# News about the rspca and it's bad!



## jill3 (Feb 18, 2009)

Please folks take a look at this. Home | Mail Online Click on the news section.
It's all about the RSPCA putting down lots of healthy animals. Info comes from a whistle blower.
Poor Buzzer wasn't the only one

Some one put this on my facebook so maybe we should all spread the word on our facebooks too.

Makes very up setting reading


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

News about irresponsible owners/breeders.... 
They let thier animals breed no health checks no home checks they just sell to whoever turns up with a wad of cash, who in turn let their animals breed and/ or get fed up with thier pets or cant get rid of the offspring which results in animals being dumped or ending up in shelters...

These are the people to blame for whats going on... The RSPCA and any other shelter that has to have animals PTS because of overcrowding or lack of adoptive families ( yes I know they can be picky but they dont want animals to bounce) are the end result of other peoples stupidity greed and irresponsible behaviour...

before blaming the entire situation on one group look to those causing the problem ..

The RSPCA isnt perfect but they are not causing the problem ....

Sorry, rant over...No offense intended to the OP_ but I just get sick of people pointing out this kind of thing whilst forgetting who caused the problem in the first place.


----------



## jill3 (Feb 18, 2009)

dorrit said:


> News about irresponsible owners/breeders....
> They let thier animals breed no health checks no home checks they just sell to whoever turns up with a wad of cash, who in turn let their animals breed and/ or get fed up with thier pets or cant get rid of the offspring which results in animals being dumped or ending up in shelters...
> 
> These are the people to blame for whats going on... The RSPCA and any other shelter that has to have animals PTS because of overcrowding or lack of adoptive families ( yes I know they can be picky but they dont want animals to bounce) are the end result of other peoples stupidity greed and irresponsible behaviour...
> ...


I do agree with what you say and I am not offended. 
I think it is best that the public know that this is happening and think twice before they hand pets in.
The problem does start with people over breeding and buying animals and then getting rid when bored with them.
The RSPCA does a lot of good work, especially with the cruel sports and I hope they continue to do so.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

The RSPCA supply a product for which there aren't enough customers


----------



## catcoonz (Aug 4, 2012)

What annoys me the most is rspca have to legally wait 7 days incase there are owners looking for what they describe as stray cats...they dont wait most of the time rspca pts very quickly.

There rehoming rules are also too strict, if they slackened these rules just a little maybe homes can be found easier.

I dont have the answers and i doubt nobody does but i do feel animals are not given a fair chance of finding a home.


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

As the article says - they need to concentrate on helping animals genuinely in need instead of getting involved in political issues.


----------



## Hannahmourneevans (Dec 16, 2012)

Ou of interest, what ARE their rehoming rules?


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

I really can`t say I`m at all surprised.


----------



## catcoonz (Aug 4, 2012)

When i was turned down by rspca the list was:

1. I lived by a road.
2. i had cats already, i had 4 cats then.
3. I refused to put a cat flap in as i wanted an indoor only cat.

What confused me was i said all along i wanted an indoor cat as i lived by a road and they told me cats need free access to the outside but they would not be safe living near a road.... so you just cant win.

They did years ago have a rule that they wouldnt rehome if the family had children under 5 or worked long hours if the cat was to be kept on its own...as i understand now these 2 rules have disappeared.

If we can get rspca to slacken their other rules, ok we cant save all the poor animals but i do feel more could be rehomed.

I have written to rspca regarding their strict rules so hope to have a lovely reply soon.


----------



## sharonchilds (Jul 7, 2011)

I rang the rspca on christmas eve about a dog that lives in the next road to me but the garden backs on to mine.
The poor thing had been howling and barking for 2 days, i was worried because i hadnt seen any lights on and ive never heard her bark or howl like that before.
I didnt give my name because the guy is a not a nice person and i have to think of my cats, so i dont know the outcome. They did come out because i saw their notice on the door christmas day.
I hope they did remove the poor dog and i can only hope they will find her a new home, she is a staffie and wonderful with the kids she lived with. I hope i did the right thing, ive worried myself stupid over this poor dog and still am


----------



## Lulus mum (Feb 14, 2011)

"The R.S.P.C.A now put prosecution and persecution over protection of animals"
These were the words of the former RSPCA inspector who was the whistle blower on this
I completely agree.


