# RSPCA officials to report to Charity Officials



## Hunters (12 January 2013)

What thoroughly good news I've heard this morning, according to The Telegraph, the RSPCA are being called to explain their recent bill of over £300,000 spent prosecuting the Hethrop Hunt to the 'Charity Watchdogs'

I do hope that they are not a 'toothless' watchdog ?!


----------



## L&M (12 January 2013)

At least it is a move in the right direction, and may make them think twice about wasting so much money on future cases.......


----------



## Dobiegirl (12 January 2013)

Crikey things are not going well for the good old RSPCA, dont forget the Defra report hasnt come out yet about the 46 sheep that died at Ramsgate, could the writing be on the wall


----------



## Cahill (12 January 2013)

could they not have used all that money from the hunt case to set up a scheme to neuter dog like staffies in inner cities or something similar?i think that would have tons more benefit.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (12 January 2013)

Don't worry too much. The money came from a special appeal to fund prosecutions and the board had already sanctioned the use of what was 6.5 % of its annual funding for prosecutions, so I doubt the Charity Commision will have any issue with that.

What you should be concerned about is why Judge Tim Pattinson's motives were for criticising the costs and why the fines were so low. Is he a part of the Chipping Norton set or perhaps his interests lie in country pursuits, I don't know but it does seem odd that he take the time to calculate the costs, when no other case would be criticised this way.

This was the first time a hunt rather than individuals have been taken to court and as such was a landmark case.

When David Cameron throws his weight behind his favourite hunt in Oxfordshire, one wonders about an Oxford judge.


----------



## JanetGeorge (12 January 2013)

horserider said:



			What you should be concerned about is why Judge Tim Pattinson's motives were for criticising the costs and why the fines were so low. Is he a part of the Chipping Norton set or perhaps his interests lie in country pursuits, I don't know but it does seem odd that he take the time to calculate the costs, when no other case would be criticised this way.
		
Click to expand...

No Judge with any demonstrable interests in country sports would take on a case like that!  If they'd been so much as seen at a Boxing Day Meet, it would be reported!

And calculating the costs of a case is normal!  Particularly when costs can be awarded either against the guilty party - or against the public purse.  And if they are exceptionally high in relation to the 'seriousness' of the offence, a Judge can and will criticise it!


----------



## MerrySherryRider (12 January 2013)

No, its not normal for a judge to criticise the costs and I guess how serious you consider an organisation wilfully breaking the law, depends on your political views.

It is disgraceful that a charity is left to uphold the law rather than the CPS. We either live in a country where we follow the law or we don't. Picking and choosing is not optional.

It is also disgraceful that the hunts illegal activity causes such expense to be necessary. They should hang their heads in shame, though arrogance and humility are rarely good bedfellows.


----------



## Star_Chaser (12 January 2013)

Its good for any charity to have to answer for their spending habits.  I would still like to see the RSPCA have to prove that each donation is going to where the donor intended it to go.


----------



## VOM (12 January 2013)

Cranky mood alert.

I'm so bloody sick of reading about the RSPCA, please go concentrate on proper cruelty not political prosecution. Quite frankly I don't give a monkies if a hunt, through a hounds natural and inbuilt instinct ends up breakng the law, I do however care about genuine animal cruelty and abuse. 

Ahhhhhh.


----------



## Alec Swan (12 January 2013)

What I *still* see as the real injustice to this case,  is the disgraceful approach of a charity,  who whilst prepared to squander unthinkable costs,  effectively bought a guilty plea,  because the accused couldn't run the risk of losing their case.  

This has nothing to do with justice,  and everything to do a careless and wilful approach to waisting public donations.  Prosecutions should not be brought by a society which relies upon fund raising through donations.  Prosecutions should be brought by the appropriate Authority who will consider the vital question, "Is this really in the public interest?". 

It will be interesting to see just what approach is taken and from a body,  The Charities Commission,  who supposedly have no political agenda.

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (12 January 2013)

horserider said:



			No, its not normal for a judge to criticise the costs and I guess how serious you consider an organisation wilfully breaking the law, depends on your political views.

It is disgraceful that a charity is left to uphold the law rather than the CPS. We either live in a country where we follow the law or we don't. Picking and choosing is not optional.

It is also disgraceful that the hunts illegal activity causes such expense to be necessary. They should hang their heads in shame, though arrogance and humility are rarely good bedfellows.
		
Click to expand...

A charity is NOT left to uphold the law!  IF POWA (the anti-hunt group who put together the 'evidence') had taken this 'evidence' to the police and made a complaint about alleged law-breaking, then the police would have HAD to investigate it and hand the information and evidence to CPS.  The CPS then makes a decision on whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute successfully!

The video 'evidence' was NOT handled that way (possibly at least partly because POWA knew it wasn't solid enough to result in a prosecution!)  It was given to the RSPCA because they KNEW the RSPCA would want to 'use' the case for PR purposes.  There was a huge amount of media coverage before the case got to court - even if the case had failed, the RSPCA would have been quids in in terms of column inches!  A 'not guilty' verdict would have achieved far fewer column inches!

