlife commence!


Eh? How is the RSPCA ending the practice of seizing pets (or bullying people into handing them over, in some cases) without a vet having actually seen the animal in question and verified that they are suffering down to the blood sports brigade?

I know you're passionate about this stuff, Noush, but the RSPCA haven't done themselves any favours over the last years when it comes to ridiculous prosecutions against pet owners that anyone with an ounce of common sense can see should never have been brought - and mainly appear to have been brought only to try and justify themselves because they won't admit to having made a mistake. Fixing the stuff that is wrong with an organisation doesn't mean you also have to break what is right with it, and if they get some of their credibility back then people might actually start listening to them again on a wider scale.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

havoc said:


> I find it so sad. The organisation used to be universally respected and a few political types with personal agendas have come close to ruining it. Unfortunately there is now a whole generation of employees who have been indoctrinated in the current culture and therefore believe it to be a right and proper path. I do hope it can be turned round but it will take time and I don't think it's an easy fix.


Not just political types, I've been disgusted with their actions for decades after my father worked in HQ and I lived next to an inspector. I probably would have willingly continued supporting them if I hadn't had inside info.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-carry-out-independent-governance-review.html

I personally don't think it's right that the RSPCA are the ones to choose who carries out this review. A few swift backhanders and alls well with the RSPCA world


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_if they get some of their credibility back then people might actually start listening to them again on a wider scale_
Listening and donating. They can't survive without donations and aligning themselves with AR activists alienates those who would put their hands in their pockets. I've seen it happen at another rescue organisation where the loudest voices were the more extreme and donations are well down.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

OMG the corrupt few must be squirming now

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-charity-badly-run-damaging-reputation.html

I hope this uncovers the past perpetrators too and they are bought to justice.

I don't hold out much hope but this just backs up what I've been saying for a very very long time.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> I personally don't think it's right that the RSPCA are the ones to choose who carries out this review. A few swift backhanders and alls well with the RSPCA world


 That a bit unfair, Rona.

This isn't aimed at you, rona , just generally speaking,

Charity organisations have changed over the years , not just the RSPCA , some have changed their names and become "political " the RNID for one , most are short of money due to the world financial crisis of the last few years. Its the way things are today.
BTW I don't why they shouldn't cover animal rights as well as animal welfare.

I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail and Country alliance as far as I could throw them.
They are out for revenge because of the hunts prosecutions and they twist and exaggerate things in their articles about the RSPCA . I'm a DM reader myself by the way,

From the Telegraph link
"Simon Hart (above), a Conservative MP and a long-time critic of the RSPCA, said:

*RSPCA should stop prosecuting hunting and animal cruelty, report finds*

The Countryside Alliance, a rural campaigning group that is pushing for hunting to be legalised, said it welcomed "this outbreak of common sense at the Society both for reasons of animal welfare and also for de-politicising its operation".

No they shouldnt stop , cruelty is cruelty and law breaking is law breaking.

we had a debate about the RSPCA recently and I posted a link to a parliamentry debate in 2013 about the RSPCA , I might see if I can find the link to refresh my memory .

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130129/halltext/130129h0001.htm

About the hunt prosecution and the RSPCA , it seems in 2013 , =

"the Commission does not consider that the trustees have breached their duty of prudence in the case of this prosecution"-

Yet the country Alliance and the DM said the RSPCA were criticised by the Charity Commision , they exaggerated as they do in all their articles about the RSPCA. Their agenda is to create a crisis with a bombardment of negative exaggerated publicity and they are succeeding.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_BTW I don't why they shouldn't cover animal rights as well as animal welfare_
Firstly it depends on their original charter and what they were set up for. Charities can be bound by original terms, the best known example being Guide Dogs for the Blind who were (maybe still are) hugely over funded but couldn't widen the scope of their spending.

The RSPCA probably has a very wide remit which has meant a few strong personalities have been able to steer it in directions which don't suit the majority. They aren't alone in this but they are the biggest and they do like the publicity. I assume they have enough sitting in the legacy fund to get by for a long while without any further public donations but they would have to decide on a clear direction and stop wasting money.

Nobody is suggesting animal cruelty should not be prosecuted. What is being suggested is that the RSPCA are not the organisation to do it. Private prosecutions are not an effective use of funds intended for animal welfare. If there is the chance of a successful prosecution then the CPS should handle it.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Charity organisations have changed over the years , not just the RSPCA , some have changed their names and become "political " the RNID for one , most are short of money due to the world financial crisis of the last few years. Its the way things are today.
> BTW I don't why they shouldn't cover animal rights as well as animal welfare.


I've had issues with the RSPCA for decades, long before they found their way into the negative media.
I think one day a lot will be uncovered about the goings on within, them and the National Trust too

Anyway........who's talking about the Hunting issue. This is about inappropriate use of funds and over zealousness. I do believe if they dug deep enough they'd find corruption too


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

It's certainly a dreadful mess and has been allowed to get worse and worse for a long time. You can tell the top brass are looking to divert attention on to the front line. Comments such as _The RSPCA has banned its inspectors from rehoming animals unless vets have personally seen evidence of suffering_ are frankly cheeky. Over zealous actions are the result of the culture of the organisation which has delighted in training up staff to believe they have some sort of special legal status and can act ultra vires.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> Anyway........who's talking about the Hunting issue. This is about inappropriate use of funds and over zealousness. I do believe if they dug deep enough they'd find corruption too


The hunting prosecutions were heavily criticised as a waste of money so i think some would consider or do consider that to be an inappropriate use of funds . 
Again , inappropriate use of funds is something all charitable organisations have to be careful not to do but it depends on what people think is inappropriate, there are differences of opinions but certainly their new headquarters 
yes, certainly over zealousness is something to be careful of, I worry though that if the CPS makes the choices , they are limited with their finances and maybe people who _should_ be prosecuted won't be.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ I worry though that if the CPS makes the choices , they are limited with their finances and maybe people who should be prosecuted won't be._
The CPS simply have to evaluate whether there is the realistic possibility of a successful prosecution. That this is an arms length decision is considered one of the strengths of the system. They are legally bound to consider each case on its merits whereas private prosecutions can be brought with any motive.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

OIC so the RSPCA will still prosecute on their say so ? that's a numpty question! but I'm losing my concentration  Definitely time for my dinner.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

No, the RSPCA will not prosecute. The CPS will do so if there is good reason just as they do for every other crime. There is nothing special about the RSPCA that they can bring private prosecutions - anyone can. You can, I can, anyone can but we don't normally leave it up to the individual or some organisation. We don't expect Age Concern to prosecute crimes against the elderly, we leave the decision to the appropriate public authority. If a crime has been committed then it should be properly investigated and prosecuted and the decisions should be taken on legal merit alone.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

havoc said:


> _ kimthecat said -"I worry though that if the CPS makes the choices , they are limited with their finances and maybe people who should be prosecuted won't be."
> _
> The CPS simply have to evaluate whether there is the realistic possibility of a successful prosecution. That this is an arms length decision is considered one of the strengths of the system. They are legally bound to consider each case on its merits whereas private prosecutions can be brought with any motive.


 So which body will present the cases to the CPS and provide all the evidence?

About finance

The hansard debate. link given earlier

quote from Emily Thornberry MP - ,"The difficulty is that the CPS is suffering a 25% reduction in income over the tenure of this government . He (Simon Hart ) called for renewed emphasis on animal welfare but the CPS constantly announces new priorities ( list of new priorities including violence against women and child abuse )
Given the difficulties that the CPS is working under and the importance of priorities , on which we all agree , can it begin a new priority of animal welfare. ?"

I really don't believe that all the cases that meet the criteria for prosecution will go ahead.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

If the CPS believes there is a case to answer, then I personally can see no reason why the RSPCA can't be the ones to prosecute under their guise as protectors of animals.
Someone or thing has to stop them being manipulated by private agendas, whatever they may be, whether internal or in in their wider dealings


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

If the RSPCA were to work to CPS standards then I suppose it would at least be a step in the right direction. What can't happen though is for a private organisation to ever be subject to the same public scrutiny and this is why problems arise in the first place. Being able to quote from Hansard about the CPS is great, we know exactly what the problems are, that there isn't a bottomless pot, what future funding is available. Can we have the comparable projections for the RSPCA? Are they going to concentrate on animal welfare or human vengeance? The bigger cases, the really awful ones should, in my opinion, be dealt by the CPS. The message should be that we as a society don't accept such cruelty just as we don't accept other awful crimes and the state will prosecute. The lesser stuff? Well I do honestly wonder if there's much point. What exactly are we doing by putting someone through court and fining them? How is that animal welfare? Unless the offence is bad enough for the accused to receive a ban on keeping animals what exactly do we achieve?

It's ironic that one part of our justice system I feel is misunderstood and often misused is the police caution and yet I truly believe it could be a great tool here. Accepting one is an admission of guilt and goes on record.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Eh? How is the RSPCA ending the practice of seizing pets (or bullying people into handing them over, in some cases) without a vet having actually seen the animal in question and verified that they are suffering down to the blood sports brigade?
> 
> I know you're passionate about this stuff, Noush, but the RSPCA haven't done themselves any favours over the last years when it comes to ridiculous prosecutions against pet owners that anyone with an ounce of common sense can see should never have been brought - and mainly appear to have been brought only to try and justify themselves because they won't admit to having made a mistake. Fixing the stuff that is wrong with an organisation doesn't mean you also have to break what is right with it, and if they get some of their credibility back then people might actually start listening to them again on a wider scale.


The RSPCA investigate 1000s of abuse cases every year. They don't always get it right but neither does the police. If the RSPCA lose their powers to investigate & prosecute do you honestly think animals will be better off? They had 97% success rate in prosecutions in 2013 for example - dont these animals deserve justice? http://view.pagetiger.com/RSPCAProsecutionsAnnualReview2013



rona said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-carry-out-independent-governance-review.html
> 
> I personally don't think it's right that the RSPCA are the ones to choose who carries out this review. A few swift backhanders and alls well with the RSPCA world


Is it right Pro hunt MPs are abusing their position to destroy the RSPCA?



kimthecat said:


> Yet the country Alliance and the DM said the RSPCA were criticised by the Charity Commision , they exaggerated as they do in all their articles about the RSPCA. Their agenda is to create a crisis with a bombardment of negative exaggerated publicity and they are succeeding.


Exactly. The pro hunt lobby is always spreading malicious propaganda. The RSPCA, RSPB, LACS, hunt saboteurs,Brian May, Chris Packham - all of them targets of the revolting blood sport brigade. This is a brilliant article on their insidious tactics .

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...liance-progressives-tea-partyCMP=share_btn_tw

It's a "sinister and nasty" organisation, one that "hounds" the innocent and "bullies and threatens" the blameless, according to one critic. And last week Neil Parish, chairman of a new Commons committee, announced an official investigation into the "balance" of its activities. Which evil organisation could this be?

It's the RSPCA, and the issue is the balance struck between animal welfare and campaigning. These interests are actually harmonious: if you are interested in animal welfare and you see a group persistently undermining it, whether that's illegal foxhunters or the shooting fraternity doing the dirty on hen harriers, then you campaign against them. Not only are these interests precisely balanced, each would be neutered without the other. But the battle between the Countryside Alliance and the RSPCA is a near-perfect study of the way conservatives and progressives fight each other - reason is rarely the defining feature of this landscape, and often doesn't disturb it at all.

Conservative arguments are unashamed of overstatement. The real behaviour underneath that "sinister and nasty" charge - levelled by the former executive chairman of the Countryside Alliance, Barney White-Spunner - was a series of prosecutions the RSPCA launched against illegal hunts. The charge was that they are spending money donated in good faith to help animals on expensive legal cases.

There's a debate to be had: should any charity spend any money on bringing cases to court, unless that's the express purpose of their fundraising? What's the point of an animal welfare organisation that has no mandate to stop people psychotically mistreating animals? That debate would raise questions around the statutory powers of non-state bodies, around what "charity" means in this post-lobbying act era, and indeed, what "political" means, attached (always as an insult) to the third sector, and whether it's possible to care deeply about anything while maintaining the neutrality expected from the upstanding member of the voluntary world.

What that debate would never, in sensible minds, become is a fight about who was sinister and who was nasty. Such hyperbole makes White-Spunner look ridiculous under scrutiny - and yet, in the absence of scrutiny, it just creates a cloud of suspicion around the RSPCA. It's a technique borrowed from the US Tea party movement - possibly its most elegant iteration was Sarah Palin describing Obamacare as "Barack Obama's death panel" - working on the basis that if you can leave a bad impression of your opponents on people who aren't concentrating, this will cause them more reputational damage than you will suffer yourself from the opprobrium of those who are paying attention

It's maths, innit: more people don't concentrate on foxhunting than do; or driven grouse shoots, or disabled rabbits. Most people are quite busy. The progressive side, by contrast, has an aversion to overstatement and will respond to even the most unreasonable attacks in quite bland, wonkish terms.

The RSPCA's statement regarding the legal cases they had brought ran thus: "The figures cited by the Countryside Alliance are disingenuous. It is a gross distortion to compare a percentage calculated on the number of summonses with a percentage calculated on the number of individual defendants successfully convicted." What they should have said is "this is a foolish accusation, made by people whose idea of fun is to violently kill things". Yet they cannot. Progressives rely a huge amount, for their self-belief and self-fashioning, on the idea that they are reasonable, sober people, who are able to listen to their opposites and reach meaningful and mature compromises. This works with other progressives, which is why people who outwardly hold the same views can have such intense conversations uncovering their differences; it doesn't work at all on the Countryside Alliance.

After the overstatement, from the forces ranged against the RSPCA, comes the giddy departure from the requirements of reason: a story last week in the Sunday Times attacked the charity for bullying and threatening, citing examples in which people had been accused of animal cruelty and the charge had turned out to be without foundation. There was one poignant and bizarre case involving some disabled rabbits adopted by a woman precisely because they were disabled, then destroyed by an RSPCA vet who deemed their quality of life to be too low. It read like a difference of opinion about leporine quality of life between two people who desperately loved rabbits - in the event of which, I'd go with the one with the veterinary qualifications (but I'm a progressive, I would say that)

*But if the RSPCA never got it wrong, if they never brought a case against anybody who wasn't guilty, they would only partially be doing their job. If every defendant who arrived in court were guilty, you'd either be living in North Korea or you'd have a system that missed a lot of people who were also guilty. This story would never have stood up without the steady buildup of accusations; if the RSPCA didn't now have a reputation for radical campaigning, promiscuous legal actions and the underhand use of funds, the fact that they overreacted to an unkempt cat would be seen as the minor human error that it was. I doubt it would have even made the local newspaper of the cat's own postcode.*

The conservative technique, in short, is this: the first priority is to damage one's opponent's reputation, way ahead of maintaining one's own. Once this damage has been done, deploy previous overstatements as matters of settled fact, so that your opponent is shunted ever further from what a casual observer would class as common sense. Crucially, never let up.