What sickened me most about what she said was that a bolt gun was used to euthanise .She herself had been ordered to use one-even on healthy dogs.
When she questioned this she realised her job was in danger.

It breaks my heart to think of the many older dogs,the not so healthy dogs ,those showing even small signs of aggression 
In the hands of the RSPCA they stand no chance,nor do healthy animals for whom no place can be found .

I worked for a small rescue the founder of which could see no wrong in the RSPCA 
Her words were-anyone who wants to help animals cant be bad people
Then one day she called at the local RSPCA branch and commented to 1 of the staff how few animals were in.
"You must have worked very hard to re home so many" she said.
The answer was"no we have just had a "clear out" as its the Bank holiday at the weekend and we havent enough staff.

Please read the article and make people aware.

I am not putting the blame for the whole problem on the RSPCA,but I definitely feel that they are not the animal loving and protecting organisation that they pretend to be-unless there is a film crew about.

Maureen


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2012)

catcoonz said:


> When i was turned down by rspca the list was:
> 
> 1. I lived by a road.
> 2. i had cats already, i had 4 cats then.
> ...


I did look on my local RSPCA website and it certainly is the case for kittens that they will not rehome them to homes with under 5s and you cannot foster them either. Not sure if is the same for adult cats.


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

I tried to rehome a kitten as a companion to my cat and was told no because I worked - even though I could come home at lunchtime. I would have accepted this - if I hadn't witnessed them passing a kitten over to a woman on crutches who used her crutch to hit her child when it misbehaved!


----------



## Codiebear (Dec 30, 2012)

Hi, I have been lurking on this forum for a while looking for information re my poorly cat but this article made me register more quickly than I would have got round to.

I dont particularly like the RSPCA, I find their rehoming criteria far too strict as has been outlined and I dont find that they are particularly responsive to wild animal cases that I have reported to them - not like I saw on animal rescue shows that they used for advertising anyway! I dont have any particularly vitriolic opinions but I much prefer smaller charities that appear very effective at what they do.

BUT, this article is clearly written (2 years after the fact) as the RSPCA have succesfully prosecuted a hunt group for hunting with dogs. The article even goes so far as to outright state that they are spending too much time prosecuting people and not enough looking after animals and people that really care for animals go and work for the courtyside alliance. The pro hunt/anti RSPCA agenda is clear here.

I dont like the RSPCA because I think they can do better but frankly Im insulted by this article and its clear agenda to manipulate its readers pro hunt and anti RSPCA. 

Its a shame, as there is a real story here but the agenda is laid on too thick. Ironically, it seems to me, the article is not interested in the welfare of animals, just trashing the RSPCA.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Updated #RSPCA statement in response to MailOnSunday inaccurate & biased report 

Animal cruelty, neglect and suffering are at unprecedented levels in 
modern times. 

We rehome thousands of animals, but the number of people rehoming 
animals do not keep up with the numbers of irresponsible owners. 

It is simply not true that the RSPCA routinely puts down healthy 
animals. We do need to put animals to sleep when it is in their 
interests. Nobody who works for the RSPCA wants to have to put 
rehomeable animals to sleep, but it is a sad reality of the work that 
we do. 

Although the trend is in decline, the RSPCA sometimes has to put some 
rehomeable animals to sleep simply because they cannot be found good 
homes. While there continues to be too many animals being bred, and we 
continue to take in more animals than there are willing rehomers, we 
will continue to have this dilemma. 

This is not unique to the RSPCA, and many animal charities are forced 
to make hard decisions like this. 