The RSPCA was happy to run up the costs to try to ensure the case would be successful - and no doubt to ensure the hunt and its members would not DARE fight it.  The RSPCA is often awarded ALL their costs from either the victim (whoops - guilty party) or from the public purse (you and me!)  IF the Heythrop and the individuals charged had fought the case to the end, chances are it would have cost THEM at least £100,000 for defence costs as well as the risk that they would be expected to pay the RSPCA's costs!


----------



## Alec Swan (12 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			A charity is NOT left to uphold the law!  IF POWA (the anti-hunt group who put together the 'evidence') had taken this 'evidence' to the police and made a complaint about alleged law-breaking, then the police would have HAD to investigate it and hand the information and evidence to CPS.  The CPS then makes a decision on whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute successfully!

The video 'evidence' was NOT handled that way (possibly at least partly because POWA knew it wasn't solid enough to result in a prosecution!)  It was given to the RSPCA because they KNEW the RSPCA would want to 'use' the case for PR purposes.  There was a huge amount of media coverage before the case got to court - even if the case had failed, the RSPCA would have been quids in in terms of column inches!  A 'not guilty' verdict would have achieved far fewer column inches!

The RSPCA was happy to run up the costs to try to ensure the case would be successful - and no doubt to ensure the hunt and its members would not DARE fight it.  The RSPCA is often awarded ALL their costs from either the victim (whoops - guilty party) or from the public purse (you and me!)  IF the Heythrop and the individuals charged had fought the case to the end, chances are it would have cost THEM at least £100,000 for defence costs as well as the risk that they would be expected to pay the RSPCA's costs!
		
Click to expand...

Which neatly,  and certainly in a more detailed and clearer manner,  sums up my argument,  and my bitterness towards a system which has nothing to do with justice.

Well said Mrs. George.

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (12 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Which neatly,  and certainly in a more detailed and clearer manner,  sums up my argument,  and my bitterness towards a system which has nothing to do with justice.

Well said Mrs. George.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you Alec 

And - in case anyone says that it's only the RSPCA, LACS etc who bring prosecutions under the Hunting Act 2004, Ministry of Justice figures indicate that between 2005 and 2010, a total of 332 people have been prosecuted under the Hunting Act 2004, and 239 have been found guilty. Eight of the 239 convictions involve employees of registered hunts, involving five separate hunts.  The vast majority of the successful prosecutions were taken by the CPS!


----------



## Alec Swan (12 January 2013)

Thinking about this question further,  I'm now wondering just what the Charities Commission can do.  However;

I suppose that there could be a question mark over the rspca's "Status" as a charity.  Are Charitiesrolleyes becoming ever more like amateur sportsmen,  in that they flout the regulations with impunity?  Can the C_C actually achieve any meaningful progress?  

I wonder if there are restrictions upon a charitable claim,  or a claim of status.  Apart from viewing the rspca and the lacs as being being at complete antitheses to their stated stances,  and attempting to expose their corrupted and distorted claims,  I wonder what else can be done.

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (12 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Thinking about this question further,  I'm now wondering just what the Charities Commission can do.
		
Click to expand...

The Charity Commission can do a great deal - IF there is a substantial 'case' of a charity not meeting its charitable objectives or breaking any of its own 'rules' - or any of the 'rules' for charities.

Some years ago the Charity Commission DID act against the RSPCA by removing its trustees and chief exec.

What it won't do is ALLOW the RSPCA to give up its charitable status (not that the RSPCA would want to!) NOR drop its Royal patronage and become the SPCA!  If the Trustees decided to do either of these things, or to make a substantial donation to a political party, OR start putting animals before humans (i.e. campaigning to stop animal experimentation that benefits humans) then the Charity Commission could 'take control' of the RSPCA and put in a new management team to get it back on the straight and  narrow!!  It would have to be an extreme breach - and one which the Trustees refused to rectify!


----------



## Herne (12 January 2013)

horserider said:



			What you should be concerned about is why Judge Tim Pattinson's motives were for criticising the costs and why the fines were so low.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory, but the fines were what you consider "low" because that is what the Hunting Act 2004 specifies.

The maximum penalty under the Law is a £5,000 fine - and therefore the fines are very likely to be less than that in most cases.

As for the judge commenting about a charity spending 60 times the amount of the maximum fine on prosecuting a non-recordable offence that the CPS wouldn't take - well, if you think that that is surprising, you are extremely naive. The judiciary take a dim view of people trying to use the courts to make political points...


----------



## Alec Swan (12 January 2013)

Herne said:



			.......

The maximum penalty under the Law is a £5,000 fine - and therefore the fines are very likely to be less than that in most cases.

........
		
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that a Court cannot impose any more in the way of costs,  upon a guilty party,  than the amount imposed as a fine,  so if what you're saying is correct,  and that £5k was the maximum permitted fine,  then that makes the thought of £300k even more astounding,  considering that restitution couldn't be demanded.

