# MP Calls for reforms in RSPCA Policies



## Guest

*Highlights of front page leader from "Our Dogs" 3rd Ocotber 2008*

_The RSPCA came under attack again last week, following a BBC Radio 4's File on 4 programme which questioned certain ethics followed by the Society when dealing with alleged acts of cruelty.

The programme, aired on Tuesday September 23rd, questioned many aspects of the RSPCA's codes of practice, and included an interview with an MP, barristers, as well as the RSPCA's Prosecution Case Manager Phil Wilson, and Chief Officer Phil Wass.

The question put to the panel was based on fears that many feel that the RSPCA is too zealous in its prosecutions …………. there are critics who believe that pet owners are becoming victims of allegedly overzealous investigations and prosecutions.

According to barrister Nick Tucker, if a recent case had succeeded, every child who did not take their sick pet to the vet could have been prosecuted. He says this was the implication in the case of a 15 year old girl who found herself n court after following her father's advice not to take her injured pet cat to the vet. The girl found her cat had a damaged tail; her father suggested waiting a couple of days to see if the wound healed. The RSPCA prosecuted the father - who admitted an offence of neglect - only to see his daughter later accused of the same offence, with the RSPCA saying she had a duty of care to the cat. The case was rejected but the RSPCA took it to the Court of Appeal, which rejected the case.

Phil Wilson made no apologies when asked about this case by the programmes presenter ……………….

Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead, also appeared on the show to speak of his fury at the recent prosecution of a 71 year old woman in his constituency who ran an animal shelter. Mr Field, who backed the woman on court, told File on 4 that the animals she looked after "lived the life of Riley" in her care …………. The pensioner had done a lot of good for animals over the years and he had witnessed this at first hand. "The whole thing makes my blood boil, it is so unjust," he added. He also said that her case was not uncommon. "We need organisations like the RSPCA to properly protect and promote animal welfare and this isn't the way to do it."

Mr Field said RSPCA members needed to put pressure on its council for a change in policy, otherwise it ought to face an external inquiry. ……………. The MP's concerns were echoed by barrister Jonathan Rich who said he was very troubled by the sort of defendants who were becoming typical of RSPCA prosecutions._


----------



## Public Opinion

Unfourtunately the RSPCA seem to have lost track of what they were originally formed to do, their prosecutions department seem more interested in generating publicity at any cost, some of the cases where they have prosecuted recently are more than dubious. They seem to totally ignore animal lovers where a fast £ can be made through donations generated by media exposure.
The RSPCA are calling for pets to not be sold in petshops ! Schools not to keep animals ! Go around killing holy cows ! prosecuting pensioners, the disabled, elderly and School Children (the more high profile the case the more revenue from media coverage)
To cap this they are one of the richest charities in the UK, yet still ask for our money when they have over £100 million in assets, they then spend it prosecuting some unfourtunate 15 year old cat lover !
They totally flout and ignore the law of the land where it suits them, basically impersonate Police Officers and will trespass at will whenever it suits them.
The should be stopped from mounting prosecutions due to the conflict of interest, or at least ought to be controlled by the CPS or some other safegaurd to ensure fair process.


----------



## alison

> prosecuting pensioners, the disabled, elderly


The above should be exempted from prosecution because.....?


----------



## Guest

alison said:


> The above should be exempted from prosecution because.....?


The RSPCA go for these cases because they are easy targets. It's much easier to prosecute a 15 year old girl for doing what her dad told her to do, or a 71 year old woman who has cared for dogs all her life, than go after real criminals such as puppy farmers. These are cases that are not really cases in the first place and are getting thrown out of courts so often the RSPCA is becoming a laughing stock - but really it is no laughing matter. There ought to be a public enquiry into all the money the RSPCA waste on spurious cases. It is, after all, money donated for them to stop cruelty to animals, not to persue non-cruelty cases through courts and appeal courts.


----------



## alison

If an older person neglects an animal charges should be brought. It surely does not matter how long they have cared for dogs in the past.

I havent killed anyone yet but should i decided to do so when im 70 (if i live that long!) should i be let off because for years I was didnt kill anyone? Of course not. 


The RSPCA spent 8 million last year on cases so im told. Very rarely do we hear of a case wrongly brought which means for all your slating, the RSPCA are doing something.


----------



## Guest

alison said:


> The RSPCA spent 8 million last year on cases so im told. Very rarely do we hear of a case wrongly brought which means for all your slating, the RSPCA are doing something.


I beg to differ. There are several cases in the press every week about spurious cases brought by the RSPCA, and legal costs are expensive.