All euthanasia decisions are made by a veterinary surgeon in the best 
interests of the individual animal. The vet does - and should - take 
into account how much that animal's previous mistreatment means it is 
suffering, how much we can help prevent that suffering in other ways 
and whether there will be people willing to give it a home - and there 
are sadly a limited number of people who rehome a pet from us, despite 
there being thousands looking for homes. 

In October of this year Gavin Grant, CEO of the RSPCA issued a stark 
warning that animal rescue charities are being overwhelmed with 
animals in dire need, stretching them to breaking point  all at a 
time when giving to all charities is under real pressure. 

The simple fact the RSPCA, like many other animal charities, is 
stretched to breaking point. That is why we have called for emergency 
help from the nations animal lovers. 

RSPCA chief executive Gavin Grant said: The recession may be over but 
these are very dark times for its silent victims  the animals. They 
have never needed our help so desperately. Indeed we have taken 
measures to reduce bureaucracy whilst maintaining and seeking to boost 
levels of expenditure on our inspectors and front line animal welfare 
work 

Preventing cruelty and helping the animals most in need are the 
RSPCAs absolute priorities but the number of abused and abandoned 
animals is soaring. 

At the same time, we have more animal abusers to investigate, 
prosecute and hopefully prevent from hurting animals than anyone can 
remember. 

We also have this about the two ex members of staff who have gone to the 
Mail: 

Please be aware of the fact that Dawn Aubrey-Ward is a disgruntled 
former employee of the RSPCA who was subject to a disciplinary 
investigation for alleged theft of animals. She left the organisation 
with matters still pending. 

There were also police concerns drawn to the RSPCA's attention of 
irregularities relating to her possession of firearms and some welfare 
concerns regarding animals under her care during her working time for 
us 

Also please be aware that as a member of the Countryside Alliance, 
Angela Egan-Ravenscroft is part of an organisation that seeks the 
return of bloodsports and is unlikely to have a positive opinion of 
the RSPCA 

Klare Kennett 
RSPCA acting head of press


----------



## catcoonz (Aug 4, 2012)

All euthanasia decisions are made by a veterinary surgeon in the best 
interests of the individual animal. The vet does - and should - take 
into account how much that animal's previous mistreatment means it is 
suffering, how much we can help prevent that suffering in other ways 
and whether there will be people willing to give it a home - and there 
are sadly a limited number of people who rehome a pet from us, despite 
there being thousands looking for homes. 


See Rspca can say what they like.
This statement is simply not true with regards to Buzzer. It was the vet surgery who asked for a home for Buzzer and there was many offers of a home within 4 hours of the vets asking for a home for him....Rspca still pts for no reason.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

catcoonz said:


> When i was turned down by rspca the list was:
> 
> 1. I lived by a road.
> 2. i had cats already, i had 4 cats then.
> ...


Well, CC that does not surprise me, many charities, and to be honest, not just the RSPCA, will put an animal back into a kennel, or PTS rather than bend their silly rules slightly. A lady I know, lifetime dog owner, working from home, nice enclosed garden was turned down for "not being on the ground floor". In fact she lived in a BUNGALOW (yes, a bungalow). As there were FOUR steps from the garden up to her kitchen, some dopehead declared this was not a ground floor residence and the dog missed out on a fab home. It quite likely ended up being murdered.:mad2: This may have been another charity, certainly it was one of the big well-known ones.


----------



## catcoonz (Aug 4, 2012)

Thats ridiculous..... All charities need to relax rules, i know cp are changing there rules as they are full up.
Poor dog could have had a wonderful home if these stupid rules was slackened.


----------



## Ali82 (Mar 19, 2011)

The RSPCA like most if not all big organisations appear to have simply outgrown their core foundations and lost site of their goals. In my opinion they are far more interested in politics and money than animal welfare. I absolutely deplore the organisation and urge any animal lover to stop funding these dillusional idiots. 