Am I missing something here?

Alec.


----------



## Hunters (12 January 2013)

The whole £300,000 costs for a £4k fine astounds me. The RSPCA  needs to be accountable!


----------



## Herne (13 January 2013)

Hunters said:



			The whole £300,000 costs for a £4k fine astounds me.
		
Click to expand...

And don't forget, this was *before* the case even went to Court.

The huntsman was a working man probably on around the basic agricultural wage, the other guy was a local farmer. How the hell were they supposed to be able to fight a fair trial against the vast amount of money that the RSPCA were wasting on it. 

Small wonder that they decided to do a plea bargain - but hardly fair to intimidate people into being afraid to defend themselves for fear of ridiculous costs. 

Justice? Pah!


----------



## Countryman (13 January 2013)

Herne is right, I think they just didn't have the money to fight the prosecution. I'm fairly sure they'd have won-all the videos that led to their conviction are on YouTube and I didn't see any proof of them intentionally hunting a wild mammal-but like Herne says, they simply couldn't afford to fight it.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 January 2013)

Herne said:



			.......

Small wonder that they decided to do a plea bargain - but hardly fair to intimidate people into being afraid to defend themselves for fear of ridiculous costs. 

Justice? Pah!
		
Click to expand...

My argument seems to be gaining momentum.

I had a man owed me a great deal of money.  When I pressed him for payment his solicitor advised me that his client had full insurance to cover *any* legal costs,  which surprised me,  but none the less,  I pressed ahead.  When his solicitor then offered perjured evidence,  which involved his family as witnesses,  there was no point in continuing,  so like the Heythrop bods,  I gave up.  

As you say Herne,  it isn't justice.

Alec.


----------



## Hunters (13 January 2013)

The RSPCA should behave like professionals, as in the doctors in our hospitals who do not pass comment or are political.

The point I'm trying to make, is that, they are there to care for injured or abandoned animals etc, not become politically motivated judge & jury?


----------



## Moomin1 (13 January 2013)

Cahill said:



			could they not have used all that money from the hunt case to set up a scheme to neuter dog like staffies in inner cities or something similar?i think that would have tons more benefit.
		
Click to expand...

They already do that.  Hundreds and hundreds of neutering vouchers are issued for all sorts of animals.  There are also community action weeks where officers spend a whole week targeting certain streets in certain areas which are known to be less fortunate, microchipping, giving neutering vouchers, defleaing and also handing out vouchers to pay for veterinary treatment.

Of course, it's down to the owner to take the voucher with the animal to the vet for neutering or treatment, and some are less than 'active' in their approach to this.


----------



## Luci07 (13 January 2013)

horserider said:



			Don't worry too much. The money came from a special appeal to fund prosecutions and the board had already sanctioned the use of what was 6.5 % of its annual funding for prosecutions, so I doubt the Charity Commision will have any issue with that.

:
		
Click to expand...

anyone else feel extremely uncomfortable with that statement? Special appeal? board sanctions? this does feel rather big brotherish (as in the Orwell sense before anyone comments)

So, lets see, the central organisation do not fund the branches, they do not fund the prosecutions

So how DO they spend their money?


----------



## Alec Swan (14 January 2013)

The whole point about the Crown Prosecution Service being responsible for all prosecutions is that,  as a body,  they will act in an impartial and balanced manner,  and their only interest will be,  the furtherance of justice.  

The CPS is directed by a team of legal minds and those with a thought for justice,  and the rspca isn't.  Allowing a body which purports to be a charity,  and has a hugely disproportionate agenda,  such freedom,  is highly irresponsible.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (14 January 2013)

I_shot_Santa said:



			The whole point about the Crown Prosecution Service being responsible for all prosecutions is that,  as a body,  they will act in an impartial and balanced manner,  and their only interest will be,  the furtherance of justice.  

The CPS is directed by a team of legal minds and those with a thought for justice,  and the rspca isn't.  Allowing a body which purports to be a charity,  and has a hugely disproportionate agenda,  such freedom,  is highly irresponsible.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec, with all due respect, you are suggesting that the fact the RSPCA 'may' be biased or politically motivated, that that will have an effect the outcome of a prosecution brought about by the RSPCA.  Just to point out to you, though I am sure you are already aware of this, that it is purely down to a magistrate to make any sentence on the basis of a guilty finding.  The RSPCA have no power to find anybody guilty or not guilty.  They merely bring about private prosecutions based on independant vets' opinions of whether an animal is suffering or likely to suffer if it is not removed or circumstances change.


----------



## Hunters (14 January 2013)

With respect, the RSPCA ARE politically motivated. The new chairman has made no secret of that!

I for one, do not believe that members of the public will support a group that spends a huge amount of money on a political agenda.