Are you now trying to argue that the media can sometimes be wrong? In that case, can I ask you to look at Pedigree Dogs Exposed with that attitude?

Or are you trying to argue that the RSPCA sometimes get it wrong but mainly they get it right? In that case can I ask you to look at the Kennel Club with that attitude?

This £8 million is public money donated to them on the undertsanding that they use it to help animals and they are wasting it instead of targetting true abusers of animals. I would have thought that someone as interested in the welfare of animals as yourself would be wanting to investigate this rather than sweep it under the carpet.


----------



## Public Opinion

The RSPCA are targeting these people because its more sensational in the media, I agree that being old, disabled or a child is not a get out of jail free card, and if they are causing suffering or cruelty they SHOULD be prosecuted, if you take a look at the cases that are refered to, in every case, there was no real reason to mount a prosecution on the grounds of cruelty or neglect.
So why would the RSPCA do this ? PUBLICITY.
The RSPCA have a conflict of interest when it comes to prosecutions, they get loads of publicity and make loads of money from donations, the more severe the case is portrayed the more donations, hence pensioners, disabled, children etc will generate more revenue.

Oh, and have you seen the sexual harrasement and bullying case the RSPCA have just spent £30K setteling with an ex Inspector ? take a look at 
Time for a review of Animal Charity's Bullyboy Tactics ?


----------



## moonstone

As someone who was on the receiving end of a "visit" from the lovely RSPCA (i realise this is an old thread but felt compelled to reply)I can relate to the wish for reforms within this organisation
I was bulliedarrested???was imprisoned in a Police Car for six hourshad them force their way into my home and my pets removed
My "crime" was to befriend the local nutcase who when told her friendship was no longer required got her own back by reporting me and making up ridiculous accounts of cruelty which i was supposed to have meted out to my beloved animals:mad5: any sane individual would have seen through her lies and indeed she is well known in this area (and various others) for reporting anyone who upsets her BUT not RSPCAthey took her at her word and raided me:frown2:this was after she had been visited herself and was going to be charged with cruelty(she is CRUEL)this helped to get her off any charges that were going to be brought against her as she claimed that all the pets she had had been "rescued" from me they even ruummaged through my fridge as the nutcase had claimed that i was storing and selling illegal anti-bioticssomething she was actually doing:mad5:
I got my pets back again (they were returned the next day ) but they shouldn't have been take in the first place
RSPCA need to be looked in to and soon they are NOT using funding given by the general piblic to help animals but to prosecute caring owners who do love their pets and so are an easy target for themand to povide lavish new offices for themselves including upmarket cars
They should get back to doing waht they were meant to do and that is looking after animals.


----------



## Lyceum

alison said:


> The RSPCA spent 8 million last year on cases so im told. Very rarely do we hear of a case wrongly brought which means for all your slating, the RSPCA are doing something.


So, lets say they spent 8mil on cases. According to their trustees report last year They made 41million in donations, have 90million in investments, and 47.9 million in reserves. So, 178.9mil in total for that year.....The 8million spent on cases looks a tad pathetic now. I would bet they spent more than that on advertising.

And they still felt the need to euthanise 61,000 animals. Why? Not like they didn't have the cash to take care of them. They rehomed 90,000.

IMO the RSPCA have long since stopped being a charity, they are a business, they are out to make cash. The trustees are far more concerned with their profit margins than they are with saving animals.

I myself have contacted them a total of four times about severely injured or abused animals, they have been as much use as a chocolate fire guard on every occasion. Sadly I don't have a BBC camera crew to film them doing all the great work they do.


----------



## moonstone

ExactlyI have three cats here from RSPCA (I foster for a local rescue who takes in cruelty cases) the rescue "rescues" them from RSPCA as they would PTS if the animals are left with them so if they no longer deal with strays (or wildlife) what exatly are they doing
Donations are given to them because the general public believe that this money goes towards helping unwanted pets NOT TRUE:frown2:
They will prosecute "easy" targets ie pet owners on a flimsy excuse:frown2: yet turn a blind eye to real cruelty
I am following a thread now were horses are being starved and left in horrrific conditions BUT they will do nothing to save themthey are fully aware of what is happening yet refuse to rescue the poor horses WHY NOT???
No doubt when someone else manages to get the horses to safety they will appear and claim that they have saved them so cough up all you mugs with lots of donations for their cause:mad5:
It's a poor show when the person i foster for has to take on their rescues as they would be killed if left in their care this rescue has to fund all the animals in their care themselves i see them frantically trying to fundraise when RSPCA sit back on their billions profitand YES they are now run as a ""buisness" and have to show a profit at the end of the yearthey don't care about animals nowjust funding


----------