There are thousands of smaller local rescue and welfare groups that do a great job and actually care for the wellbeing of animals that are in urgent need of support and funds that will be put to good use.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Ali82 said:


> The RSPCA like most if not all big organisations appear to have simply outgrown their core foundations and lost site of their goals. In my opinion they are far more interested in politics and money than animal welfare. I absolutely deplore the organisation and urge any animal lover to stop funding these dillusional idiots.
> 
> There are thousands of smaller local rescue and welfare groups that do a great job and actually care for the wellbeing of animals that are in urgent need of support and funds that will be put to good use.


Spot on Ali...£300k wasted on a court case to stop hunting (don't get me wrong, I'm against hunting with dogs) and they are all out on Boxing Day ...tally ho! I foster for a small local charity, the fosterers pay for the cat's food and it's been a bad year with an unprecedented intake of unwanted pets. We have even had them boarded at the vets as all the fosterers were choc-a-bloc. A couple of thousand pounds would seem like a lottery win, and unlike the RSPCA they would not waste it. They even cancelled Christmas cards this year to save a few quid. But word is getting through to people now, what with the Heythrop and the article in the Mail quoting an ex-inspector, I think their death warrant has been signed.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Updated #RSPCA statement in response to MailOnSunday inaccurate & biased report
> 
> Animal cruelty, neglect and suffering are at unprecedented levels in
> modern times.
> ...


The fact is that they steal and kill animals which have not been abused or abandoned, are not suffering or neglected. The ones which ARE abandoned and neglected don't get a visit until it is too late. RSPCA's Digital Communication's Officer Gemma Smith thought to convince people on this forum what a great job they were doing but was unable to answer direct questions. She did not stay long. Little Buzzer (whose story many PF members will have read) was offered at least two loving and permanent homes from this site. He was with a Bournemouth vet whose trainee veterinary nurse appealed for a home via this site. We therefore assumed that her employer thought this beautiful little cat was rehomeable. He was found a permanent home within about twelve hours. The RSPCA took him and killed him despite omes being offered. So the RSPCA vet did NOT think him rehomeable, whereas the Bournemouth vet did? Buzzer, for those of you who were not in on the "case", has his own FB page ...Justice For Buzzer. He will not be forgotten.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Codiebear said:


> BUT, this article is clearly written (2 years after the fact) as the RSPCA have succesfully prosecuted a hunt group for hunting with dogs. The article even goes so far as to outright state that they are spending too much time prosecuting people and not enough looking after animals and people that really care for animals go and work for the courtyside alliance. The pro hunt/anti RSPCA agenda is clear here.
> 
> I dont like the RSPCA because I think they can do better but frankly Im insulted by this article and its clear agenda to manipulate its readers pro hunt and anti RSPCA.
> 
> Its a shame, as there is a real story here but the agenda is laid on too thick. Ironically, it seems to me, the article is not interested in the welfare of animals, just trashing the RSPCA.


Well said, this is clearly the CA spitting their dummys out because of the heythrop prosecution, they want to bring the RSPCA down so they can persecuting wildlife unabated & without risk of consequence.



Calvine said:


> Spot on Ali...£300k wasted on a court case to stop hunting (don't get me wrong, I'm against hunting with dogs) and they are all out on Boxing Day ...tally ho! I foster for a small local charity, the fosterers pay for the cat's food and it's been a bad year with an unprecedented intake of unwanted pets. We have even had them boarded at the vets as all the fosterers were choc-a-bloc. A couple of thousand pounds would seem like a lottery win, and unlike the RSPCA they would not waste it. They even cancelled Christmas cards this year to save a few quid. But word is getting through to people now, what with the Heythrop and the article in the Mail quoting an ex-inspector, I think their death warrant has been signed.


Just curious but do you think the RSPCA should have 'wasted' money prosecuting _any_ of these premeditated acts of cruelty?.. http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232729605371&mode=prd... or is it just prosecuting hunts for illegal fox hunting youre opposed to?