----------



## Hunters (15 January 2013)

I have now heard that Simon Hart is to bring the whole RSPCA debate to the House of Commons with backing from Michael Heseltine


----------



## MillyMoomie (15 January 2013)

Alec Swan I find it laughable that you state that the accused including the hunt itself I may add had to plead guilty because they couldn't afford to defend themselves??!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!! 
Have you forgotten innocent until proven guilty? The fact that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutors not the defense....in laymans terms the accuser has to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed an offence. Lets also point out that the RSPCA don't decide if someone is guilty or not, they merely present the evidence as a private prosecutor that specialises in animal welfare with a significantly higher success rate than the cps. The defendants pleaded guilty even before a trial. Did not even argue. The evidence must have been unquestionable. They broke the law and were caught red handed. You cannot pick and choose what laws you want to uphold. But then something told me you  already knew all that Alec?


----------



## Alec Swan (15 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Alec, with all due respect, .......
		
Click to expand...




MillyMoomie said:



			Alec Swan I find it laughable that you state that the accused including the hunt itself I may add had to plead guilty because they couldn't afford to defend themselves??!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!! 

.......
		
Click to expand...

Might I suggest that both of you actually return to those posts of mine which you've elected to misread,  and give them further thought?  Were you to read my words,  and then consider them,  *as I have yours*,  then you may be in a position to reconsider your stance. 

Alec.


----------



## MillyMoomie (15 January 2013)

Alec Swan I am happy to be proven wrong if you would kindly re-paste where I have misinterpreted or misread.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Alec Swan I am happy to be proven wrong if you would kindly re-paste where I have misinterpreted or misread.
		
Click to expand...

With the most minimal posts,  you seem to seek-out argument.  You will find none here.   

Alec.


----------



## MillyMoomie (15 January 2013)

Alec I beg to differ. I merely state facts. No opinions, no arguements.
Perhaps it is you who needs "misinterprets" what I have written. Does your sense of justice not allow for a stranger to simply provide information for others to read? !!


----------



## Alec Swan (15 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Alec Swan I find it laughable that you state that the accused including the hunt itself I may add had to plead guilty because they couldn't afford to defend themselves??!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!
		
Click to expand...




Alec Swan said:



			With the most minimal posts,  you seem to seek-out argument.  You will find none here.   

Alec.
		
Click to expand...




MillyMoomie said:



			Alec I beg to differ. I merely state facts. No opinions, no arguements.
Perhaps it is you who needs "misinterprets" what I have written. Does your sense of justice not allow for a stranger to simply provide information for others to read? !!
		
Click to expand...



Alec.


----------



## MillyMoomie (15 January 2013)

Thank you Alec, you nicely clarified my point.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 January 2013)

We've found common ground,  spot on. 

Alec.


----------



## Herne (16 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Have you forgotten innocent until proven guilty? The fact that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutors not the defense....in laymans terms the accuser has to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed an offence.
		
Click to expand...

What a happy little niave view of the world you have.

The reason why the CPS did not bring the proseutions itself was that the level of evidence was insufficient. If the CPS won't take the case, that itself should demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt.

The second point is that the initial trial will be in a magistrates or county court - and, as has already been demonstrated many times, such courts are very capable of making incorrect judements that then have to be overturned on appeal.

When we get the antis trying to bamboozle courts with supposed "evidence" like university profressors swearing under oath that they can tell from the sound what quarry hounds are hunting in a piece of film - something that very few, if any, hunting people would claim - then you can understand why the Courts do get confused.

So these people have to take the risk of a mis-judgement over inadequate evidence, resulting them facing costs, the only way of avoiding which is to take the case to appeal in a higher court - thus incurring yet more costs, and again running the risk that they might lose and have to go to the Supreme Court at yet more expense and yet more risk.

All of which for for a penalty of a few hundred quid.

If you are saying that you are surprised that people can be frightened out of such risks, when the alternative is just to cop a plea, pay a small fine and move on, then you are either being disingenuous or , as I said, extremely niave.


----------



## MillyMoomie (16 January 2013)

Herne said:



			What a happy little niave view of the world you have.

The reason why the CPS did not bring the proseutions itself was that the level of evidence was insufficient. If the CPS won't take the case, that itself should demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt.

The second point is that the initial trial will be in a magistrates or county court - and, as has already been demonstrated many times, such courts are very capable of making incorrect judements that then have to be overturned on appeal.

When we get the antis trying to bamboozle courts with supposed "evidence" like university profressors swearing under oath that they can tell from the sound what quarry hounds are hunting in a piece of film - something that very few, if any, hunting people would claim - then you can understand why the Courts do get confused.

So these people have to take the risk of a mis-judgement over inadequate evidence, resulting them facing costs, the only way of avoiding which is to take the case to appeal in a higher court - thus incurring yet more costs, and again running the risk that they might lose and have to go to the Supreme Court at yet more expense and yet more risk.

All of which for for a penalty of a few hundred quid.

If you are saying that you are surprised that people can be frightened out of such risks, when the alternative is just to cop a plea, pay a small fine and move on, then you are either being disingenuous or , as I said, extremely niave.
		