The progressive technique is the opposite: maintain your respectability with careful, rather supercilious reasoning, then wonder why you're taking all the blows. Neither has got it right, but one is plainly winning.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> If the RSPCA were to work to CPS standards then I suppose it would at least be a step in the right direction. What can't happen though is for a private organisation to ever be subject to the same public scrutiny and this is why problems arise in the first place. Being able to quote from Hansard about the CPS is great, we know exactly what the problems are, that there isn't a bottomless pot, what future funding is available. Can we have the comparable projections for the RSPCA? Are they going to concentrate on animal welfare or human vengeance? The bigger cases, the really awful ones should, in my opinion, be dealt by the CPS. The message should be that we as a society don't accept such cruelty just as we don't accept other awful crimes and the state will prosecute. The lesser stuff? Well I do honestly wonder if there's much point. What exactly are we doing by putting someone through court and fining them? How is that animal welfare? Unless the offence is bad enough for the accused to receive a ban on keeping animals what exactly do we achieve?
> 
> It's ironic that one part of our justice system I feel is misunderstood and often misused is the police caution and yet I truly believe it could be a great tool here. Accepting one is an admission of guilt and goes on record.


Human vengeance? http://view.pagetiger.com/RSPCAProsecutionsAnnualReview2013

file:///C:/Users/ARTHUR/Downloads/ProsecutionsAnnualReport2013.pdf


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ If the RSPCA lose their powers to investigate & prosecute_
What powers do you think they'll lose? It is this perception that's part of the problem. They are entitled to use the law to carry out their work but they have no special powers. Anyone can knock on a door and ask about the dog inside. Anyone can call the police to force entry if there's a need. Anyone can bring a private prosecution if they believe there's cause.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

havoc said:


> _ If the RSPCA lose their powers to investigate & prosecute_
> What powers do you think they'll lose? It is this perception that's part of the problem. They are entitled to use the law to carry out their work but they have no special powers. Anyone can knock on a door and ask about the dog inside. Anyone can call the police to force entry if there's a need. Anyone can bring a private prosecution if they believe there's cause.


I c what u mean but very unlikely police would come out if u call them they woukd tell u to ring the rspca first. They would for dogs dying inhot cars i believe .


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

We have to ask why the police would tell someone to call the RSPCA rather than the local dog warden or the like. Why we have allowed a charity to dress themselves in official looking uniforms and give the impression of being some official organisation when they aren't. It seems fine when it's all about saving abused or neglected animals from the big bad people but it sets a very dangerous precedent.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> _ If the RSPCA lose their powers to investigate & prosecute_
> What powers do you think they'll lose? It is this perception that's part of the problem. They are entitled to use the law to carry out their work but they have no special powers. Anyone can knock on a door and ask about the dog inside. Anyone can call the police to force entry if there's a need. Anyone can bring a private prosecution if they believe there's cause.


Yes, I'm well aware they bring private prosecutions. The difference between them & a layman though, is they have expert authority on animal welfare prosecutions - as their 97% success rate goes to prove. However, by the time the blood sport bullies have finished with their spiteful vendetta the RSPCA will be nothing more than a rescue organisation at best. These wildlife criminals will stop at nothing in their quest to neuter the rspca's powers at bringing animal abusers to justice.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

For god sake this isn't about hunting it's about a charity overstepping it's remit, treating it's employees and rescue centers deplorably, lying to the public and in my own personal view possibly corrupt 
Even their own people are now leaving in either disgust or fear.....how can that be anything other than an internal problem?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_For god sake this isn't about hunting it's about a charity overstepping it's remit_
It is and the reason it can happen is because it's very easy to decry anyone who would dare to question 'charitable work' especially when animals are involved. Anyone who dares to question an organisation which has a powerful PR machine has got to be really evil. Say one word about the top brass/company culture and you're an animal hater who wants to stop frontline staff doing a wonderful job.

It doesn't just happen with animal charities - children are quite a good one for some pretty bad practices too


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

havoc said:


> We have to ask why the police would tell someone to call the RSPCA rather than the local dog warden or the like. Why we have allowed a charity to dress themselves in official looking uniforms and give the impression of being some official organisation when they aren't. It seems fine when it's all about saving abused or neglected animals from the big bad people but it sets a very dangerous precedent.


Eh , why would we have to ask that ? The RSPCA were around long before dog wardens but yes they can say ring a dog warden or the Cats protection or bunny people , when it comes to animal welfare most people would suggest the RSPCA , there's nothing sinister about it .

Rona , sorry but prosecutions have been mentioned and discussed in this thread and hunting and wildlife are included in that .
There's been a few of these threads and they tend to end the same with the same things being repeated .

I hope the RSPCA will get its act together and I suppose time will tell and truth will out, but the truth wont come from the bullying lying DM, Telegraph , country alliance etc that for sure ,


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

havoc said:


> _BTW I don't why they shouldn't cover animal rights as well as animal welfare_
> Firstly it depends on their original charter and what they were set up for. Charities can be bound by original terms, the best known example being Guide Dogs for the Blind who were (maybe still are) hugely over funded but couldn't widen the scope of their spending.


The RSPCA was founded in 1824, I don't know what was in the original charter , I doubt if they would be bound by the original terms, we're much more scientifically informed nowadays and they need to be a modern organisation to cope with the challenges of animal welfare and cruelty in the 21st century !



> The RSPCA probably has a very wide remit which has meant a few strong personalities have been able to steer it in directions which don't suit the majority. They aren't alone in this but they are the biggest and they do like the publicity. I assume they have enough sitting in the legacy fund to get by for a long while without any further public donations but they would have to decide on a clear direction and stop wasting money.


It does have a wide remit , I feel it should do, its the biggest animal organisation in the UK . There are lots of other charities/organisations that cover parts of what the RSPCA do but the RSPCA is for all animals .
It states clearly what there aims are on their websites , as well as rehoming , vet treatment , cruelty, prosecutions I don't see what wrong with tackling dog fighting or puppy farming pet retreat finding foster homes for pets from families fleeing abuse or trying to change the law to stop live animals being exported abroad etc . They campaigned to stop live exports in the 70s , its not something new . 
Mandy dumont from Puppy love criticised the RSPCA for not prosecuting enough puppy farms, the local councils themselves wont do it because of the cost



> Nobody is suggesting animal cruelty should not be prosecuted. What is being suggested is that the RSPCA are not the organisation to do it. Private prosecutions are not an effective use of funds intended for animal welfare. If there is the chance of a successful prosecution then the CPS should handle it.


As mentioned elsewhere , the police and CPS are short of funds , I really cant see them doing an effective job of prosecuting deserving cases , but perhaps the RSPCA could still bring private prosecutions if its warranted when the CPS decide not to prosecute.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Rona , sorry but prosecutions have been mentioned and discussed in this thread and hunting and wildlife are included in that .
> There's been a few of these threads and they tend to end the same with the same things being repeated .
> 
> I hope the RSPCA will get its act together and I suppose time will tell and truth will out, but the truth wont come from the bullying lying DM, Telegraph , country alliance etc that for sure ,


Yes and round and round it goes on the same narrow hunting issue.
This time it's not the hunting issue it's their own people saying something is dreadfully wrong and backing this up with fleeing feet. A completely different ball game altogether. 
I also wouldn't hold much store by those sources of information but the plain fact is these people are leaving and saying there is something fundamentally wrong. As I've said before, my scorn and issues with RSPCA HQ comes direct from people who have had inside knowledge, not some tardy newspaper


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ Eh , why would we have to ask that ?_
For the same reasons we question any organisation which, by whatever means, manages to gain a perceived power without responsibility. Why do the police tell someone to ring the RSPCA? Would they tell you to ring the NSPCC if you reported suspected abuse of a child? I admit this happens because the police would rather not bother. The result is that individuals working for a charity have been dressed up in uniforms which make them look official *and sometimes *acted as if they were the animal 'police'. Bit by bit, drip by drip, the more it happens the more it becomes accepted.

You may be happy for this to happen. I'm not. I think it's dangerous for one group of private individuals to be able to gain that power over the rest unless they are subject to proper public scrutiny. A more recent example of exactly this sort of thing is the debt collection industry. Just like an RSPCA inspector, a debt collector has no right of entry to private property but they too like to look official and don't exactly rush to observe the rights of the people they deal with. More often than not the police will side with them because they don't understand civil law and don't know these people are not acting with the authority of the courts. Where next? There will be a next, something else that we don't want to know about or we don't care because it can't be us on the receiving end - until it is and then it's too late.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> *Yes and round and round it goes on the same narrow hunting issue.*
> This time it's not the hunting issue it's their own people saying something is dreadfully wrong and backing this up with fleeing feet. A completely different ball game altogether.
> I also wouldn't hold much store by those sources of information but the plain fact is these people are leaving and saying there is something fundamentally wrong. As I've said before, my scorn and issues with RSPCA HQ comes direct from people who have had inside knowledge, not some tardy newspaper


Its only a narrow issue to you because you are very much pro hunting. 

There are a lot of things I don't agree with the RSPCA on - but I am not so blinkered that I can't see they do a great deal of excellent work to help animals & part of that is bringing animal abusers to justice.



havoc said:


> _ Eh , why would we have to ask that ?_
> For the same reasons we question any organisation which, by whatever means, manages to gain a perceived power without responsibility. Why do the police tell someone to ring the RSPCA? Would they tell you to ring the NSPCC if you reported suspected abuse of a child? I admit this happens because the police would rather not bother. The result is that individuals working for a charity have been dressed up in uniforms which make them look official *and sometimes *acted as if they were the animal 'police'. Bit by bit, drip by drip, the more it happens the more it becomes accepted.
> 
> You may be happy for this to happen. I'm not. I think it's dangerous for one group of private individuals to be able to gain that power over the rest unless they are subject to proper public scrutiny. A more recent example of exactly this sort of thing is the debt collection industry. Just like an RSPCA inspector, a debt collector has no right of entry to private property but they too like to look official and don't exactly rush to observe the rights of the people they deal with. More often than not the police will side with them because they don't understand civil law and don't know these people are not acting with the authority of the courts. Where next? There will be a next, something else that we don't want to know about or we don't care because it can't be us on the receiving end - until it is and then it's too late.


The police tell people to ring the RSPCA because the RSPCA are the experts in dealing with animal welfare issues plus the police/CPS don't have the resources. The RSPCA has been prosecuting animal abusers since its conception - that is part of its remit. For the sake of all abused & neglected animals I pray it can continue to do so.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

There's no reason they can't continue to do so unless they decide not to just as *they've decided* to ensure they consult an expert before seizing an animal which is the only thing that's changed. They have recognised that they don't have the expertise.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

kimthecat said:


> I c what u mean but very unlikely police would come out if u call them they woukd tell u to ring the rspca first. They would for dogs dying inhot cars i believe .


I agree, a few years ago a friend called the police to report a neighbours puppy that was being neglected ... police weren't interested & told her to call the RSPCA which she did. Within hours the house was visited, the puppy was found to be living in unsuitable conditions & had an injury that wasn't being treated, luckily he was removed (or handed over I don't know the exact details) immediately.

I don't aree with all the RSPCA's practises (is there an organzation that is 100%??) but in my personal experience they have been great at helping out injured wildlife in my area. There have been several swans that have been injured would have died had the RSPCA officer not come out & taken to to a nearby santuary. The same officer gave me his direct number in case of future instances but also arranged for me to a visit the local wildlife unit to see how to handle swans in case I needed to in future (I have had to)

Am not sure about most local authorities but there isn't always a local dog warden & if there is the hours they work are usually office hours so who handles the cases that fall outside these hours .... no-one except the RSPCA IME


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I don't aree with all the RSPCA's practises (is there an organzation that is 100%??)_
No there isn't but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to question and debate or that bad practice should continue.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

havoc said:


> _ Eh , why would we have to ask that ?_
> For the same reasons we question any organisation which, by whatever means, manages to gain a perceived power without responsibility. Why do the police tell someone to ring the RSPCA? Would they tell you to ring the NSPCC if you reported suspected abuse of a child? I admit this happens because the police would rather not bother. .


This is nonsense , you said that everyone has the right to call the police to gain entrance to a household for an animal, as you say the police would really not want to bother . Seriously , the first thought in most peoples heads when its to do with animals is call the RSPCA, its reflexive.

. People complain when the RSPCA do things and complain when they dont , I've seen many threads on forums with people saying the RSPCA didnt do anything when they called them out and think of resorting to stealing or do indeed steal the pet.

BTW Debt collectors don't deal with live animal that are suffering , especially when they refuse to take it to the vet for things like fish bones stuck in a cats throat or a dog with its anus hanging out.

From what Rona says here , the RSPCA really need to sort themselves out and their staff shouldn't be bullied and as you say, open to investigation . I agree.
As i have mention elsewhere I've had years of experiences with the RSPCA, (though not for the last two or three ) , so have seen many things I haven't liked and inconsistencies but I dont want the RSPCA to become a toothless and neutered society. The days of Colonel Whatsit sitting on the Trust and a harpy with a hat running the local branches and old ladies popping a few pennies into the collecting box for homeless cats are long gone.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_BTW Debt collectors don't deal with live animal that are suffering_
No they don't but the principle is the same and it's about company cultures, training and behaviours. They are one example of situations I help people with daily where bad apples overstep the mark and manage to get away with it because of a public perception of them having an authority which just doesn't exist. It IS a huge shame that one such organisation which got a name for this behaviour is the RSPCA. I too would like them to be an effective force for good with employees who always act lawfully.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

havoc said:


> _BTW Debt collectors don't deal with live animal that are suffering_
> No they don't but the principle is the same and it's about company cultures, training and behaviours. They are one example of situations I help people with daily where bad apples overstep the mark and manage to get away with it because of a public perception of them having an authority which just doesn't exist. It IS a huge shame that one such organisation which got a name for this behaviour is the RSPCA. I too would like them to be an effective force for good with employees who always act lawfully.


I disagree, I think as @kimthecat posted, most people would say they were disappointed at the RSPCA's LACK of power to gain entry to properties to remove animals that were being abused/neglected.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Yes @ Cleo38. 

Again , public perception is heavily influence by the media.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> I disagree, I think as @kimthecat posted, most people would say they were disappointed at the RSPCA's LACK of power to gain entry to properties to remove animals that were being abused/neglected.


I couldn't agree more. I reported someone for the neglect of one of their dogs, the owner was very savvy refused to allow the RSPCA access to see the animal. It was a good year later they finally gained entry to see the dog due to another incident regarding one their cats (found dying trapped in a neighbours shed). The dog was seized & the couple were prosecuted. It was in the local paper. The couple are of course 'victims' of RSPCA bullying. But my point is that dog should never have been allowed to suffer for all those months.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

If you want to give such power to private individuals then you give it to all and that's the dangerous precedent. That the end justifies the means - as long as it's an end you agree with is not a premise which works in law.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Its only a narrow issue to you because you are very much pro hunting.
> 
> There are a lot of things I don't agree with the RSPCA on - but I am not so blinkered that I can't see they do a great deal of excellent work to help animals & part of that is bringing animal abusers to justice.
> 
> The police tell people to ring the RSPCA because the RSPCA are the experts in dealing with animal welfare issues plus the police/CPS don't have the resources. The RSPCA has been prosecuting animal abusers since its conception - that is part of its remit. For the sake of all abused & neglected animals I pray it can continue to do so.


Rona didn't mention hunting once, you were the first to bring that up in this thread. And I suspect Rona didn't mention it because it's not actually the main problem with the RSPCA which is being highlighted as needing to be fixed.

The issue being addressed is where some (by no means all) RSPCA inspectors use intimidation tactics to remove pets from owners when there is no actual evidence of mistreatment, treating the unwitting owners like criminals, trying to demand entry to property unlawfully and making all sorts of dire warnings about legal proceedings if they don't allow access or sign over animals there and then, proceeding to expensive prosecution with cases a judge throws out with comments about common sense should have meant the case should never have been brought. Plus the concern that the higher levels of the organisation are not only aware of but encouraging such abuses of power in order to further their own political agenda.