----------



## Codiebear (Dec 30, 2012)

Ali82 said:


> The RSPCA like most if not all big organisations appear to have simply outgrown their core foundations and lost site of their goals. In my opinion they are far more interested in politics and money than animal welfare. I absolutely deplore the organisation and urge any animal lover to stop funding these dillusional idiots.
> 
> There are thousands of smaller local rescue and welfare groups that do a great job and actually care for the wellbeing of animals that are in urgent need of support and funds that will be put to good use.


Im pretty sure they were always a politically driven organisation with law making and enforcement at their core. Campaigning for better animal welfare is what they were set up to do.

Unfortunately, in order to get more money, I feel they led people to believe that their primary focus is looking after stray, unwanted and mistreated animals. This is of course a large aspect of what they do but im pretty sure it was never a core value.

I personally am like yourself and prefer smaller charities but differ in that I also see large organisations wth power to affect change and prosecute as very important too. This should help prevent the perpetuation of animal cruetly and neglect. Unfortunately, it seems that without punishment, there often isnt a deterent. They do seem rather bloated and not able to do this very effectively though.


----------



## Codiebear (Dec 30, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Just curious but do you think the RSPCA should have 'wasted' money prosecuting _any_ of these premeditated acts of cruelty?.. http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232729605371&mode=prd... or is it just prosecuting hunts for illegal fox hunting youre opposed to?


Ah yes, I remember the case about the cat on page 16 in the news and personally am thankfull that there is an organastion with the resources to investigate and prosecute.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Calvine said:


> The fact is that they steal and kill animals which have not been abused or abandoned, are not suffering or neglected. The ones which ARE abandoned and neglected don't get a visit until it is too late. RSPCA's Digital Communication's Officer Gemma Smith thought to convince people on this forum what a great job they were doing but was unable to answer direct questions. She did not stay long. Little Buzzer (whose story many PF members will have read) was offered at least two loving and permanent homes from this site. He was with a Bournemouth vet whose trainee veterinary nurse appealed for a home via this site. We therefore assumed that her employer thought this beautiful little cat was rehomeable. He was found a permanent home within about twelve hours. The RSPCA took him and killed him despite omes being offered. So the RSPCA vet did NOT think him rehomeable, whereas the Bournemouth vet did? Buzzer, for those of you who were not in on the "case", has his own FB page ...Justice For Buzzer. He will not be forgotten.


& ive criticized them myself for the many things they Dont do, should or shouldnt do, but when they prosecute fox hunters, badger baiters, sickos who microwave kittens, then they have my utmost praise!

Without the RSPCA there is No deterrant for psychos who get their kicks brutalising animals...so i personally would rather have them then not.

,,


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Codiebear said:


> Ah yes, I remember the case about the cat on page 16 in the news and personally am thankfull that there is an organastion with the resources to investigate and prosecute.


So am I Codiebear, no one should be allowed to get away with inflicting horrific acts of cruelty on defenceless animals.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

But why do the RSPCA have to bring private prosecutions and pay for them? Animals are protected from cruelty and suffering by our animal welfare laws. Why arent these people prosecuted by the police and RSPCA appear as expert witnesses?????????????


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Ang2 said:


> But why do the RSPCA have to bring private prosecutions and pay for them? Animals are protected from cruelty and suffering by our animal welfare laws. Why arent these people prosecuted by the police and RSPCA appear as expert witnesses?????????????


Because often the police/CPS dont have the resourses.


----------



## Codiebear (Dec 30, 2012)

Ang2 said:


> But why do the RSPCA have to bring private prosecutions and pay for them? Animals are protected from cruelty and suffering by our animal welfare laws. Why arent these people prosecuted by the police and RSPCA appear as expert witnesses?????????????


I would be very happy for it to come out of public coffers rather than relying on donations too but it would be low priority for these organisations so wouldnt be investigated and prosecuted.

Perhaps that would be the answer, provide funding for the prosecution of these cases via the police/cps/tax system and use the RSPCA as expert knowledge. You would get better regulation then, but I would speculate that the funding line would be one of the first to be cut and it would become even more slow and bloated than it already is anyway.