Click to expand...

With all due respect i work within the law, and am certainly not niave. rather it is you who sounds niave. 

The CPS will regularly ask what it considers the 'animal welfare experts' to proceed with these types of case. Especially since the RSPCA success rate is far higher than the CPS. The RSPCA has been bringing private prosecutions forward since it was founded.
If the level of evidence was insufficent the defendants would not have been found guilty, especially after 'a right to a fair trial'. This stands in a magistrates or any court. My orignal point of the burden of proof still stands, (beyond all reasonable doubt) BUT, lets remember the defendants pleaded guilty before even a trial. You say to avoid further costs for the sake of a few hundred quid, lets look at the fines/costs. £1000/£2000/£1,800/£2,500/£4,000/£15,000. hmmmmm i wouldnt say that was insignificant. Yet if the evidence was so ungenuine and as false as you say why wouldnt a defendant go to trial, produce his own evidence and get HIS costs back? This is after all the system.

One final point, they didnt 'cop a plea'. They pleaded guilty. Regardless of my opnions on hunting or otherwise, of which you have no idea. The excuses are pathetic and feeble and i would have much more respect of the defendants if they held their hands up and accept they were caught in the act. No pun intended.


----------



## Herne (16 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			.The CPS will regularly ask what it considers the 'animal welfare experts' to proceed with these types of case.
		
Click to expand...

And are you claiming that this is what happened in this case - or is this merely more disingenuity...?


----------



## MillyMoomie (16 January 2013)

Herne said:



			And are you claiming that this is what happened in this case - or is this merely more disingenuity...?
		
Click to expand...

'Disingenuity'.....Hmmmm not really sure why you are accusing me of being underhand or unfair. I am merely responding to your accuasation of being 'naive'

Obviously not claiming that this what happened in this case. I dont actually know. Simply pointing out that your claim that the CPS doesnt take on all animal welfare prosecutions because of a lack of evidence is not true. Qoute' The reason why the CPS did not bring the prosecution itself was that the level of evidence was insufficient, If the CPS wont take the case, that itself should demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt.' Unqoute.


----------



## Herne (16 January 2013)

The point being, however, that in this case, as I understand it, neither of these things happened. The CPS did not take it on itself and it did  not ask the RSPCA to do so, either.

Had the evidence been as "open and shut" as you seem to wish to portray, then there seems no reason for the CPS not to have done one of those two things - that is, after all, their job.

It is therefore a logical to assume that the "evidence" was ambiguous at best - and therefore it would boil down in court to an argument about the interpretation of inconclusive evidence - and in such cases, money (and the ability to hire expensive lawyers and impresive sounding "experts" that it brings) talks.

And, therefore, my point (and Alec's) is valid.


----------



## MillyMoomie (16 January 2013)

Herne said:



			The point being, however, that in this case, as I understand it, neither of these things happened. The CPS did not take it on itself and it did  not ask the RSPCA to do so, either.

Had the evidence been as "open and shut" as you seem to wish to portray, then there seems no reason for the CPS not to have done one of those two things - that is, after all, their job.

It is therefore a logical to assume that the "evidence" was ambiguous at best - and therefore it would boil down in court to an argument about the interpretation of inconclusive evidence - and in such cases, money (and the ability to hire expensive lawyers and impresive sounding "experts" that it brings) talks.

And, therefore, my point (and Alec's) is valid.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Herne but you have simply ignored everything i have written and rephrased your orginal arguement.
It does not matter one iota that the CPS didnt choose to take this case on, as i have pointed out the RSPCA is accepted as the specialist in bringing forward animal welfare private prosecutions and has been for over 100 years, therefore the RSPCA bought forward the prosecution. There is absolutely no 'logical' assumption to be made about the evidence other than that it was sufficent enough for the defendants to plead guilty BEFORE A TRIAL to a criminal offense. Your whole arguement is based on a excuse.


----------



## JanetGeorge (16 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			If the level of evidence was insufficent the defendants would not have been found guilty, especially after 'a right to a fair trial'. This stands in a magistrates or any court. My orignal point of the burden of proof still stands, (beyond all reasonable doubt) BUT, lets remember the defendants pleaded guilty before even a trial. You say to avoid further costs for the sake of a few hundred quid, lets look at the fines/costs. £1000/£2000/£1,800/£2,500/£4,000/£15,000. hmmmmm i wouldnt say that was insignificant. Yet if the evidence was so ungenuine and as false as you say why wouldnt a defendant go to trial, produce his own evidence and get HIS costs back? This is after all the system.

One final point, they didnt 'cop a plea'. They pleaded guilty. Regardless of my opnions on hunting or otherwise, of which you have no idea. The excuses are pathetic and feeble and i would have much more respect of the defendants if they held their hands up and accept they were caught in the act. No pun intended.
		
Click to expand...