If there _wasn't_ a problem with this, then there wouldn't be so many websites out there offering advice on what to do if the RSPCA turn up on your doorstep in 'mob mode' - many of them make the comparison with the intimidation tactics of debt collectors, and the comparison is a fair one. Some of these websites have been going for over 20 years, so we can safely say the problem is both long term and ongoing.



Cleo38 said:


> I agree, a few years ago a friend called the police to report a neighbours puppy that was being neglected ... police weren't interested & told her to call the RSPCA which she did. Within hours the house was visited, the puppy was found to be living in unsuitable conditions & had an injury that wasn't being treated, luckily he was removed (or handed over I don't know the exact details) immediately.
> 
> I don't aree with all the RSPCA's practises (is there an organzation that is 100%??) but in my personal experience they have been great at helping out injured wildlife in my area. There have been several swans that have been injured would have died had the RSPCA officer not come out & taken to to a nearby santuary. The same officer gave me his direct number in case of future instances but also arranged for me to a visit the local wildlife unit to see how to handle swans in case I needed to in future (I have had to)
> 
> Am not sure about most local authorities but there isn't always a local dog warden & if there is the hours they work are usually office hours so who handles the cases that fall outside these hours .... no-one except the RSPCA IME


I'm glad the puppy was a positive outcome and that your local inspector is decent. And as you say, no organisation is 100%. However, that surely doesn't mean that areas of obvious rot should not be tackled and cut out?



Cleo38 said:


> I disagree, I think as @kimthecat posted, most people would say they were disappointed at the RSPCA's LACK of power to gain entry to properties to remove animals that were being abused/neglected.


I'm not! I'm very glad they DON'T have such powers, as legal rights of access should remain the remit of the Police. It's easy enough for the RSPCA to obtain a warrant for entry if they need one, and they should certainly not be disregarding legal and civil rights by pretending they have powers they don't. For one thing, improper following of procedure will likely get any subsequent case brought thrown out of court by any half decent solicitor, which may let a genuine animal abuser off the hook.

Plus if you give them to the RSPCA, then you'd probably have to give them to a slew of other people as well (debt colletors etc.) - dangerous precedent allowing laymen that level of legal power.



noushka05 said:


> I couldn't agree more. I reported someone for the neglect of one of their dogs, the owner was very savvy refused to allow the RSPCA access to see the animal. It was a good year later they finally gained entry to see the dog due to another incident regarding one their cats (found dying trapped in a neighbours shed). The dog was seized & the couple were prosecuted. It was in the local paper. The couple are of course 'victims' of RSPCA bullying. But my point is that dog should never have been allowed to suffer for all those months.


I would be questioning why the RSPCA didn't bother applying for a warrant in this case, then. Too much low hanging fruit with less legally savvy owners elsewhere, maybe?

But I repeat, this isn't about denying the RSPCA the ability to tackle animal abuse. This is about preventing the abuse of their standing and illegal actions by _some_ inspectors, and challenging the perceived top down drift of the RSPCA from being a primarly animal welfare driven organisation to being a primarily politically, publicity and monetary driven organisation.

In the meantime, I'll stick with supporting small private rescues - that way I know exactly where the donations go and that I'm getting most bangs for my buck


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> I disagree, I think as @kimthecat posted, most people would say they were disappointed at the RSPCA's LACK of power to gain entry to properties to remove animals that were being abused/neglected.


Only if they have regular checks enforced on their practices, not only in their on street actions but what goes on behind closed doors, their donation strategies and by a totally independent regulatory body.

Then I might start having some faith in them. While everything is internal, I'll keep my opinions of them the same as ever

It's not really the ground forces that are my issue, it's the twisted methods and mindset of HQ


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

havoc said:


> There's no reason they can't continue to do so unless they decide not to just as *they've decided* to ensure they consult an expert before seizing an animal which is the only thing that's changed. They have recognised that they don't have the expertise.


Which experts should they consult? I think they should consult a vet as back up but I believe that most inspectors do have enough knowledge to make an educated choice once they have gained the experience.
Believe me , vets aren't always experts especially with small non dog and cat pets.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

You said it yourself. They have said inspectors must consult a vet and the vet should see the animal. I think it's accepted that a vet has more expertise than an RSPCA employee.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Rona didn't mention hunting once, you were the first to bring that up in this thread. And I suspect Rona didn't mention it because it's not actually the main problem with the RSPCA which is being highlighted as needing to be fixed.
> 
> The issue being addressed is where some (by no means all) RSPCA inspectors use intimidation tactics to remove pets from owners when there is no actual evidence of mistreatment, treating the unwitting owners like criminals, trying to demand entry to property unlawfully and making all sorts of dire warnings about legal proceedings if they don't allow access or sign over animals there and then, proceeding to expensive prosecution with cases a judge throws out with comments about common sense should have meant the case should never have been brought. Plus the concern that the higher levels of the organisation are not only aware of but encouraging such abuses of power in order to further their own political agenda.


I know she didn't lol I brought it up because of the spiteful campaign by the pro hunt lobby to undermine the RSPCA. So very relevant to this thread imo.

The RSPCA saves the tax payer millions of £ per year helping animals. They aren't perfect but the fact that they have a 97% success rate in court is proof they don't take out spurious prosecutions. The success rate of the CPS is far lower....

I'm not sure what you mean by furthering their own political agenda? The RSPCA has always lobbied parliament to improve the lives of animals - its they we have to thank for much of our animal welfare legislation.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I know she didn't lol I brought it up because of the spiteful campaign by the pro hunt lobby to undermine the RSPCA. So very relevant to this thread imo.


Maybe in your opinion, not it mine. The pro-hunt lobby have nothing to do with some RSPCA inspectors choosing to act in an illegal and inappropriate fashion.



noushka05 said:


> The RSPCA saves the tax payer millions of £ per year helping animals. *They aren't perfect but the fact that they have a 97% success rate in court is proof they don't take out spurious prosecutions*. The success rate of the CPS is far lower....


Not really. It only proves they win the vast majority of their cases - depending on how accurate that figure is, how it was calculated, what data was included and from what sources, of course.

But again, spurious prosecutions are not the main problem being highlighted here. This particular problem is RSPCA inspectors who turn up on doorsteps looking very official in their police stykle uniforms, and use a false projection of authority and the fear that induces to coerce unsuspecting owners into believing they are legally obliged to do whatever the inspector demands. You may personally believe that the end justifies any means, but many people do not feel the same, and would like to see the end of the disregard of civil and legal rights by RSPCA inspectors, a practise which regrettably seems to have been encouraged by higher levels of management



noushka05 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by furthering their own political agenda? The RSPCA has always lobbied parliament to improve the lives of animals - its they we have to thank for much of our animal welfare legislation.


To quote banking legalese, past performance is no indicator of future performance. Just because they have done good in the past, and generally still do a lot of good now, doesn't mean they are any less capable of getting derailed or falling into disrepute than any other business. And it certainly doesn't mean they should be immune from challenge on such matters, or that because they had a hand in writing the rule book they should be allowed to disregard it at will.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

havoc said:


> You said it yourself. They have said inspectors must consult a vet and the vet should see the animal. I think it's accepted that a vet has more expertise than an RSPCA employee.


 Some of the vets will be in the employ of the RSPCA anyway, at their animal hospitals.
I'm sure an Inspector can recognise the signs of starvation, dehydration etc as well as a vet , an experienced Inspector is likely to see many more cruelty cases than a young vet from a local practice . 
But again agree with you ,its in every ones best interests and if people think a vet should second the Inspector then that must be done .


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't mind the inspectors being a little heavy handed when it's needed. Don't mind anyone being prosecuted for breaking the hunting act, poachers and hunts alike. It's the way those inspectors are treated by their employers that I object to and the no hope cases that waste all those well intentioned donations.
Then what I really really object to is animals suffering while the guys in HQ waste tens of thousands on fripperies


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> But again, spurious prosecutions are not the main problem being highlighted here. This particular problem is RSPCA inspectors who turn up on doorsteps looking very official in their police stykle uniforms, and use a false projection of authority and the fear that induces to coerce unsuspecting owners into believing they are legally obliged to do whatever the inspector demands.


The inspectors have always worn police uniforms , the media seem to make it sound like a new thing.
They have to deal with many types of people and in difficult and/or situations , they need to have confidence and authority in some cases but the good ones would adjust to the situation they are faced with , explaining the situation and being pleasant and not intimidating, encourages the people they are calling on.
. They _have_ to check out a complaint from a concerned member of the public and if they are blocked and they come back with the police, I would think that would be more intimidating and embarrassing then an inspector being authorative . To be honest , I think there is a difference between respecting someone who projects authority and being fearful of them. An Inspector should not make someone fearful of them and should ,not be forced to do so by their employers.

Ok, so peoples rights have to be respected but what a waste of time and resources if they refuse to let the inspectors in, the complaints may be unfounded and the Inspector can be in and out and on to his next job , they may be justified and the animals left to suffer longer or it might not be that bad and the owner might just need advice .

Actually , perhaps having the police with an inspector can be a good thing for their safety , especially for woman inspectors , situations can get nasty very quickly even when they have been invited in .

I once had to collect some unwanted kittens from a couple who requested the local RSPCA take them , they didnt seem very bright and the man was big built, the woman asked me if she could have a dog from the rspca and I said I'm a volunteer and I dont know but she would have to apply and fill in a form and she got really angry and shouting if the RSPCA wont let me have a dog , they can't have my kittens ! The man was looking angry so i ran out of their flat , I was really scared .

I don't envy inspectors their jobs, they have to see such horrible sights and put up with abuse and frustration of sometimes not being able to do anything to help an animal that is in the grey area of not being a cruelty case but living a poor and inadequate life.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> I don't mind the inspectors being a little heavy handed when it's needed. Don't mind anyone being prosecuted for breaking the hunting act, poachers and hunts alike. It's the way those inspectors are treated by their employers that I object to and the no hope cases that waste all those well intentioned donations.
> Then what I really really object to is animals suffering while the guys in HQ waste tens of thousands on fripperies


Absolutely and this is nothing new . I can remember the Inspectors striking for better pay conditions and also thousands of pounds spent on refurbishing the old headquarters with new carpets etc in the 70s , it was big scandal report in the Daily mail . Nothing changes ! ROFL


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> Not really. It only proves they win the vast majority of their cases - depending on how accurate that figure is, how it was calculated, what data was included and from what sources, of course.


Also what type of prosecutions?

How many are little old ladies or those that did nothing on purpose and just needed guidance


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Absolutely and this is nothing new . I can remember the Inspectors striking for better pay conditions and also thousands of pounds spent on refurbishing the old headquarters with new carpets etc in the 70s , it was big scandal report in the Daily mail . Nothing changes ! ROFL


That wasn't just a DM story. I know for a fact that a few £100,00 were squandered on that refurb. I knew two people who worked on it. It wasn't the plush carpets that upset them so much though they did say that the back offices did have rather better carpet than out front. It was the horrendous expense of the Oak paneling that really upset them


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_The inspectors have always worn police uniforms , the media seem to make it sound like a new thing.
They have to deal with many types of people and in difficult and/or situations , they need to have confidence and authority_
They like to give the impression of having legal authority for sure and wearing a police style uniform certainly helps them look official. We like uniforms, we defer to uniforms, that's why shop security staff and the like are dressed to impress although they too have no more legal authority than the rest of us to deal with criminals. Seems it works too.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Of course, there's also the question of why no one wants the job of CEO, plenty interviewed apparently (or so they say) maybe they weren't willing to toe the line......................


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

rona said:


> Also what type of prosecutions?
> 
> How many are little old ladies or those that did nothing on purpose and just needed guidance


But how many of these 'little old ladies' have had guidance yet still neglect their pets? I wonder what the actual % of cases really are about guidance though & not someone who has been warned several tmes.

There was a case near me a few years ago where an old lady had almost a hundred cats, all in very poor health, none neutered, not fed properly, covered in fleas, never wormed. She had ample warnings, the cats were seized & taken away, many had to be pts .... yet she just got more & it continued again.

She managed to avoid prosecution in the end mainly becuase her son (reluctantly) moved in with her to stop it happening again.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> But how many of these 'little old ladies' have had guidance yet still neglect their pets? I wonder what the actual % of cases really are about guidance though & not someone who has been warned several tmes.


There are articles about this and I think they have had a rap on the knuckles over it from some Lawyers and Efra. Too quick to prosecute

Not 100% on facts but I know I've read this on a fairly reliable source recently


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> That wasn't just a DM story. I know for a fact that a few £100,00 were squandered on that refurb. I knew two people who worked on it. It wasn't the plush carpets that upset them so much though they did say that the back offices did have rather better carpet than out front. It was the horrendous expense of the Oak paneling that really upset them


 OMG I'd forgotten the oak panelling! That would explain why our wages were so poor.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to remember that. Google isn't always my friend , its hard to find stuff from "olden times"


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> OMG I'd forgotten the oak panelling! That would explain why our wages were so poor.
> 
> I'm glad I'm not the only one to remember that. Google isn't always my friend , its hard to find stuff from "olden times"


I remember it well, early 70s, my father was involved in the refurb, it's when I fell out with the RSPCA. I only learnt later, probably the 80s, when I lived next door to an inspector, that the rot went further than just self gratification of the HQ mob
It's only got worse over time.......................


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Of course, there's also the question of why no one wants the job of CEO, plenty interviewed apparently (or so they say) maybe they weren't willing to toe the line......................


I suspect they are fully aware of the merciless bullying Gavin Grant received from the hunt lobby. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/rspca-chief-executive-gavin-grant-steps-down It will take someone very brave to take that job - brave or cowed. Or a hunt supporter


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Experts?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Good grief!


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

havoc said:


> _ I worry though that if the CPS makes the choices , they are limited with their finances and maybe people who should be prosecuted won't be._
> The CPS simply have to evaluate whether there is the realistic possibility of a successful prosecution. That this is an arms length decision is considered one of the strengths of the system. They are legally bound to consider each case on its merits whereas private prosecutions can be brought with any motive.


@havoc: As far as I was aware (unless things have changed), CPS follows two criteria:

a) _the evidential test_...is there enough evidence to be reasonably sure of a successful prosecution, and
b) _the public interest test_... is it in the public interest to go ahead with this case?
I feel that b) is a very grey area...who decides if something is in the ''public interest''? OK if someone is a paedophile or a sex offender or the like then it is generally believed that the public has a right to know (altho' of course there have been cases of ''vigilante'' attacks on people like this).

RSPCA, when considering whether to prosecute, are supposed to follow CPS guidelines carefully. But we know they are a law to themselves.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

rona said:


> I remember it well, early 70s, my father was involved in the refurb, it's when I fell out with the RSPCA. I only learnt later, probably the 80s, when I lived next door to an inspector, that the rot went further than just self gratification of the HQ mob
> It's only got worse over time.......................


I am totally convinced that the rot really set in in earnest when the Animal Welfare Act went through (2006 I think?). They became totally power mad and saw prosecutions reported in the papers as great publicity and great publicity = donations rolling in. Before that they more or less did what they were meant to do.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

The rot set in before then but they became very public about implying they had special powers when the new Animal Welfare Act came in. The TV ads still run and the wording is subtly suggestive - 'thanks to new legislation 'we' can now act sooner/'we' need more money to carry out these extra duties' etc.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

And here another charity that has gone away from it's routes and lost all perspective. Not quite as damaging as the National Trust but almost 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/envir...e?shareToken=413c3f77a2541ca356e2de081a064da7

"The scientists, from the universities of Manchester, Liverpool and Swansea and several foreign institutions, concluded: "Conservationists often seem unable to make objective interpretations of individual ecological management practices, such as prescribed burning.