I think it is a case of damned if you do and damned if you dont.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Updated #RSPCA statement in response to MailOnSunday inaccurate & biased report
> 
> Animal cruelty, neglect and suffering are at unprecedented levels in
> modern times.
> ...


I cannot find this article anywhere...does anyone have a link to it please? Either post or PM. Thank you.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Ang2 said:


> But why do the RSPCA have to bring private prosecutions and pay for them? Animals are protected from cruelty and suffering by our animal welfare laws. Why arent these people prosecuted by the police and RSPCA appear as expert witnesses?????????????


Its the judge who should be getting the flack for the costs incurred by the RSPCA for prosecuting the hunt Ang, this chap has summed it up pretty well

Short of turning up at court in a red coat and wielding a whip, district judge Tim Pattinson could not have made it more obvious that he thinks parliament was wrong to ban the setting of dogs on to wild animals for "sport" (Cameron's old hunt fined £4,000 after RSPCA brings landmark prosecution, 18 December). The judge not only launched an outrageous attack on the RSPCA for achieving a successful corporate prosecution of the gang of criminal animal abusers known as the Heythrop hunt, but he also turned down the request for reasonable costs  castigating the society for spending £330,000 bringing these well-heeled members of the "Chipping Norton set" to justice.

The judge also failed to praise the local voluntary and mostly elderly hunt monitors who as private citizens, at their own cost, in their own vehicles and using their own cameras, captured the evidence of hunt members breaking the law. In 2008, the Thames Valley and Gloucestershire police viewed the monitors' evidence and submitted a case to the CPS, which then charged the huntsman of the Heythrop with three charges of illegal hunting. The charges were inexplicably dropped. Clearly the hunters thereafter considered themselves virtually immune from prosecution, but the monitors continued to collect evidence of the hunt chasing and killing foxes and submitted it to the RSPCA  hence the subsequent launch earlier this year of 48 charges of illegal hunting of foxes in breach of the Hunting Act 2004.

The simple fact is that the RSPCA Act 1932 empowers the RSPCA to prosecute criminal offences of cruelty to animals. Over the years they have brought low-life cock-fighters, badger-baiters and dog-fighters to justice. In 1997 the House of Commons voted by 411 votes to 151 to outlaw bloodsports such as fox hunting, and although Tony Blair (as he has since boasted in his autobiography) managed to delay and eventually water down the bill, it finally became law in February 2005.

It is a disgrace that an animal welfare charity should have to prosecute breaches of state law. After all, we don't expect the NSPCC to prosecute child cruelty cases or Age UK to prosecute the mugging of pensioners. 
John Bryant
Tonbridge, K

Letters: Hunting the hunters shouldn't be the RSPCA's job | UK news | The Guardian



Calvine said:


> I cannot find this article anywhere...does anyone have a link to it please? Either post or PM. Thank you.


The RSPCA have released it on Twitter Calvine


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Ang2: they do not have to use private lawyers: they could (but do not) use the Crown Prosecution Service. If people are breaking the law by hunting with dogs, CPS will take on the case.. and probably win. But RSPCA prefers to use its overpriced (£175 an hour) lawyers totting up a total of £300k as they do not care about wasting public donations. If they lose, so what, it is donated money that has gone down the pan.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Its the judge who should be getting the flack for the costs incurred by the RSPCA for prosecuting the hunt Ang, this chap has summed it up pretty well
> 
> Short of turning up at court in a red coat and wielding a whip, district judge Tim Pattinson could not have made it more obvious that he thinks parliament was wrong to ban the setting of dogs on to wild animals for "sport" (Cameron's old hunt fined £4,000 after RSPCA brings landmark prosecution, 18 December). The judge not only launched an outrageous attack on the RSPCA for achieving a successful corporate prosecution of the gang of criminal animal abusers known as the Heythrop hunt, but he also turned down the request for reasonable costs  castigating the society for spending £330,000 bringing these well-heeled members of the "Chipping Norton set" to justice.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the information but I do not waste my time on Twitter...this is not in a national paper then? I did not think it would be strangely enough.:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Calvine said:


> Ang2: they do not have to use private lawyers: they could (but do not) use the Crown Prosecution Service. If people are breaking the law by hunting with dogs, CPS will take on the case.. and probably win. But RSPCA prefers to use its overpriced (£175 an hour) lawyers totting up a total of £300k as they do not care about wasting public donations. If they lose, so what, it is donated money that has gone down the pan.