If you REALLY work "within the law" (don't we all ) then you ARE naive.  Innocent people are often found guilty; and guilty people often get off!  I don't know if the trial would have been in front of a jury - but if it was - you can bet that ALL the jurors would have been - at best - ambivalent about hunting!  There would have been no-one who actually hunts on the jury!  So the jury would have started with an element of bias against the defendants.

If a case is before magistrates - or a judge - then any hunting magistrate/judge would have to stand down - but judges/magistrates with strong personal feelings against hunting would still sit on the case (unless he/she actually had a conviction for sabbing or was on the council of the LACS!)

Having seen several of the videos that were 'evidence' they certainly aren't clear-cut - so - with a little bias against hunting - they would convince a judge or a juror of the defendants' guilt.  So it could have cost the defendants collectively upwards of £0.25 million for an unsuccessful defence!  And that's without taking into account fines/prosecution costs which would have been higher if they'd fought the charges!

As for the CPS - it was NEVER given the chance to prosecute this case.  If it had been, it might - or might not have done so based on its view of whether the evidence was 'sufficient'!  But the RSPCA wouldn't have cared too much about whether it was a foregone conclusion or not - the headlines they got for prosecuting David Cameron's 'mates' was well worth it - to them!


----------



## MillyMoomie (16 January 2013)

JanetGeorge ALL your arguements whilst reasonable are beside the point!
I entirely agree many miscarriages of justice happen. Not in this case, I reiterate again, they pleaded guilty before a trial!!!! All other theory's are now fantasy. I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed.
I do not wish to keep repeating myself nor do I wish to influence others, I am happy in what I believe. Nonetheless I still think the action of pointing fingers and feeble excuses is pathetic. I would have rejoiced in a respectful and dignified heads  held high. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.


----------



## Springy (16 January 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			If you REALLY work "within the law" (don't we all ) then you ARE naive.  Innocent people are often found guilty; and guilty people often get off!  I don't know if the trial would have been in front of a jury - but if it was - you can bet that ALL the jurors would have been - at best - ambivalent about hunting!  There would have been no-one who actually hunts on the jury!  So the jury would have started with an element of bias against the defendants.

If a case is before magistrates - or a judge - then any hunting magistrate/judge would have to stand down - but judges/magistrates with strong personal feelings against hunting would still sit on the case (unless he/she actually had a conviction for sabbing or was on the council of the LACS!)

Having seen several of the videos that were 'evidence' they certainly aren't clear-cut - so - with a little bias against hunting - they would convince a judge or a juror of the defendants' guilt.  So it could have cost the defendants collectively upwards of £0.25 million for an unsuccessful defence!  And that's without taking into account fines/prosecution costs which would have been higher if they'd fought the charges!

As for the CPS - it was NEVER given the chance to prosecute this case.  If it had been, it might - or might not have done so based on its view of whether the evidence was 'sufficient'!  But the RSPCA wouldn't have cared too much about whether it was a foregone conclusion or not - the headlines they got for prosecuting David Cameron's 'mates' was well worth it - to them!
		
Click to expand...

Amen


----------



## Alec Swan (16 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			JanetGeorge ALL your arguements whilst reasonable are beside the point!
I entirely agree many miscarriages of justice happen. Not in this case, I reiterate again, they pleaded guilty before a trial!!!! All other theory's are now fantasy. I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed.
I do not wish to keep repeating myself nor do I wish to influence others, I am happy in what I believe. Nonetheless I still think the action of pointing fingers and feeble excuses is pathetic. I would have rejoiced in a respectful and dignified heads  held high. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
		
Click to expand...

You're right,  in that you are entitled to your own opinion.  Were you to consider reasoned argument though,  you may see things from a different stand point.

_"I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed"._

Would you maintain such a principled stance were you faced with the risk of such crippling costs;  Costs I would add,  of which the prosecuting body (a worthless charity),  would most certainly have made you aware?

The argument all through this thread,  has been that neither you nor I may have the spare funds to risk such a case.  The Master obviously did have,  and considering his world,  and his responsibilities,  he elected to plead guilty to a charge which others may have defended.

If the above paragraph makes no sense to you,  perhaps I can explain it in another way;  If I have have nothing to lose,  because I have nothing,  and I take to myself 3 couple of hounds,  and I hunt with them,  do you honestly think that the rspca would bother with the risk of a quarter mill costs,  for a case where they have no chance of retrieving those costs?  Well,  do you?

Alec.


----------



## MillyMoomie (16 January 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			You're right,  in that you are entitled to your own opinion.  Were you to consider reasoned argument though,  you may see things from a different stand point.

_"I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed"._

Would you maintain such a principled stance were you faced with the risk of such crippling costs;  Costs I would add,  of which the prosecuting body (a worthless charity),  would most certainly have made you aware?

The argument all through this thread,  has been that neither you nor I may have the spare funds to risk such a case.  The Master obviously did have,  and considering his world,  and his responsibilities,  he elected to plead guilty to a charge which others may have defended.