The report adds that burning could actually help plants to regenerate, protect variations in landscape and benefit endangered birds such as the capercaillie. It said that previous RSPB research, not mentioned by the charity in its recent attacks on moorland burning, had shown the value of the practice.

"By campaigning so strongly on the presumed negative effects of burning on peatland ecosystems the RSPB thus risks undermining the ability of their own managers to use fire as an ecological tool," they said.

I really think these charities are being taken over by either people with no knowledge, their own ambitions as their main driver or business people who just don't care what the charities are supposed to be about


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> And here *another charity that has gone away from it's routes and lost all perspective. *Not quite as damaging as the National Trust but almost
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/envir...e?shareToken=413c3f77a2541ca356e2de081a064da7
> 
> ...


You mean another charity loathed & despised by the blood sports brigade? lol Another charity the they have it in for because they have the audacity to speak out against hen harrier persecution by grouse moors  (albeit rather tamely)

Someone who _genuinely _cares about nature. Mark Avery - (I think you need to read these Rona )

http://markavery.info/2016/03/10/murky/

*Murky*
MARK ♦ MARCH 10, 2016 ♦ 11 COMMENTS


Photo: Jürgi-würgi via Wikimedia Commons

When having a go at others it is best to be sure that you are on the moral high ground and not to sink into the depths. Please note, GWCT, YFTB and _The Times_.

Yesterday the GWCT published a blog on their website. It refers to a paper which has not yet been published, and is therefore embargoed, about heather burning. It seems that the paper, which has not yet been published and is therefore embargoed, criticises the RSPB. When the paper is published, and is not embargoed, I'll tell you whether I think the RSPB deserves a damn good hiding over their behaviour, but since the paper is not yet published, and is therefore embargoed, it would be invidious to comment.

This hasn't prevented the GWCT from writing their blog, though. I asked them (see comment on their blog) how I could find the paper which they say was downloaded from the Swansea University website. Their reply (which you can see on their website) says '_Swansea University published the paper on their website this week (in their Open Access Repository). The author there confirmed it was supposed to be in the public domain - hence this blog (which was cleared with the author). The paper has since been removed by Swansea - expecting it back up in May - will be worth the wait._'. So, to be charitable, the paper was published in error (although quite an embarrassing error, it would seem) but the GWCT wade in with both feet and make the most of an embargoed non-published publication. The GWCT ought really not to have published that blog, and they should now certainly remove it and explain why, and come back to the subject in May - but they don't have the scientific decency to do that. I asked GWCT, this morning whether they were going to do this, and you can see that they don't intend to (see comments on their blog).

When I asked GWCT whether they could send me a copy of the paper they directed me to the authors, so I asked whether the paper was embargoed (it clearly is) but as is sometimes the case these days you can't get a straight answer out of GWCT and they told me, again, to contact the authors, so I asked them, again, whether the paper is embargoed (it clearly is!) but they have not yet replied; if they do, they will, no doubt refuse to admit that the paper is embargoed (which it is) and tell me to contact the authors (which I have of course, and had before GWCT suggested it - see blog at 7pm this evening). *Late addition*: the GWCT did get back to me and gave me this link - you won't get the whole paper from it though, because it is embargoed!

YFTB issued a press release on the same subject and distributed the embargoed paper with the press release. The paper they distributed has 'For Review Only' written across every page which is a clear indication that it is not for publication - it might not, for all I know, even be the final version of the paper. I know this because I have seen it - but because it is embargoed I won't tell you anything about the paper (although a part of me is itching to - but I can resist some temptations) because that's how one is supposed to behave. It's not how GWCT and YFTB behave though.

In Today's _The Times_ 'newspaper' there is a piece by the environment editor Ben Webster, headlined '_RSPB 'twisted data' in campaign against grouse shooting_'. If only the RSPB did have a campaign against grouse shooting - I think they should! The piece quotes the great ecologist and statistician, Sir Ian Botham. I guess _The Times_ may not have realised that the paper was embargoed - but if they had read it (and it was attached to the press release), rather than just reproducing chunks of the YFTB press release, then they might well have seen 'For Review Only' written across every page which might have given them a clue. _The Times_appears to be the only newspaper to have run with this story - maybe the Daily Mail tomorrow? That would be par for the course.

Now, if the RSPB has behaved badly then it deserves to be criticised - but it does deserve the criticism to be transparent and available for others to evaluate. The alacrity with which the GWCT and YFTB leapt on this subject is rather unedifying - but then, this is the grouse industry.

For another angle to this story, come back at 7pm.

See also George Monbiot's article on this issue here and Andrew Gilruth's comment on Martin Harper's blog here and now The Shooting Times is joining in. What a mess!

You have to wonder when the RSPB Council will realise that they are not great mates with grouse shooting and begin to take some action. I know, why don't they have a campaign against grouse shooting?

*Much less murky http://markavery.info/2016/03/10/much-less-murky/?platform=hootsuite
MARK ♦ MARCH 10, 2016 ♦ 3 COMMENTS


Photo: Jürgi-würgi via Wikimedia Commons

The GWCT, YFTB, The Times and the Shooting Times are all making hay over an embargoed scientific paper which the rest of us can't access. It's pretty shoddy behaviour really. They should all remove
ve their online articles and wait for the publication of the paper in May.

I contacted the authors of the paper today. The first person I contacted was the only author of the paper who works at the University of Swansea, since that is where GWCT say they accessed the paper. I won't name the guy (because the paper is embargoed (remember?)). I sent this unnamed person a list of questions and didn't get a reply to them as such, but did get a reply saying he was on his way to an airport.

I also contacted the senior author of the paper, Prof Matt Davies (Assistant Professor (Soil and Plant Community Restoration), School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University) because the GWCT have published his name on their blog, and he told me he was dealing with this matter on behalf of all the other authors. Prof Davies was very open and very helpful. It is clear that he is embarrassed by the accidental emergence of this paper (an error) and the furore that has been caused by others (not an error - but not his fault). No-one can escape the irony of a scientific paper talking about the politics of land use being embroiled in the politics of land use.

Prof Davies gave me this quote (which I reproduce in full) on behalf of all the authors (but he wouldn't have had time to clear it with them all):

'The paper was accidentally made publicly available for a short time, this has been corrected. In that time a number of organisations picked it up. We do not endorse any 
of the current media coverage of our work, associated press releases or blog posts. We are disappointed that a paper that calls for a better understanding and representation of fire in scientific debates, and in the media, has been picked up in such a politicized way. Ironically, this is doing exactly what we are arguing against. We recognise the fire is an emotive topic in the U.K., much more so than in other countries. We only want fire to be understood as an ecosystem processes and for managed fire to be discussed based on a thorough understanding of the balance between its various benefits and disbenefits. We look forward to discussing and debating the scientific arguments made in our paper once it is officially published in May*.'

So, there you go. Cock-up not conspiracy. And the authors don't endorse any of the coverage. And the paper is embargoed - did I mention that before?

I wonder whether GWCT were asked not to publish their blog?

I think that the GWCT ought to remove their blog from their website and then they can put it back up in May when the paper is published. That would be the right thing to do and if they have a vestigial ounce of scientific credibility then that is what they will do. I'd say that GWCT are as likely to do that as Willie Mullins is to train no winners at next week's Cheltenham Festival (ie practically no chance at all).

And in May, this blog will address the subject of whether the RSPB deserve a damn good hiding over this matter.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Oh dear oh dear.
People need to start thinking where their donations are going
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/league-aga...ered-cash-after-it-was-left-3-5m-will-1551923

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35869071

Far to easy to fleece the vunerable with stories of poorly animals


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I support lacs. Good for them for trying to prosecute arrogant hunters
who think they are above the law.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> I support lacs. Good for them for trying to prosecute arrogant hunters
> who think they are above the law.


Did you read the article?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Staff are entitled to dcent wages and shooting birds in malta should be stopped . Thats a serious problem. Whether thats in their remit or not i dont care.
on phone cant do links but thousands of birds shot on migration path before they can breed. Devasting effect.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Staff are entitled to dcent wages and shooting birds in malta should be stopped . Thats a serious problem. Whether thats in their remit or not i dont care.
> on phone cant do links but thousands of birds shot on migration path before they can breed. Devasting effect.


Well yes, politicians do it so why shouldn't charity workers....................!!!

The CEO pay doubled in just a few short years to well over £200,000

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/28/league-against-cruel-sports-removes-president


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I dont see why "charity workers" should be expected to work for less.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> I dont see why "charity workers" should be expected to work for less.


Less than who?

You've just about proved my point. Put up an animal as a way and raising funds and just jump on the gravy train. Lie like those at the NT and still the money flows in.

I see the RSPB are now holding up wild places as a fund raising incentive. What do you think is going to happen to these wild places if they get their hands on them? They certainly won't be wild any more 

Makes me want to cry what these career climbers are doing to our countryside...........

While I despise and detest Monbiot for his deceit, I quite like his vision, though possibly a slightly watered down version


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Oh here we go again. The blood sports brigade trying to destroy LACS again


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> Less than who?
> 
> You've just about proved my point. Put up an animal as a way and raising funds and just jump on the gravy train. Lie like those at the NT and still the money flows in.


I haven't proved your point !
You pay peanuts , you get monkeys .Times change and organisations need to change to survive, not just animal ones . Its the way life is now. 
You are pro hunting, apart from the League being anti hunting and this recent hooha is there anything else you have against them ?

ETA about Malta 
http://gozonews.com/58069/over-10000-birds-killed-in-malta-each-year-birdlife-international/


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Less than who?
> 
> You've just about proved my point. Put up an animal as a way and raising funds and just jump on the gravy train. Lie like those at the NT and still the money flows in.
> 
> ...


Do you know what actually does make me cry? This! The massacre on our grouse moors! And the reason the blood sports brigade spread their lies & propaganda is to silence those who dare to speak out!

Apologies for these pics, but everyone needs to see what is happening in the name of 'sport'. Thank god for LACS, the RSPCA, RSPB, Bill Oddie, Brian May, Chris Packham, Mark Avery, HSA - & George Monbiot for constantly speaking out against these sick wildlife criminals!




























This is a TRUCK FULL of Mountain hares.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Sickening !


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

In my opinion, anyone who is pro-hunting, in any form, is nothing more than lowlife.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

There are many many good charities in this country You don't have to support the scammers

http://www.mammal.org.uk/

https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/
Yes yes. I know that the CEO gets paid a lot but at least they actually do what they say on the tin.............

http://www.bto.org/about-bto/funding

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/uk_bats.html

There's loads more if you look 
All very worthwhile charities who survive and even thrive without having to compromise either the animals they are protecting or others in their name, or go for scum headlines



kimthecat said:


> You are pro hunting


Am I?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

..............................

can't be bothered


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sweety said:


> In my opinion, anyone who is pro-hunting, in any form, is nothing more than lowlife.


I feel just the same. They are scum of the earth



rona said:


> There are many many good charities in this country You don't have to support the scammers
> 
> http://www.mammal.org.uk/
> 
> ...


Don't suppose you could recommend any charities that campaign against blood sports, could you?



rona said:


> Am I?


lol Am I? :Hilarious Well its glaringly obvious to me! You like to pretend you're objective but its not a very good charade I'm afraid.

It certainly isn't George Monbiot who is deceitful 



rona said:


> ..............................
> 
> can't be bothered


http://thirdforcenews.org.uk/tfn-ne...tm_campaign=Oktopost-2016-03+General+Campaign
*National newspaper accused of spreading malicious nonsense about charity*
RSS Feed

Get TFN News updates

















29th March 2016 by Susan Smith0 Comments

A strongly worded statement on the charity's website attacks the newspaper for publishing a one-sided story.

"The Times story is a mishmash of exaggerations, half-truths and claims that are plainly incorrect," it states. "We were able to rebut every single accusation but none of our responses have been used which suggests that the journalist was after a cheap headline, and not actually interested in accuracy."

The statement, which covers all the newspapers allegations in detail, also highlights the organisation's recent successes.

"To suggest we have failed our donors is not only incorrect but frankly laughable," it states. "We have not only managed this legacy with great care and attention - and will continue to do so when we decide the time is right to spend it - but we have also achieved several major successes over the last few years.

"Not only did we lead the way in thwarting the government's attempt to legalise fox hunting last year, but we have also exposed the treatment of birds used by the game bird shooting industry, highlighted the hidden evil of snares and produced a ground-breaking report that showed that one dog fight takes place in the UK every da

"We've done this and more in the last year, showing that we are efficiently and effectively using donors' money wisely - and in the way they would want us to use it. As well as our impact in defending animals from cruelty, our membership and voluntary income increased significantly, which shows that our supporters know we are doing an effective job."

The Times article, published on Monday, accused the charity of using Hale's legacy gift to cover a 10% rise in salaries across the organisation. It suggested the organisation was on the brink of collapse before it received the funds.

It also claimed a whistleblower at the charity had volunteered to give evidence of suspected non-compliance on a range of issues to the Charity Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales. The regulator, however, declined to be involved, saying that the spending decisions and administration of charities were decisions for the trustees.

The charity admitted that staff were given a pay rise in 2014, but said it came after a three-year pay freeze and after the charity undertook a comparison exercise that revealed its staff had an average salary below others in similar organisations.

Its statement concludes: "In recent months the Times has run a series of articles against environmental and animal welfare groups and has criticised the League for using supporters funds to expose the illegal slaughter of thousands of turtle doves, expose the appalling treatment ‎of greyhounds by the racing industry that culminated in a damming Commons report, and to prosecute potentially illegal hunters in a case for which the police apologised and disciplined their own officers for dropping. *This is exactly what our supporters expect, and will continue to get, from us*."

Yes it is!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)




----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.um.edu.mt/projects/maltaelections/referenda

https://www.gov.mt/en/Government/Go...ults/referendum 15/Pages/Referendum-2015.aspx


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Gotta laugh at this thread. It started with slagging off the RSPCA, then moved on to slagging off the RSPB, now its LACS turn to get a bashing:Hilarious We only need the Hunt Saboteurs Association and we've had the full set lol


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> There are many many good charities in this country You don't have to support the scammers
> 
> http://www.mammal.org.uk/
> 
> ...


The only one that Joe Public would recognise is the Dogs Trust , they get the most publicity and have the most adverts and I'm assume the most money thanks to their CEO who gets paid the most and they benefit from that because they are recognisable and people want to adopt from them over the smaller rehoming charities .

The others do sterling work but think how much more they could do if they were bigger.
The BTO are supported work in conjunction with other organisations such as RSPB with BirdLife and Birstrack .
Each society or organisation does different things , some things grab more headlines than others.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Your last statement is exactly what I'm on about.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Mmm I can find several inaccuracies in this not least
"the illegal slaughter of thousands of turtle doves"
http://www.league.org.uk/news-and-o...icious-and-unfounded-accusations-in-the-times

By the way, it's not my fault it's fact. I think it's bloody awful and should be banned. They are an endangered species


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> Your last statement is exactly what I'm on about.


yes I know but our view of it differs, you''re on a real downer on the big societies , if they disappear who's going to take up the slack ? I think the larger and smaller ones can help each other . They work in different ways but also the RSPCA and League cover different aspects , they need to be bigger .

http://www.bto.org/about-bto/how-is-bto-different 
I hope that links work , its about how the RSPB and the BTO are different but work together.