And you know for certain the CPS will take on all cases of illegal hunting with dogs do you?

do you think the police have the will or the resourses to investigate crimes like this.... Badger rescued after sett

Back to the heythrop hunt, the case was clear cut, they had video evidence so were pretty sure they would get the prosecution...no doubt they expected the judge would do the right thing and instruct the hunt to pay the costs...he chose not to....what are your thoughts on that?



Calvine said:


> Thank you for the information but I do not waste my time on Twitter...this is not in a national paper then? I did not think it would be strangely enough.:


& I do not waste my time reading the Daily Fail but hey ho! lol

.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> And you know for certain the CPS will take on all cases of illegal hunting with dogs do you?
> 
> do you think the police have the will or the resourses to investigate crimes like this.... Badger rescued after sett
> 
> ...


 Neither do I (read the Mail...ever) but saw the article quoted here on this Forum. Not sure who on the Forum does read the Mail but it looked interesting so I checked it out...as one does. Why would the CPS not take on a case which was obviously in breach of the law? I thought that was what they were there for.


----------



## Codiebear (Dec 30, 2012)

Calvine said:


> Why would the CPS not take on a case which was obviously in breach of the law? I thought that was what they were there for.


because of the financial risk vs reputational risk vs probability of a successful prosecution.

Essentially, as everything does, it comes back to politics. The RSPCA's job is protect the welfare of animals, they sometimes get criticised for how much they spend on enforcing the law and protecting the welfare of animals. The CPS's job is to protect the welfare all of society - that's a pretty big remit. Can you imagine the criticism they would have got for spending money on a case like this vs pursueing serious criminals who do serious harm to humans rather than animals?

It would be very seriously questioned why money was being spent prevent animal murder/blood sports when people might be getting away with human murder etc for the want of resources that is being spent on protecting animals.

It always comes back to resource distribution which always come back to politics.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

In the aftermath of the RSPCA's successful private prosecution of the Cotswolds' Heythrop Hunt  which saw an entire hunt charged, for the first time, and two prominent members also fined  the charity has come in for quite a drubbing. It is time, then, for a show of support.
First come accusations of political motivation, on account of the Heythrop being David Cameron's local hunt and the Government having backed off from the Tory-promised free vote on a repeal of the ban. The RSPCA denies the allegation, claiming  entirely reasonably  that the hundreds of hours of video footage constituted compelling evidence of illegal hunting with dogs. On several counts, the court agreed. Moreover, the charge of playing politics is one that cuts both ways; after all, one of the fined Heythrop huntsmen is now considering taking the matter to the Prime Minister, in the latter's role as local MP.

But the censure does not end there. The charity has also been sharply criticised on the grounds of cost. Indeed, no less a figure than the presiding judge himself (rather ill-advisedly) described the RSPCA's £330,000 outlay on the case as "staggering".

*Why, the argument runs, should donations made by the public for the purposes of ensuring animal welfare be used to pursue high-profile law suits? Why, indeed. After all, the hunting ban has been in place for nearly eight years now. It should hardly need a private prosecution to enforce the legislation. Yet the RSPCA's recent success can only suggest that, whether from lack of resources or lack of interest, traditional enforcement channels are not proving wholly effective.

The simple fact is that the Heythrop Hunt has been breaking the law. No amount of smearing or sneering will change that. Full marks to the RSPCA.*

Editorial: A hunt chasing the wrong fox - Editorials - Voices - The Independent


----------