If the above paragraph makes no sense to you,  perhaps I can explain it in another way;  If I have have nothing to lose,  because I have nothing,  and I take to myself 3 couple of hounds,  and I hunt with them,  do you honestly think that the rspca would bother with the risk of a quarter mill costs,  for a case where they have no chance of retrieving those costs?  Well,  do you?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec i cannot listen to your 'reasoned argument' as it is full of unnecessary bias.Eg (worthless charity.)
Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA. 
I am beginning to enjoy this banter though.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			.......

Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA. 
.......
		
Click to expand...

I suspect that you may be alone,  with that level of logic! 

Alec.


----------



## MillyMoomie (16 January 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			I suspect that you may be alone,  with that level of logic! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Im ok with being alone. I like my logic, i feel it is on a fairly high level based on fact.


----------



## Springy (16 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA. 
.
		
Click to expand...

If this happened there would be far less RSPCA threads as they would be then fulfilling what people expect them to do

however until then the problems people are encountering with them will continue....


----------



## JanetGeorge (16 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			JanetGeorge ALL your arguements whilst reasonable are beside the point!
I entirely agree many miscarriages of justice happen. Not in this case, I reiterate again, they pleaded guilty before a trial!!!! All other theory's are now fantasy. I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed.
I do not wish to keep repeating myself nor do I wish to influence others, I am happy in what I believe. Nonetheless I still think the action of pointing fingers and feeble excuses is pathetic. I would have rejoiced in a respectful and dignified heads  held high. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
		
Click to expand...

No - they're NOT beside the point (just because you don't like them!)  I certainly wouldn't plead guilty to murder, or robbery, or assault!  I WOULD plead guilty to an offence under the Hunting Act when the risks of being found guilty were only huge costs (it certainly wouldn't hurt my reputation with anyone whose opinion I value!)

The former huntsman of the Heythrop is a man I used to know well although - regretfully - I haven't seen him for some time.  He was a top class huntsman, an outstanding horseman, and one of Nature's gentlemen!  I worked with him closely during the fight against the Foster Bill in the late '90s - and it was a pleasure and a privilege!  His life - over the past few years - has been made a MISERY by the ratbags who hounded the Heythrop and by a myriad of trumped up charges - most of them dropped!!

It would have hurt him VERY much to 'roll over' to the charges laid - but he would not risk hurting his family by bankrupting them - Julian is NOT a 'rich toff'!  He has acted - throughout this farce - with considerable dignity!


----------



## JanetGeorge (16 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA.
		
Click to expand...

Really??  Then you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land!  Do you remember the 'horse on the gate' case?  A hunter jumped a gate and muffed it - he came down with front legs one side and back legs the other - and froze.  The ONLY way to get him off quickly and safely was to 'encourage' him with a hunting whip!  Sadly, it was an MFH who did it, with the help of an amateur whipper-in.  There was NO evidence that they actually hit the horse - just a 'photo of the whip raised and the word of a sab.  The RSPCA prosecuted the MFHA, the amateur whipper-in AND the MFH's pregnant wife (who was the rider - but took no part in the rescue for obvious reasons.)  On the court room steps, after she had nearly miscarried due to the stress and threatening 'phone calls from AR nutters, they dropped the charges against the MFH's wife.  

In court, magistrates declared the two guilty of a lesser offence - of 'cruelly terrifying the horse'!  The conviction was overturned on appeal with expert witness, Richard Meade OBE, testifying that they had done EXACTLY the right thing to free the horse who suffered no injury.  It was an expensive waste of time for everyone concerned!!

And yet - when presented with a video of an idiot horse dealer thrashing a young horse repeatedly for NO reason other than the man didn't have a working brain cell, did the RSPCA prosecute????  Not yet - and don't hold your breath!


----------



## MillyMoomie (16 January 2013)

JanetGeorge why on earth do you state I'm living in cloud cuckoo land? You don't know me! 

If what you state above is true then yes that is ridiculous.However I will go on my many very positive experiences of the RSPCA and wait for a negative one with all the facts to hand before I begin the bashing thank you. 
I'm not questioning wether the huntsman you mention is a nice man or not, quite possibly he shouldn't have broken the law. I suggest YOU JanetGeorge are living in cloud cuckoo land if having a criminal record is a reputation booster. If so why don't you all strive to get one and stop whining about the ban. Personally I find following a laid scent exhilarating.


----------



## happyhunter123 (16 January 2013)

OK, OK, calm down please ! And yes, what she says above _is_ true!



MillyMoomie said:



			if having a criminal record is a reputation booster.
		
Click to expand...

It's not a reputation booster-Mr Barnfield is sadly out of a job now.
By the way, I'm still unsure about the criminal records thing. If found guilty, do you get a criminal record?? I remember being told  just after the ban that you wouldn't.


----------



## JanetGeorge (16 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			JanetGeorge why on earth do you state I'm living in cloud cuckoo land? You don't know me!
		
Click to expand...

I don't need to KNOW you - you tell me all I need to know with every post!




			If what you state above is true then yes that is ridiculous.However I will go on my many very positive experiences of the RSPCA and wait for a negative one with all the facts to hand before I begin the bashing thank you.
		