Not every society is perfect , Dogs trust rehome dogs that bite , mammal society has a big downer on cats etc

BTW , You view on hunting isn't my concern, its up to you if you want to state or not state your stance.
You have personal experience with the RSPCA and why you are against them and I trust you on that. 
What you think or hunting doesn't affect that .

You bought up the subject of the League and I wondered, apart from the link about the finances , what else have they done that you don't like as you seem so against them ?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> You bought up the subject of the League and I wondered, apart from the link about the finances , what else have they done that you don't like as you seem so against them ?


It's the blatant lies and videos that never really show anything but they tell you they do, if they did then why aren't there more prosecutions?
I've seen some that if you know anything about the countryside and field sports are just laughable. Saw one picture of a long dead stiff fox that apparently the hounds had. 

It's the way they manipulate good kind people that really really gets to me

I love animals, all animals, what I don't like is those that say they care and obviously only care as long as it's getting them press and/or making them money 

I have even more indepth knowledge of the NT. 
I would like the RSPCA to succeed and go back more to their routes but they've just become a business run by businessmen who don't seem to give a shit about animals, only their own careers.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> It's the blatant lies and videos that never really show anything but they tell you they do, if they did then why aren't there more prosecutions?
> I've seen some that if you know anything about the countryside and* field sports* are just laughable. Saw one picture of a long dead stiff fox that apparently the hounds had.
> 
> It's the way they manipulate good kind people that really really gets to me
> ...


Field sports = blood sports. 

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

If they told the truth, the league, the NT and RSPCA, I'd back them all the way.

RSPB not.....I don't agree with some of their policies very much at all..........same with the butterfly people. I think they are far too mono species at the expense of others. Also they swamp a place when something rare is spotted and that can't be a good idea.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> It's the blatant lies and videos that never really show anything but they tell you they do, if they did then why aren't there more prosecutions?
> .


 Perhaps its because the Hunt supporters beat them up and steal their cameras! 
I don't know how many hunting prosecutions there have been , it says they hand evidence of illegal hunting over to the police, they have done private prosecutions and also give evidence to the RSPCA .


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> If they told the truth, the league, the NT and RSPCA, I'd back them all the way.
> 
> RSPB not.....I don't agree with some of their policies very much at all..........same with the butterfly people. I think they are far too mono species at the expense of others. Also they swamp a place when something rare is spotted and that can't be a good idea.


Would these 'mono species' you're referring to be certain raptor species by any chance? No other organisation has done more for birds than the RSPB Rona.

I'm amazed you can say this about the RSPCA when the industry you so nobly defend actually does practise speciesism - BIG TIME. The shooting industry releases 10 MILLION NON NATIVE game birds into the countryside annually (to be shot for fun) It intensively 'farms' red grouse on grouse moors (to be shot for fun). And anything that gets in the way is ruthlessly dispatched - including protected species. How on earth someone claiming to love all animals while supporting all this carnage expects to be taken seriously, I do not know.



kimthecat said:


> Perhaps its because the Hunt supporters beat them up and steal their cameras!
> I don't know how many hunting prosecutions there have been , it says they hand evidence of illegal hunting over to the police, they have done private prosecutions and also give evidence to the RSPCA .


This is why Kim


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Perhaps its because the Hunt supporters beat them up and steal their cameras!
> I don't know how many hunting prosecutions there have been , it says they hand evidence of illegal hunting over to the police, they have done private prosecutions and also give evidence to the RSPCA .


How much of that is propaganda though, they showed a Sab being hit and dragged across the ground, but quickly removed it when it was shown to be sabs on a hunt supporter. They tried to rectify it by showing other bits of the footage but all it showed was hunt people protecting and retaliating at sab violence. Easy again to clip footage like that.
I have to say that I have seen a few clips of disturbing footage and in every case so far there has been a prosecution. Again though on both sides 
Prosecutions under the hunting act. Very few are actually hunts or hunt workers I think it's something like one for each year of the ban. So why with all those organizations involved, has there not been more? Most aren't breaking the law perhaps? 
http://huntingact.org/?q=node/18

Yes there's been a few prosecutions for violence but equally as many for the Sabs.

I can only react to what I've seen with my own eyes on the ground. I've never seen hounds out of control, I've had nothing but politeness from people on the hunt. I did have a couple of people I knew that were terriermen, hare courses and all round nasty types. You get those in all walks of life unfortunately. I've not mixed with the hunt fraternity much so my knowledge is limited.
When I have had dealing with Sabs, once just walking along the road with my dog but dressed in a wax jacket and was hurled abuse at by several men. Haven't got a clue what that was about!!
Then again just last year following some along a country lane putting others lives at risk in their hurry to find the hunt. I watched as they slew into someones drive and piled out. A bit odd really as I'd seen the hunt rather a long way away quietly trotting through a wood so I'm not sure why all the dramatics 
Honestly, the ones I've seen which admittedly is not many, not the kind of people I'd want to mix with.

I do like to deal with facts if at all possible and would pick apart anything from the hunters side too (Not the Alliance) but they don't seem to say much, just get on with it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> How much of that is propaganda though, they showed a Sab being hit and dragged across the ground, but quickly removed it when it was shown to be sabs on a hunt supporter. They tried to rectify it by showing other bits of the footage but all it showed was hunt people protecting and retaliating at sab violence. Easy again to clip footage like that.
> I have to say that I have seen a few clips of disturbing footage and in every case so far there has been a prosecution. Again though on both sides
> Prosecutions under the hunting act. Very few are actually hunts or hunt workers I think it's something like one for each year of the ban. So why with all those organizations involved, has there not been more? Most aren't breaking the law perhaps?
> http://huntingact.org/?q=node/18
> ...


Stop pretending to be objective, its dishonest.

Blatant lie >> _"Yes there's been a few prosecutions for violence but equally as many for the Sabs_" >>> http://www.realca.co.uk/hunting/hunt-convictions

And yet more if your anecdotes we're expected to believe. . Sabs don't waste their time following hunts that don't break the law. Just because YOU don't see them breaking it doesn't mean its not happening. (ETA I don't doubt you'd turn a blind eye if you did see anything)


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Field sports = blood sports.


Hmm, can't say I've ever heard of the triple jump being dangerous to wildlife...


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rona said:


> but equally as many for the Sabs.


Oh no ALL sabs are saints dontcha know....anything anyone has seen that says otherwise is just a lying hunt apologist (or what ever pathetic insult that's pic of the day)...

You should know that no one should ever question the sabs...especially those with an open mind looking at the "evidence" with subjective eyes


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I expect there is argy bargy on both sides.
I'm all googled out here and I don't have anything more to contribute except ...Fox hunting - bleuch ! unch


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Hmm, can't say I've ever heard of the triple jump being dangerous to wildlife...


lol Except when Rona refers to field sports she means this kind >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_sports



StormyThai said:


> Oh no ALL sabs are saints dontcha know....anything anyone has seen that says otherwise is just a lying hunt apologist (or what ever pathetic insult that's pic of the day)...
> 
> You should know that no one should ever question the sabs...especially those with an open mind looking at the "evidence" with subjective eyes


Maybe they're not all saints but then they aren't the ones out there brutalising defenceless animals are they?. There is plenty of evidence showing people who are violent towards animals are far more likely to be violent to humans  So it stands to reason huntscum are going to have more convictions for violent offences. As they do.

Dontcha know even hunters admit trail hunting is a sham? 

.

.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Not every society is perfect_
I doubt there are any which don't make errors of judgement at times. So why then are we not allowed to debate those issues on this site without accusations of being a bloodthirsty pro-hunt spawn of the devil directed at anyone who dares to question one person's opinion? It's a standard insult no matter what the original topic of the thread.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> _Not every society is perfect_
> I doubt there are any which don't make errors of judgement at times. So why then are we not allowed to debate those issues on this site without accusations of being a bloodthirsty pro-hunt spawn of the devil directed at anyone who dares to question one person's opinion? It's a standard insult no matter what the original topic of the thread.


Because I for one am horrified by cruel blood sports & sick to death of all the lies & propaganda the hunting set spew out . I'm sorry I cant help expressing myself the way I do towards certain people because there has been a hell of a lot of water under the bridge. All respect has gone I'm afraid. If I see they are lying I will expose it at every opportunity. If the blood junkies succeed in destroying the RSPCA, RSPB,LACS etc who then will speak out for our poor wildlife?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

You aren't the only one horrified by blood "sports", or the only one fed up of lies and propaganda...yet you are one of the few to throw out insults when someone doesn't swallow everything spoon fed to us


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> You aren't the only one horrified by blood "sports", or the only one fed up of lies and propaganda...yet you are one of the few to throw out insults when someone doesn't swallow everything spoon fed to us


And I suppose you're all innocent & never make provocative, snide or insulting posts? lol


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> I expect there is argy bargy on both sides.
> I'm all googled out here and I don't have anything more to contribute except ...Fox hunting - bleuch ! unch


I agree, but many many hunts never kill a fox with hounds, or if they do it is a genuine accident much like your dog catching a rabbit or your cat a bird.
If you are dealing with living things, even in a caring capacity, things happen that are out of anyones control.

Lets ban all dogs from the countryside in case they catch a rabbit..............all cats to be kept inside................all people incase they step on and kill some wildlife..........cars kill almost as many deer as deerstalker, ban them too......


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> I agree, but many many hunts never kill a fox with hounds, or if they do it is a genuine accident much like your dog catching a rabbit or your cat a bird.
> If you are dealing with living things, even in a caring capacity, things happen that are out of anyones control.
> 
> Lets ban all dogs from the countryside in case they catch a rabbit..............all cats to be kept inside................all people incase they step on and kill some wildlife..........cars kill almost as many deer as deerstalker, ban them too......


Except in the case of trail hunts it isn't an accident at all! Let me just post this pro hunt article AGAIN where huntsman admits Trail hunting is a sham & local police are in collusion. http://www.economist.com/news/brita...ics?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/the_hunter_and_the_hapless

. The huntsman who welcomed your columnist explained that, in practice, this means that before a hunt one of his helpers films himself laying a pretend scent-trail-by dragging a rag theoretically, but not actually, soaked in fox scent, from a quad bike-to provide evidence for a possible defence in court. Then the hunt goes out and hunts as it always has, but illegally. The police-one of whose officers was riding with the hounds that wintry day-understand this, but do not much care. Animal rights activists know it, and it makes them mad, but it is so hard to collect evidence of lawbreaking, in the form of video footage showing a huntsman urging hounds on to a fox, that prosecutions are rare. Only a couple of dozen huntsmen have been convicted for contravening the ban, for which they mostly received small fines.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

By co incidence its been announced today that jedburgh hunt is being prosecuted by lacs.

Eta jedforest hunt . Jedburgh is the sherrifs coutt.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

....

Nevermind...been here before so will not waste my breath...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I'm sorry I cant help expressing myself the way I do towards certain people because there has been a hell of a lot of water under the bridge._
Well it comes across as an intimidating determination to shut down anyone who wants a sensible discussion and doesn't just agree with you 100%. Those of us with moderate and liberal views who believe everyone should be allowed their say are the very people protecting your freedom to have yours. A little respect wouldn't hurt.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> By co incidence its been announced today that jedburgh hunt is being prosecuted by lacs.
> 
> Eta jedforest hunt . Jedburgh is the sherrifs coutt.


Yes I saw that, can't quite make out what was happening there because the hounds seemed to just be milling around and then they just went after something. Couldn't make out if it was a fox

I always find it helps to look at the videos with no sound and then you just see rather than being guided in your opinions. Bit hard when it's subtitled but you have to try and not read them until you've made up your own mind


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> By co incidence its been announced today that jedburgh hunt is being prosecuted by lacs.
> 
> Eta jedforest hunt . Jedburgh is the sherrifs coutt.


Fantastic news. This is why the CA are gunning for LACS .



havoc said:


> _I'm sorry I cant help expressing myself the way I do towards certain people because there has been a hell of a lot of water under the bridge._
> Well it comes across as an intimidating determination to shut down anyone who wants a sensible discussion and doesn't just agree with you 100%. Those of us with moderate and liberal views who believe everyone should be allowed their say are the very people protecting your freedom to have yours. A little respect wouldn't hurt.


You aren't aware of things that have gone off in the past between me & certain members. I can't be sly & two faced & I'm really sorry but I can't fake respect either. Cruelty to any animal is inexcusable to me. Bloodsports are something I feel so passionately about so I do get wound up by certain people who constantly defend these wildlife abusers. I guess I just dont understand how there can be any debate tbh. We surely wouldn't debate any other form of cruelty? I suspect all on here would be unanimously hostile to people who kill pets for fun? or who enjoy a spot of badger baiting? I can debate nicely though & I apologise to you for coming across as intimidating I will try harder to be less so.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

If it makes you feel better to think that I defend people that abuse *any* animal then so be it.

The people that actually know me will know how ridiculous that statement is...I do not debate cruelty, but I also do not blindly follow...I ask questions, I think for myself!


----------



## CanIgoHome (Oct 25, 2008)

I think the RSPCA needs to remove all the top knobs and CEO and start again


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> If it makes you feel better to think that I defend people that abuse *any* animal then so be it.
> 
> The people that actually know me will know how ridiculous that statement is...I do not debate cruelty, but I also do not blindly follow...I ask questions, I think for myself!


I didn't actually say anything about anyone defending people that abuse *any *animal 

Grouse moors = animal cruelty. Fox hunts = animal cruelty and as does every blood sport.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Grouse moors = animal cruelty. Fox hunts = animal cruelty and as does every blood sport.


I do not agree with fox hunting and I have made that clear many, many times. Yet you continue to ignore that small fact so it makes you feel better about throwing insults.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

Thought people might like to hear something positive about the RSPCA. Someone local to us was reported anonymously recently for ill-treating their horses. I wouldn't say they were ill-treated, but their care could have been better. The RSPCA inspector came out and advised them on how to improve the care they were giving & was really helpful to them. Result: the horses are much better off and the owners have a much better idea of what they are meant to be doing. 

I know some RSPCA people have let power go to their heads, but there are some good ones out there who are genuinely trying to do a good job.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> I do not agree with fox hunting and I have made that clear many, many times. Yet you continue to ignore that small fact so it makes you feel better about throwing insults.


Maybe not, but it does seem you sympathise more with the hunters. I apologise though for calling you an apologist. Can I ask you how do you feel about grouse moors? I know we've had a bit of a debate about this as well lol


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

CuddleMonster said:


> Thought people might like to hear something positive about the RSPCA. Someone local to us was reported anonymously recently for ill-treating their horses. I wouldn't say they were ill-treated, but their care could have been better. The RSPCA inspector came out and advised them on how to improve the care they were giving & was really helpful to them. Result: the horses are much better off and the owners have a much better idea of what they are meant to be doing.
> 
> I know some RSPCA people have let power go to their heads, but there are some good ones out there who are genuinely trying to do a good job.


I've known a few really good genuine inspectors, trouble is they get demoralized by the upper echelon and then eventually stop bothering 

The one I lived almost next door too was about to retire and was so upset at the lack of support he'd had that he did as few jobs as possible. Very nice genuine man just given up!!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> I've known a few really good genuine inspectors, trouble is they get demoralized by the upper echelon and then eventually stop bothering
> 
> The one I lived almost next door too was about to retire and was so upset at the lack of support he'd had that he did as few jobs as possible. Very nice genuine man just given up!!


Gavin Grant was the CEO the RSPCA has ever had. A genuine animal lover.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Thank you for that apology @noushka05

I don't think we have ever debated about the Grouse Moors, as that isn't something I know a huge amount about.
I do not agree with BOP's being targeted ever! Be that killed or their nests being trashed.
I do not agree with birds being bred just to be shot, especially as many are not killed for the "pot"

I do not agree with killing in the name of "sport" full stop really.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Maybe not, but it does seem you sympathise more with the hunters. I apologise though for calling you an apologist. Can I ask you how do you feel about grouse moors? I know we've had a bit of a debate about this as well lol


I know @StormyThai away from the forum Noush, & she really is a genuine animal lover


----------



## Lulus mum (Feb 14, 2011)

havoc said:


> If the RSPCA were to work to CPS standards then I suppose it would at least be a step in the right direction. What can't happen though is for a private organisation to ever be subject to the same public scrutiny and this is why problems arise in the first place. Being able to quote from Hansard about the CPS is great, we know exactly what the problems are, that there isn't a bottomless pot, what future funding is available. Can we have the comparable projections for the RSPCA? Are they going to concentrate on animal welfare or human vengeance? The bigger cases, the really awful ones should, in my opinion, be dealt by the CPS. The message should be that we as a society don't accept such cruelty just as we don't accept other awful crimes and the state will prosecute. The lesser stuff? Well I do honestly wonder if there's much point. What exactly are we doing by putting someone through court and fining them? How is that animal welfare? Unless the offence is bad enough for the accused to receive a ban on keeping animals what exactly do we achieve?
> 
> It's ironic that one part of our justice system I feel is misunderstood and often misused is the police caution and yet I truly believe it could be a great tool here. Accepting one is an admission of guilt and goes on record.


Great post-I couldnt agree more.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

CanIgoHome said:


> I think the RSPCA needs to remove all the top knobs and CEO and start again


I was not aware that Gavin Grant had been replaced...altho' he quit a couple of years back, supposedly because of ill health; after which he took up politics which I would imagine was mores stressful..


----------



## CanIgoHome (Oct 25, 2008)

so if the RSPCA has no CEO who the person who making all the bad decision at the moment


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

CanIgoHome said:


> so if the RSPCA has no CEO who the person who making all the bad decision at the moment


A little group of them


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> Thank you for that apology @noushka05
> 
> I don't think we have ever debated about the Grouse Moors, as that isn't something I know a huge amount about.
> I do not agree with BOP's being targeted ever! Be that killed or their nests being trashed.
> ...


I'm very sorry @StormyThai for jumping to the wrong conclusion. I hope you can accept my apology, I understand if you can't. It was about the persecution of raptors by grouse moors. It was ages ago when you had a different name. All water under the bridge now.



simplysardonic said:


> I know @StormyThai away from the forum Noush, & she really is a genuine animal lover


Your word is good enough for me SS .


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Calvine said:


> I was not aware that Gavin Grant had been replaced...altho' he quit a couple of years back, supposedly because of ill health; after which he took up politics which I would imagine was mores stressful..


I'm not surprised he quit. He was literally hounded out by the Countryside 'Areliars'.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_You aren't aware of things that have gone off in the past between me & certain members._
You're right, I'm not. Whatever has 'gone off' it doesn't give you a right to be rude to others who have done you no harm.

_ I can't be sly & two faced & I'm really sorry but I can't fake respect either._
Why view simple courtesy as being sly and two faced? Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't voice your views, just that you allow others to do the same without hurling insults at them - treat others respectfully.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> _You aren't aware of things that have gone off in the past between me & certain members._
> You're right, I'm not. Whatever has 'gone off' it doesn't give you a right to be rude to others who have done you no harm.
> 
> _ I can't be sly & two faced & I'm really sorry but I can't fake respect either._
> Why view simple courtesy as being sly and two faced? Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't voice your views, just that you allow others to do the same without hurling insults at them - treat others respectfully.


I don't think I am generally rude to people who have done me no harm:Wideyed. And I don't view simple courtesy as sly & two faced either - you have got the wrong end of the stick.. There are couple of members on here I can never have respect for. And they have absolutely non for me either - so I'd say we were quits! lol.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> lol Except when Rona refers to field sports she means this kind >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_sports


Nice to see field archery isn't on the list - I'm a ribbon winner in that! Love my beautiful barebow recurve


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Nice to see field archery isn't on the list - I'm a ribbon winner in that! Love my beautiful barebow recurve


Congratulations


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

CanIgoHome said:


> so if the RSPCA has no CEO who the person who making all the bad decision at the moment


They apparently announced very recently that Jeremy Cooper had been offered the job...whether he took it or not I do not know, not a lot is being said. Some trustees recently left too as they were not happy with the small group of candidates from which the new CEO would likely be picked. I understand that was the reason for their departure, we only know what we read, of course.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

This is one of the most horrifying things I have ever seen in my life. And shows why we need the RSPCA to be a strong entity, not just another rescue organisation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-jumped-threw-stairs.html#i-531f986619c343d1


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Hmm, can't say I've ever heard of the triple jump being dangerous to wildlife...


Coincidentally the 'Countryside Areliars' CEO, Bonner, tweeted this on fieldsports last night.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> This is one of the most horrifying things I have ever seen in my life. And shows why we need the RSPCA to be a strong entity, not just another rescue organisation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-jumped-threw-stairs.html#i-531f986619c343d1


*Absolutely heart breaking. There is something seriously wrong with our justice system. *


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rona said:


> The RSPCA has banned its inspectors from rehoming animals unless vets have personally seen evidence of suffering, in what critics said was an admission that they have been acting "over-zealously".


Mmm this wouldn't have made a difference in Claude's case as he was PTS and after seeing a vet 
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...needs-to-rethink-its-priorities-a6958456.html


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@rona urban foxes a real nuisance here !


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ipped-of-right-to-pursue-hunts-or-pet-owners/

I for one would be pleased if there was another body to prosecute animal cruelty as well as prosecute more of those with out of control dogs. There really needs to be somewhere that you can report these things and be heard, even if there's not publicity or way to get your success rate up.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...y-for-blunders-and-admits-charity-was-too-po/

"In his first interview since taking over as chief executive, Jeremy Cooper admitted the RSPCA had become "too adversarial" and dragged too many people through the courts under its previous leadership.

Mr Cooper said that the charity had alienated farmers in its aggressive campaign against the Government's badger cull and disclosed that it would be "very unlikely" to ever bring another prosecution against a hunt"

"Mr Cooper, who lived on a dairy farm in his childhood, condemned both. He told The Telegraph: "We care as equally about badgers as we do about dairy cows. Calls for naming and shaming of farmers who shoot badgers is not helpful.

"We don't have an issue with the need to manage badgers. It is the method. Foxes need to be managed as well. It is about humanely managing the animals. We recognise that dairy cows suffered problems and badgers need to be managed."

About time..........Lets hope we can all get behind them in the future. Poor guy has got his work cut out to restore their reputation
It's been a long long time coming. Only time will tell


----------



## CanIgoHome (Oct 25, 2008)

Perhaps now is the time for the UK public to tell CEO what the public want from the RSPCA and see if he listens


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...y-for-blunders-and-admits-charity-was-too-po/
> 
> "In his first interview since taking over as chief executive, Jeremy Cooper admitted the RSPCA had become "too adversarial" and dragged too many people through the courts under its previous leadership.
> 
> ...


Wrong man for the job! Foxhunting is illegal, hence "foxes need managing" is irrelevant to prosecuting those who break the laws of the land and "accidentally " kill foxes with their out of control, off lead dogs. You can bet if _*one *_off lead GSD ran all over a road endangering traffic before killing a cat the full force of he law would be applied. Or would it only count for pet cats, not feral?

But you didn't think trapping ferals and shooting at point blank range accepable, yet a head shot at point blank range a heck of a lot quicker than dogs running down and savaging ( not that I'm condoning that either):



rona said:


> http://www.hsi.org/world/united_kin...scottish-wildcat-conservation-foi-041216.html
> Scottish Natural Heritage has chosen to allow the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland to trap feral cats, only to shoot them in the face with a shotgun. It is barbaric and entirely unnecessary. This process also carries an inevitable risk to wildcats being shot through misidentification in the trap, and an equally unacceptable risk that someone's pet could be killed in this way."


Foxhunts need prosecuting, if he's not man enough to say so he should maybe either grow some balls or step aside.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

CanIgoHome said:


> Perhaps now is the time for the UK public to tell CEO what the public want from the RSPCA and see if he listens


Yes. I m a member of the public and i want hunts to be prosecuted if they illegally kill foxrs and badgers not to be slaughtered unnecessarily.
Sadly the dm hate campaign has neutered the rspca .


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Yes. I m a member of the public and i want hunts to be prosecuted if they illegally kill foxrs and badgers not to be slaughtered unnecessarily.
> Sadly the dm hate campaign has neutered the rspca .


But that's the thing isn't it. Not many have been found guilty and it's wasted a great deal of money.

Under the current law, it's virtually impossible to prosecute under the hunting act, that's why the RSPCA have tried through the animal welfare act.

It's the law that needs changing, not the RSPCA to try and twist the legal system




__ https://www.facebook.com/craftyfox1/posts/10206403943322790


"What we are left with as a result of all this parliamentary nonsense is an act that ought to be easy to enforce, but in fact is quite impossible to police.

The first section makes it an offence to hunt a wild mammal with a dog. Easy you might think. However, as a couple of conjoined cases involving the Exmoor Foxhounds and the Devon and Somerset Staghounds made clear, searching for a fox or deer which might later be hunted was not "hunting" at all, even though that is what most hunting folk spend most of their time doing.

Then there are the exceptions. Flushing a wild mammal to a gun is not an offence as long as you have permission to be on the land, subject to using only two hounds. How long should the wild mammal be allowed to be "flushed" before it is shot? Well, no-one really knows. As we lawyers love to say "it is all a matter of fact and degree" which means that we don't know either!

You can use a full pack to hunt rats and rabbits if you choose. Nick Valentine jokes that he has the only legal pack of hounds in the country since his pack of Vendeens hunt only rabbit."

That's only part of the ridiculousness of the hunting act


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> But that's the thing isn't it. Not many have been found guilty and it's wasted a great deal of money.
> 
> Under the current law, it's virtually impossible to prosecute under the hunting act, that's why the RSPCA have tried through the animal welfare act.
> 
> It's the law that needs changing, not the RSPCA to try and twist the legal system


Law seems fine to me:

DEFRA own guidance on lethal control of rural foxes, SIN004, states hunting with dogs is illegal except for flushing with up to 2 dogs or using them to track an injured animal, provided hunting was not the purpose of the injury.

Seems fairly clear to me that any hunt with more than 2 dogs, which then goes on to injure or kill a fox, is breaking the law.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> Law seems fine to me:
> 
> DEFRA own guidance on lethal control of rural foxes, SIN004, states hunting with dogs is illegal except for flushing with up to 2 dogs or using them to track an injured animal, provided hunting was not the purpose of the injury.
> 
> Seems fairly clear to me that any hunt with more than 2 dogs, which then goes on to injure or kill a fox, is breaking the law.


Not if it was an accident

If it's so clear, why so few prosecutions?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/hunting_act/#offences
"The Act therefore makes clear that hunting with dogs includes engaging alone or participating with others in the pursuit of a wild mammal where a dog is used in that pursuit. Hunting is an *intentional *activity and there can be no such thing as unintentional hunting.

The issue of whether 'hunting' under the Act included the searching for an as yet unidentified or unidentifiable wild mammal was examined in the joined cases of _DPP (Crown Prosecution Service CCU South West) v Anthony Wright_; and _The Queen on the Application of Maurice Scott, Peter Heard & Donald Summersgill vTaunton Deane Magistrates Court_ [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin).

The Administrative Court gave a restrictive interpretation to the Act ruling that the term 'hunts' under the Act *does not* include the mere searching for an as yet unidentified wild mammal.

Hence once an illegal hunt begins, only a person who engages or participates in the pursuit of an 'identified' wild mammal is guilty of an offence. It is therefore essential to establish whether the police have gathered evidence to support this ingredient of the offence when assessing whether the evidential stage of the Full Code Test has been met.

The terms engage or participate mean to take an active and direct part in the hunting of the mammal, as distinct from observing. Those who follow a hunt for the sake of observing the hunt are not technically hunting under the Act. A suspect may argue that although he was following the hunt he was not in pursuit of a mammal but merely observing the acts of those involved in the actual hunting. It may be argued, subject to the availability of the necessary evidence, that the followers are aiding and abetting the hunt by encouraging those who actively participated.

The gathering before the hunt will not constitute hunting for the purposes of section 1. There can be *no offence of attempting to hunt *as the section 1 offence is summary only and only either way and indictable-only offences can be charged as attempts under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981".


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> Not if it was an accident
> 
> If it's so clear, why so few prosecutions?


So foxhounds trained to follow fox scent, as opposed to say aniseed, run after a fox and it's an accident?
If it was any other breed running after wildlife and killing it you'd be telling the muppet owner to keep it on a long line if they couldn't trust the recall.

Why so few prosecutions? Because hunts have money to fight, and can pay good lawyers, and little old ladies who hoard too many cats don't.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Scotland have woken up to the fact that the act as it stands is a waste of time
http://www.onekind.org/onekindblog/...elcome_step_towards_a_more_civilised_scotland

Just look at the figures 
http://campaigntostrengthenthehuntingact.com/completed-prosecutions.php


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Quick skim of first suggests flushing with a pack permitted, up to 2 dogs permitted in England, presumably the argument would be rougher ground.

Again, quick skim ( supper cooking - or rather breakfast, I forget to eat when family away)' of second link shows whole hunts are treated as a single person. Not sure of the point of cautions or prosecutions to bodies, need individual people held to account, with a risk of criminal record showing when they apply for jobs, places on boards etc.

Not sure exactly what your point is? If I let my 4 dogs off lead ( can't really count old boy as only potters in garden), and they chase wildlife or livestock I can be prosecuted. If anyone on PF has a dog on or off lead which frightens a person, regardless of damage done, they can be prosecuted.

People going out with the hunt are aware that the pack numbers more than 2 dogs, so they need to be 100% certain those off lead dogs are under proper control at all times, or face consequences. 

Let's use another example: I'm aware that there is a legal blood alcohol limit for driving. I'm aware that alcohol can limit my driving ability. If I have " just one" glass of wine that is a bit stronger than expected I might go over the limit. I might be unaware of this. I might get home safely, in fact, probably. But if I have an accident, and if I am over the limit, then I face prosecution. Depending on if it's a pranged roadsign or a serious crash with another vehicle, I might get points, a fine or a prison sentence - I can't whine "accidents happen" when I took a known risk. 
Foxhounds chase foxes, the clue is in the name. If I and a group of other people take the risk of taking a pack of foxhounds into an area liable to contain foxes, then it is possible they will chase and kill a fox. If they do, I should face prosecution, either for causing unnecessary suffering, or for being dangerously out of control.

I can't beleive that when PF is constantly full of threads about long lines, and solid recalls, and walking at stupid o clock to avoid confrontation, that when it's 30 foxhounds instead of 1 pet the attitude is "accidents happen ".


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Well if you think the legislation is enough, why is it not working?

It must be that hunts aren't breaking the law.......................................


Anyway. The guy hasn't said they won't investigate, just that they won't be the prosecuting body


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> But that's the thing isn't it. Not many have been found guilty and it's wasted a great deal of money.
> 
> Under the current law, it's virtually impossible to prosecute under the hunting act, that's why the RSPCA have tried through the animal welfare act.
> 
> It's the law that needs changing,


 So who's going to campaign to change the law. Not the RSPCA as they can't be seen to be "too political "

So who's left ? LACS , Sabs? versus Cameron's Cronies , The DM , Country Alliance, the hunts and farmers . Right!

So now the Hunts can act with impunity , they can break the law , illegally and cruelly kill animals and no one will do any
thing. They must be laughing their heads off . Sickening.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> Anyway. The guy hasn't said they won't investigate, just that they won't be the prosecuting body


So who will be the prosecuting body now ?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> So who's going to campaign to change the law. Not the RSPCA as they can't be seen to be "too political "
> 
> So who's left ? LACS , Sabs? versus Cameron's Cronies , The DM , Country Alliance, the hunts and farmers . Right!
> 
> ...


I still believe that the majority act within the law. There are sadistic and/or law breaking people in all walks of life. Those that hunt are not immune from attracting a few wronguns


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> So who will be the prosecuting body now ?


CPS as stated by the new RSPCA boss. He said they will investigate, gather together a case, then hand it over to the CPS


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> "Mr Cooper, who lived on a dairy farm in his childhood, condemned both. He told The Telegraph: "We care as equally about badgers as we do about dairy cows.




Of course they do , of course they do!


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> I still believe that the majority act within the law. There are sadistic and/or law breaking people in all walks of life. Those that hunt are not immune from attracting a few wronguns


That's like saying those that watch bullfighting are mostly decent people, just a few sadists. By now all foxhounds currently working should have been born after the ban came into effect. If they were trained with aniseed instead if fox scent they would be much, much less likely to chase foxes. What possible reason to use fox scent if not to reward and reinforce chasing foxes?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> CPS as stated by the new RSPCA boss. He said they will investigate, gather together a case, then hand it over to the CPS


The RSPCA investigating would be a waste of money as the LACS already investigate , and also the CPS aren't interested in prosecuting hunts, their overall funding has been cut back as already mentioned earlier.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Because they still use hounds to flush foxes

Finished with this. This thread is about The RSPCA not hunting.

I personally think this guy may be exactly what is needed to make them credible again, to start acting in the interests of the many animals rather than the few

Hoping they might focus on snares that kill and main millions every year


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> I still believe that the majority act within the law. There are sadistic and/or law breaking people in all walks of life. Those that hunt are not immune from attracting a few wronguns


So before the law was bought in , fox hunting wasn't sadistic or cruel?. Those that hunted before it was illegal , must obviously believe it is not cruel or they wouldn't have done it in the first place . So now the law has changed , if they cant see what's wrong with foxhunting then they are more likely to break that law especially as there will be very little if any come back .


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> Because they still use hounds to flush foxes
> 
> Finished with this. This thread is about The RSPCA not hunting.
> 
> I personally think this guy may be exactly what is needed to make them credible again, to start acting in the interests of the many animals rather than the few


Now that would be good to see: protection for the hounds and horses from abuse as well as the foxes. 
But the man to do it won't be the Gerald Ratner of animal welfare.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@Catharinem


> Now that would be good to see: protection for the hounds and horses from abuse as well as the foxes.
> But the man to do it won't be the Gerald Ratner of animal welfare.


Chortle ! Glad I wasn't drinking tea when I read that !


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...eet-let-tell-sorry-NOT-enough.html#newcomment

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

Prosecution procedures were already agreed after the Wooler report long before this man took over


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

rona said:


> So something did come from all the complaints and bad publicity. They haven't admitted wrong doing openly but this is as good as............................
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...t-vets-evidence-after-years-of-criticism.html
> 
> "
> ...


It seems more about the countryside alliance and Queen wanting RSPCA to stop intefering with the rich people's favourite sports of hunting yet they use examples of some 'regular' people who RSPCA over acted about, who hadn't actually being cruel to their dogs to make sure public would support this bill too, but the rich aren't interested in whether a dog gets removed from its family when they've done nothing wrong, only that they can hunt without RSPCA interfering or prosecuting them!

I wonder how many dogs they've saved from further abuse by removing them early who'd now have to stay in the abusive home longer until a vet confirmed and could prove the dog was suffering? I'm not saying some RSPCA officers weren't inappropriate in some cases like the ones illustrated such as the lady shampooing her dog not knowing about it making the dogs skin worse (she can't be to blame surely if the shampoo carried NO warning on it???) ..what would you expect an anti flea shampoo for dogs to do? .. call me cynical but can't help feeling its the tories and posh toffs using those few examples to make sure they get their way so they can carry on hunting without opposition!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Phoenix Rising said:


> It seems more about the countryside alliance and Queen wanting RSPCA to stop intefering with the rich people's favourite sports of hunting yet they use examples of some 'regular' people who RSPCA over acted about, who hadn't actually being cruel to their dogs to make sure public would support this bill too, but the rich aren't interested in whether a dog gets removed from its family when they've done nothing wrong, only that they can hunt without RSPCA interfering or prosecuting them!
> 
> I wonder how many dogs they've saved from further abuse by removing them early who'd now have to stay in the abusive home longer until a vet confirmed and could prove the dog was suffering? I'm not saying some RSPCA officers weren't inappropriate in some cases like the ones illustrated such as the lady shampooing her dog not knowing about it making the dogs skin worse (she can't be to blame surely if the shampoo carried NO warning on it???) ..what would you expect an anti flea shampoo for dogs to do? .. call me cynical but can't help feeling its the tories and posh toffs using those few examples to make sure they get their way so they can carry on hunting without opposition!


The Queen?

Could you please give us a link to evidence that the Queen wants the RSPCA to stop interfering with the favourite sports of rich people.

I would like to read that.

Thanks.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Phoenix Rising said:


> It seems more about the countryside alliance and Queen wanting RSPCA to stop intefering with the rich people's favourite sports of hunting yet they use examples of some 'regular' people who RSPCA over acted about, who hadn't actually being cruel to their dogs to make sure public would support this bill too, but the rich aren't interested in whether a dog gets removed from its family when they've done nothing wrong, only that they can hunt without RSPCA interfering or prosecuting them!
> 
> I wonder how many dogs they've saved from further abuse by removing them early who'd now have to stay in the abusive home longer until a vet confirmed and could prove the dog was suffering? I'm not saying some RSPCA officers weren't inappropriate in some cases like the ones illustrated such as the lady shampooing her dog not knowing about it making the dogs skin worse (she can't be to blame surely if the shampoo carried NO warning on it???) ..what would you expect an anti flea shampoo for dogs to do? .. call me cynical but can't help feeling its the tories and posh toffs using those few examples to make sure they get their way so they can carry on hunting without opposition!


So, Stephen Wooler wasn't independent at all then?

Another waste of money by the RSPCA who hired him?

Have you read any of the report or are you just going from headlines?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Hello @noushka, was wondering where you were!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...y-for-blunders-and-admits-charity-was-too-po/
> 
> "In his first interview since taking over as chief executive, Jeremy Cooper admitted the RSPCA had become "too adversarial" and dragged too many people through the courts under its previous leadership.
> 
> ...


You always know its a grim day for wildlife when the blood sports enthusiasts on social media are happy!

"We don't have an issue with the need to manage badgers" WTF??!! Badgers are supposed to be PROTECTED. " Foxes need to be managed as well" ?? This is pro hunt garbage. God help our wildlife now, the RSPCA has finally been taken over by the pro hunt lobby. Their insidious campaign against them paid off.



Sweety said:


> The Queen?
> 
> Could you please give us a link to evidence that the Queen wants the RSPCA to stop interfering with the favourite sports of rich people.
> 
> ...


Don't know about the Queen but Prince Charles has threatened to remove the royal patronage when he becomes king if the charity continues to prosecute fox hunts & speak out against the badger cull - http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/charlesandcamilla/rspca-may-lose-future-royal-patronages-57370

The fact Charles & his family enjoy killing animals - puts them in direct conflict with the charity. The RSPCA should have dropped the patronage themselves then they could not have been held to blackmail.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> Hello @noushka, was wondering where you were!


Haha I tred so hard to avoid this thread


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> That's like saying those that watch bullfighting are mostly decent people, just a few sadists. By now all foxhounds currently working should have been born after the ban came into effect. If they were trained with aniseed instead of fox scent they would be much, much less likely to chase foxes. What possible reason to use fox scent if not to reward and reinforce chasing foxes?


Because the Old Guard are still hoping the ban will be overturned, of course. I've been around stable yards a fair bit in my time, though, and I've only ever met one person who went hunting for the actual hunting, and that was before the ban. If I were a good enough rider to ride with confidence to hounds then I suspect I'd really enjoy the actual riding, but it would have to be a non-'accidents may happen' hunt for me (I can never remember which way round trail and drag hunting go, sorry!). Now, of course, the simple solution would to have banned training hounds to anything other than 'doesn't smell anything like a fox' alternatives, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.



Catharinem said:


> Law seems fine to me:
> DEFRA own guidance on lethal control of rural foxes, SIN004, states hunting with dogs is illegal except for flushing with up to 2 dogs or using them to track an injured animal, provided hunting was not the purpose of the injury.
> Seems fairly clear to me that any hunt with more than 2 dogs, which then goes on to injure or kill a fox, is breaking the law.


Yes, but _you_ are a down to earth, common sense person, not a lawyer...  To a lawyer, the hunting ban has enough loopholes and interpretations to make convictions practically impossible, as the range of interpretations is so vast that what should be simple turns into an expensive war over the precise meaning of words.

The RSPCA have naturally been trying to bend the interpretation to the pro-fox interpretation (which would set precedent), but at great expense and without success. That doesn't sit well with the general public, especially when it goes hand in hand with stories of over-zealous inspectors behaving like judge, jury and occasionally executioner, or people calling for help or advice over neglected/abandoned animals and being told 'sorry, we can't help or advise and suggest you contact local charities instead, but would you like to make a donation?' Perhaps if they spent more of their money on publicly campaigning for a strengthening of the hunting act and educating the public so they wanted a stronger act that wasn't open to abuse in the way the current one is, they might have got somewhere by now - long term education is always going to be the way to win battles like this one.

Instead, to the average person in the street the RSPCA often gives the appearance of caring more about money and publicity than the animals they are supposed to represent, and who prefer to get directly involved only when their is an easy win or maximum publicity involved. Whether this is fair or not (and hindsight is 20:20, of course, but I'm amazed they couldn't see this coming), it is where they find themselves, and it is something they need to address. Achieving marvellous things for animals historically is only going to carry them so far in this day and age, and currently they have a fair amount of ground to make up when it comes to general public perception of their work. And I do hope they manage to turn things around.

For me, though, I'm sticking with supporting small rescues, they represent far better value for my support than the RSPCA as far as I am concerned


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

Sweety said:


> The Queen?
> 
> Could you please give us a link to evidence that the Queen wants the RSPCA to stop interfering with the favourite sports of rich people.
> 
> ...


In the article given further down:

"Last month The Telegraph disclosed that* the RSPCA could be abandoned by the Royal family* unless it returns to its roots in animal welfare rather than campaigning against countryside sports"


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

rona said:


> So, Stephen Wooler wasn't independent at all then?
> 
> Another waste of money by the RSPCA who hired him?
> 
> Have you read any of the report or are you just going from headlines?


"The wide-ranging changes have been introduced in the wake of a review by former head of the CPS inspectorate Stephen Wooler, who examined the charity's prosecution policy *after widespread alarm among MPs at its activities." *(ie prosecuting THEM for cruelty!)

Who wants to bet how many of those MP's enjoy Fox Hunting and other 'Countryside Sports'? ..or who have links with other rich and/or celebrity persons who enjoy them and asked them to see if anything could be done to stop/limit interference.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Phoenix Rising said:


> "The wide-ranging changes have been introduced in the wake of a review by former head of the CPS inspectorate Stephen Wooler, who examined the charity's prosecution policy *after widespread alarm among MPs at its activities." *(ie prosecuting THEM for cruelty!)
> 
> Who wants to bet how many of those MP's enjoy Fox Hunting and other 'Countryside Sports'? ..or who have links with other rich and/or celebrity persons who enjoy them and asked them to see if anything could be done to stop/limit interference.


What!!! The RSPCA employed him not the MPs................You haven't read it then?

http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/0216_1
"Following an independent review of our prosecution activity and in line with one of the recommendations of that review, RSPCA trustees agreed to change its policy and to pass suitable cases involving traditional hunts and suitable farm cases to the police for investigation enabling the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute if appropriate. However, we reserve the right to proceed with such investigations, if the authorities fail to act."

*"Our stance on the badger cull*
We're still opposed to the badger cull and have beenpublicly campaigning against such.

We believe that vaccination, increased levels of testing and improved biosecurity are more effective ways of dealing with bTB in the long term. We do not condone or endorse the needless killing of wild animals.

We are aware that in some circumstances farmers will choose to kill a wild animal that may be worrying or causing suffering to their animals. In those cases we call for such to be carried out in a humane manner."

All this man is saying is that they are not going to become extremists or be dictated to by extremists
I applaud him


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Phoenix Rising said:


> In the article given further down:
> 
> "Last month The Telegraph disclosed that* the RSPCA could be abandoned by the Royal family* unless it returns to its roots in animal welfare rather than campaigning against countryside sports"


You see that bit in red?

That's their way of not having to tell the truth without being prosecuted for telling a porky


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

https://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/...update&utm_campaign=news#.VzuNnqlQto8.twitter


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

At risk of being called mundane, has anyone managed to find out what this guy is being paid? Grant was on £160k which was supposedly a 45% increase on his predecessor, only lasted a couple of years and retired through ''ill health''.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Calvine said:


> At risk of being called mundane, has anyone managed to find out what this guy is being paid? Grant was on £160k which was supposedly a 45% increase on his predecessor, only lasted a couple of years and retired through ''ill health''.


I don't think we'll know that until they publish their annual report for 2016. By then he'll have been there over a year

What I didn't realise is that he comes from within


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Petition here, started by Penny Little, the hunt monitor whos evidence was responsible for the Heythrop conviction https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/sack-the-new-boss-of-the-rspca-jeremy-cooper

*SACK THE NEW BOSS OF THE RSPCA, JEREMY COOPER*

*TO: THE RSPCA COUNCIL*
Dismiss their new Chief Executive Officer, Jeremy Cooper, for his deplorable capitulation to the bullying of the hunting fraternity. He has told the Daily Telegraph that the RSPCA have been "too political" and "too adversarial" and has all but ruled out any further prosecutions of hunts by the RSPCA. How can the head of the biggest animal welfare charity in the country choose to remove its protection from certain selected species of animal, foxes in particular? Incredibly, Jeremy Cooper has also told the Telegraph "foxes need to be managed", thus showing his ignorance of fox ecology, and displaying his unfitness to make decisions about wild animal welfare issues.

*Why is this important?*
I am one of the monitors who collected the evidence which enabled the RSPCA to successfully prosecute the Heythrop Hunt in 2012 for multiple instances of illegal hunting of foxes. I am outraged that Jeremy Cooper has declared that the RSPCA will remove their protection from foxes and other illegally hunted animals and leave prosecutions for illegal hunting to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, who, over the 11 years since the ban, have shown over and over again that they will NOT prosecute hunts. Hunt monitors collect the evidence of illegal hunting, thus saving both the RSPCA or the police from the expense and effort. We routinely face violence and abuse from the hunts - the apologist now in charge of the RSPCA is not only letting down the hunted animals, he is also letting down the brave monitors who put themselves at risk to collect the evidence needed for prosecutions. I challenge Jeremy Cooper to join the monitors and see for himself the butchery meted out to foxes, and the thuggery endured by the monitors, and then see if he is comfortable in, effectively, givi


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@noushka05 Signed.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> @noushka05 Signed.


So have I. I've seen a fair few RSPCA members threatening to leave/leaving the charity over this man. Lots saying they will now support LACS instead.

Theres a good article here by Badger Trusts Dom Dyer - http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/RSP...pressure-fox/story-29278820-detail/story.html


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

rona said:


> I don't think we'll know that until they publish their annual report for 2016. By then he'll have been there over a year
> 
> What I didn't realise is that he comes from within


@rona: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/rspca-...-out-reports-claim/management/article/1370975
They had a job getting someone to do it...the three previous applicants pulled out for reasons given in the article here. Yes, he is from within.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Calvine said:


> @rona: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/rspca-...-out-reports-claim/management/article/1370975
> They had a job getting someone to do it...the three previous applicants pulled out for reasons given in the article here. Yes, he is from within.


I witnessesd a lot of the abuse Gavin Grant received on social media. The Countryside Alliance set were absolutely vile. Their revolting CEO even had photo on his profile mocking Gavin. I think Jay nails it! (that is a great article by the way) https://www.the-newshub.com/general/rspca-bows-to-countryside-alliance-pressure
_
Mr. Grant left the RSPCA claiming ill health. Many suggested that the stress put on him by constant legal attacks from the Countryside Alliance and the NFU were to blame. Animal Welfare and Animal Rights activists were rightly worried when he left that the RSPCA would once again lose its way._

It was always going to take a genuine animal lover made of strong stuff to stand up to the bloodsports brigade. No wonder they had trouble filling the post despite the salary.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

RSPCA have issued a very strong statement putting straight their CEOs gaffs. Seems all may not be lost after all  No doubt the bloodsports supporters will be hopping mad :Hilarious https://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/...ocial&utm_content=ceoupdate&utm_campaign=news

*An update from our chief executive and RSPCA council*

17.05.16

*You may be aware of some upsetting reports that have been circulating about us this week. We want to reassure you that we continue to be committed to all animals.*

We have been subject to a sustained attack in recent years by advocates of blood sports. Much of this campaign is visible through the large amount of critical articles about us that have appeared in a small number of newspapers. 

But, what animal lovers may be unaware of is the pressure placed on politicians to change the law and repeal the Hunting Act, thereby allowing people to chase foxes on horseback and allow packs of dogs to kill foxes once again.









Against this backdrop, last week our new chief executive, Jeremy Cooper, gave an interview to the Daily Telegraph. We felt that we need to talk about the good work being done by our frontline staff, even in publications that are critical of us.

*Our enduring commitment to all animals*
The result is that a harmless interview has been misinterpreted by some, and abused by others. We wanted to get in touch to set out the facts and allay any misconceptions created by the media.

*Our continued commitment to all animals remains as strong today as it has ever been and always will be.

We believe it is absolutely right to say that our charity is no different to any other organisation or human being and occasionally makes mistakes. When we make errors of course we should apologise.

It's a shame that some have chosen to exploit this principled position for their own ends. These are the same people who have criticised us previously saying we did not apologise when mistakes have been made. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.


Our position on fox hunting and badger culls
To be clear, any apology was relating to a small number of cases where errors had been made. We have not and will not change our position on fox hunting or the badger cull.

We're extremely proud that we played a pivotal role, in partnership with other animal welfare organizations, in getting the Hunting Act adopted in 2004. We do not regret successfully prosecuting the Heythrop Hunt in 2012.

A review of our prosecutions policy by an independent expert two years ago advised us to pass any evidence of future hunting breaches to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). We amended our policy then to comply with this recommendation.

But, if the CPS decides not to prosecute a breach of the law based on evidence provided by us, we will not rule out using the right enjoyed by every citizen of this country to prosecute transgressors privately. This is our commitment to all animals.

We're here for all abused, neglected and cruelly treated animals
We are not a political organisation. We exist to prevent cruelty to animals. The way we do this is to help animals in need through the work of our Inspectorate, rescuing, rehabilitating and rehousing animals through our animal centres.

We prosecute only as a last resort and it is the courts who determine the outcome of cases brought for breaches of the laws of this land. We shall, unashamedly, continue this work: helping animals, educating owners, campaigning for change, and prosecuting as a last resort. This is our commitment to all animals.

Contrary to sensationalist media headlines, we have certainly not lost our way. In 2015 we rescued over 100,000 animals. Animals that had been set on fire, beaten, hit by cars, starved, neglected - animals at the extreme end of suffering. If not us, then who would do this vital work?

We are all very proud of everything we deliver. We are proud of all the good people working for us and of the thousands of volunteers who give their time for the sake of animals. We are proud of our members and supporters who make it possible for us to care and nurture animals in need. You allow us to make our commitment to all animals.

We stand united behind our mission to ensure our vital work to prevent cruelty, and rescue the most cruelly treated and abused animals continues. Our policy on foxes and badgers remains unchanged. Like all animals, they deserve our compassion and respect. We will always strongly oppose fox hunting and the culling of badgers.

Please continue to help us in our fight to protect all animals; we cannot help them without your support.
*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

https://www.fginsight.com/news/rspc...articipation-for-welfare-scheme-members-12293

"Members of RSPCA Assured will no longer be automatically expelled from the scheme if they participate in the badger cull, although their position will be reviewed"

How to alienate everyone. Are they committing financial suicide


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> https://www.fginsight.com/news/rspc...articipation-for-welfare-scheme-members-12293
> 
> "Members of RSPCA Assured will no longer be automatically expelled from the scheme if they participate in the badger cull, although their position will be reviewed"
> 
> How to alienate everyone. Are they committing financial suicide


They should not be trying to appease people who are cruel to animals in the first place!. The RSPCA are supposed to defend animals from such people. And the great news is their position on the badger cull & fox hunting has not changed - except in the pro hunt/farming press 

*RSPCAVerified account*‏@RSPCA_official
@noush yes easy as @FGInsight is wrong. Not sure who wrote it but no idea on policies of @RSPCA_official whose policies have NOT changed

Hope that clarifies


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I know this report is littered with news paper sensationalism, but the facts are still the facts. A complete and utter balls up. A person gets away with cruelty, the RSPCA lie, people donations are wasted yet again and animals end up dead 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-quashed-witnesses-refuse-testify-appeal.html

"Mrs Peel's MP, Nigel Evans, last night called for a police investigation into the charity's conduct.

He said: 'The RSPCA shot and killed several horses, which could have been fed and watered, and given a new lease of life. Instead they were slaughtered.

Despite this, the RSPCA sought to reclaim extortionate costs for the care of the horses. I have grave concerns at the invoices that were submitted by the RSPCA in respect of this care, not least because they include treatment administered after the horses were killed.

'I am asking the Chief Constable of Lancashire Police, Steve Finnigan, to look into this as a matter of urgency, as it's vital that agencies tasked with safeguarding animals are not abusing the trust we place in them.'"


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

https://www.facebook.com/zbrunsdon/posts/10213069246758652?pnref=story

"Last Sunday I phoned The RSPCA, about a sick pony, lethargic & unable to eat, even out of my hand. When I phoned to enquire what had happened to him, under the data act he said he couldn't tell me!! Today he is DEAD in the field, there were 3, one fell & broke his leg, I phoned them waited 17 hours before they come and put him down. I'm taking the last one today, to give him a good home"

Seems they haven't improved with their reshuffles and empty promises to go back to their roots 

Thank goodness for people like Zoe. At least she managed to save one poor soul


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rona said:


> https://www.facebook.com/zbrunsdon/posts/10213069246758652?pnref=story
> 
> "Last Sunday I phoned The RSPCA, about a sick pony, lethargic & unable to eat, even out of my hand. When I phoned to enquire what had happened to him, under the data act he said he couldn't tell me!! Today he is DEAD in the field, there were 3, one fell & broke his leg, I phoned them waited 17 hours before they come and put him down. I'm taking the last one today, to give him a good home"
> 
> ...


I can't believe they asked her to sort out getting the council to remove the bodies. I thought they would at least want to post mortem them to use as evidence against the owner


----------



## planete (Jan 21, 2012)

World Horse Welfare and BHS are better than most RSPCA centres for horse emergencies. The RSPCA responses vary so much from centre to centre you never know whether they are going to be useless or otherwise. Very sad for the poor horses and respect for giving one a home. I am sure he will become a lovely horse with you.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Had very similar experiences . Had RSPCA turn up on our doorstep in Norfolk because elderly neighbour ( who tossed her kitchen waste into their enclosure, encouraging rats) said their water was dirty. Was clean every morning, but ducks dabble in mud for worms, then rinse their beaks and start again. Yet when I phoned to say sheep dead and dying from flystrike on bridleway running past our house it took 3 days for them to come out.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

https://www.lep.co.uk/news/shock-as-preston-rspca-pet-shelter-is-shut-down-1-8896912

"A spokesman for the animal welfare charity would not be drawn on whether the issues were raised by members of the public or by staff and volunteers. Specific details of what aspect of the centre's operations are being scrutinised have also not been revealed."


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I see they haven't learnt a thing 
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ssion-warns-rspca-over-payout-to-former-chief

"The RSPCA has been given an official warning by the Charity Commission over its hefty payout to its former chief executive.

In a damning rebuke to the animal welfare group, the Charity Commission said its trustees failed to ensure the decision was properly made, and their failings amounted to mismanagement."


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

And again
http://www.alderleyedge.com/news/ar...-land-left-to-rspca-by-a-wild-life-enthusiast

"Deanbank Investments Ltd, part of the Emerson Group, have submitted plans to build 8 dwellings ona plot of vacant land off Heyes Lane, which was left to the RSPCA by a wild life enthusiast."


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_"Mr Brown wished us in the legacy not to sell the land for building though this wasn't a binding condition of the will. However it is extremely regrettable that we were then not able to use the land in accordance with Mr Brown's wishes._
Anyone thinking of leaving anything to that shower in their will had better made sure their wishes are made binding then hadn't they. The devil's in the detail. It's like their collection service for your animals if you die - the terms are they'll 'do their best' to find your pet another home but most people who sign up it think it's a guarantee of rehoming.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I see they are in financial trouble. I just wish they could understand why............They have just tried to prosecute a farmer for abuse to a *DEAD* sheep. I wonder how much of peoples donations that used


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> I see they are in financial trouble. I just wish they could understand why............They have just tried to prosecute a farmer for abuse to a *DEAD* sheep. I wonder how much of peoples donations that used


How strange. have you a link to that ?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> How strange. have you a link to that ?


They'd tried to prosecute him for cruelty to a field of sheep also, which he was also acquitted 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judge-attacks-rspca-over-sheep-cruelty-case-mn6kh2rmt


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I cant read the whole article as you have to subscribe.
"A judge has condemned the RSPCA after it prosecuted a farmer for being cruel to a dead sheep.

Courton Green, 60, faced jail after the charity charged him with trying to behead the animal, *which it said was alive*. The only witness was an inexperienced farmhand who was unaware that dead sheep must have their necks broken before they can be skinned for food.

. "
It didnt say how it was killed in the first place, dont they have to be killed at slaughter houses if they are for human consumption ?

Im surprised it wasnt in the Daily mail . perhaps they too busy attacking Meghan and Harry .

Im more disgusted at that the police aren't prosecuting hunts that are carrying on hunting with impunity thanks to the Daily Mails persecution of the RSPCA. Foxes are being ripped apart and no one cares.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Im more disgusted at that the police aren't prosecuting hunts that are carrying on hunting with impunity thanks to the Daily Mails persecution of the RSPCA. Foxes are being ripped apart and no one cares.


I have never seen anything that I think substantiates that. I've seen loads that professed to but when I questioned them because of doubts I've been either abused or banned


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@rona That's a shame


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> @rona That's a shame


It is because they were genuine questions and because they didn't answer I can only assume that I was right and they were photos or clipped videos produced just to look bad for hunts.
I've seen a few hunts over the last couple of years and none seem to be hunting fox, in fact I passed one the other day, one that the antis target all the time, and the foot followers were discussing where the trail had been laid and where the hounds would emerge. The hounds were not in full cry, so hadn't found


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I guess its up to everyone to decide whether they believe the hunt sabs or not.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

kimthecat said:


> How strange. have you a link to that ?


 I read it too, Kim, just at the weekend.


----------



## 3dogs2cats (Aug 15, 2012)

kimthecat said:


> I cant read the whole article as you have to subscribe.
> "A judge has condemned the RSPCA after it prosecuted a farmer for being cruel to a dead sheep.
> 
> Courton Green, 60, faced jail after the charity charged him with trying to behead the animal, *which it said was alive*. The only witness was an inexperienced farmhand who was unaware that dead sheep must have their necks broken before they can be skinned for food.
> ...


Apparently the farmhand had seen the sheep lying on its side trying to get up, the farmer placed the sheep in a trailer, the next day he was seen to drop the sheep 6ft from a digger bucket then bring the bucket down on the its neck. The farmer said he was preparing it for dog food. The judge said he could not be certain the sheep was alive at the time. The farmer was also found not guilty on six charges relating to his treatment of the sheep ( not sure if they mean that particular sheep or other sheep) and one charge of failing to care for a flock at a different site. The Times reports that a passerby had reported sheep were stuck in mud but the sheep were healthy. I presume that is what the other account of failing to care for a flock of sheep was about?

In 2015 the same farmer had been found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to sheep and fined £18,550 when it was found sheep were stuck in mud with several dead. I imagine this case may be why he complains the locals don't like him much and why they are quick to report him

https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/farmer-told-pay-18550-sheep-die-mud


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

He got away with it


----------



## foxiesummer (Feb 4, 2009)

Why should it be left to a charity to prosecute. It's not as if they have power of entry, they still have to have the police present.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

foxiesummer said:


> Why should it be left to a charity to prosecute.


 The *RSPCA* the *country's largest private prosecutor* with convictions rising to 1,678 last year. 26 Sep 2019.

Only CPS prosecutes more, and in fact, R$PCA are _supposed_ to follow CPS guidelines when prosecuting, with regard to a) the evidential test and b) the 'public interest' test. But they are a law to themselves.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

https://www.chrisloder.co.uk/loders-law
Wednesday, 5 February, 2020
Chris Loder, the MP for West Dorset, has today introduced 'Loder's Law' Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill in the House of Commons. The Private Members' Bill makes provision for the maximum penalty for certain offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to be increased from six months to up to five years.

. He says:

"Despite legislation being in place, I was shocked to learn that in 2019 the RSPCA investigated more than 130,700 complaints of cruelty against animals and secured 1,678 convictions. I believe more stringent sentencing will act as a greater deterrent against animal cruelty. Britain needs to take a lead on global standards for animal welfare. We are renowned to be a nation of animal lovers - now let's prove that by handing down appropriate penalties to those who bring unnecessary suffering to animals".

The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill has been introduced to the House of Commons, before moving to the House of Lords. If passed, it will come into effect in two months after it receives Royal Assent.


----------