Click to expand...

It is totally true - and a matter of record!  I actually wrote an article about the 'horse on the gate' case - and the RSPCA's appalling behaviour - so it was VERY carefully researched.  The video of the breaker hitting a horse repeatedly has been seen and discussed on almost every forum in the country - search Tic Toc!




			I'm not questioning wether the huntsman you mention is a nice man or not, quite possibly he shouldn't have broken the law. I suggest YOU JanetGeorge are living in cloud cuckoo land if having a criminal record is a reputation booster. If so why don't you all strive to get one and stop whining about the ban. Personally I find following a laid scent exhilarating.
		
Click to expand...

See - you don't READ!  I didn't say my reputation would be boosted - just that it wouldn't be harmed!  I actually don't hunt anymore - due to a blocked artery in my leg that makes long hours in the saddle very painful - but if I WAS able to hunt, I would prefer to go out with a pack hunting foxes - trail/drag-hunting just doesn't have the hound work or the unpredictability that made foxhunting great!


----------



## Herne (16 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			I'm sorry Herne but you have simply ignored everything i have written and rephrased your orginal arguement.
		
Click to expand...

Not so. I pointed out why what you said did not discount my original argument and that therefore my original argument is still valid. There is a difference.

Your basic premise of "if they were innocent they would have nothing to fear" would only hold true if we had a perfect legal system where miscarriages of justice never took place.

In real life, however, there are lots of instances whereby innocent people could still be found guilty. These can include bias, fabrication of evidence, incorrect deductions, stupidity, poor defense, misinterpretation and many other things.

Therefore, as pretty much everybody who has ever read a newspaper, except seemingly you, is aware miscarriages of justice can and do occur - and that is why even people who know they are innocent still have to consider the consequences of being found guilty.

IF, as you claim, you work "within the law" you _should_ be more aware of this than anyone.

Scenario: 3rd party films hunt trail layer laying a trail through a woodland covert and out the other side, films the hounds hunting the trail into the covert. The hounds put up a fox in the covert and the 3rd party films the hounds hunting the fox out of the covert. The 3rd party cuts the part of the film showing the trail layer and gives the RSPCA only the part of the film that shows the hounds run into the covert and running out hunting a fox.

The "evidence" given looks to show intentional hunting, whereas the reality was that it was accidental and therefore not unlawful.

I am not saying that this is what happened in this case, but it is a perfectly feasibly scenario in which the accused would have to consider the possibilty that he had no chance of being found innocent despitre being entirely so - and would therefore have to worry about the costs issue in just the way that we are suggesting.

For you to try to imply that this sort of thing cannot happen is simply ridiculous.

However, if you do not deny that this _could_ happen, then your previous statements become equally ridiculous.




MillyMoomie said:



			I am beginning to enjoy this banter though.
		
Click to expand...

I cannot for the life of me imagine why, because you are getting drubbed.

However, perhaps I should not be too surprised, seeing as you also seem to have failed to observe that you are disproving your own logic.

If we take at face value your claim to work within the law - and tie that to your patently absurd suggestions that innocent people need never have to worry about being found erroneously guilty - a suggestion that no lawyer would believe let alone make - then we demostrate perfectly why people should be mistrustful of the legal system.

Because as you have just demonstrated, some people "who work within the law" do not, after all, always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Whoops. Oh dear, your entire argument just disappeared in a puff of logic. Goodbye.


----------



## Lizzie66 (17 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			They merely bring about private prosecutions based on independant vets' opinions of whether an animal is suffering or likely to suffer if it is not removed or circumstances change.
		
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense, the Vet is not independent they are paid by the RSPCA, they will obviously pick a vet that backs their political agenda.


----------



## Lizzie66 (17 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Alec Swan I find it laughable that you state that the accused including the hunt itself I may add had to plead guilty because they couldn't afford to defend themselves??!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!! 
Have you forgotten innocent until proven guilty? The fact that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutors not the defense....in laymans terms the accuser has to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed an offence. Lets also point out that the RSPCA don't decide if someone is guilty or not, they merely present the evidence as a private prosecutor that specialises in animal welfare with a significantly higher success rate than the cps. The defendants pleaded guilty even before a trial. Did not even argue. The evidence must have been unquestionable. They broke the law and were caught red handed. You cannot pick and choose what laws you want to uphold. But then something told me you  already knew all that Alec?
		
Click to expand...

Again nonsense, they could have continued to court however if they had then been found guilty the Judge may have awarded costs against them. As the RSPCA had already racked up £300k and this would likely have risen to £500k, the accused decided to take the pragmatic approach of pleading guilty and paying the fine.

Even if you know you aren't guilty there is always a chance you might be found so, would you risk your home, and family security against taking a conviction for a minor offence ? I know I wouldn't !


----------



## Lizzie66 (17 January 2013)

Re my above two posts, others have made the same points more eloquently than I.

I was reading my way through the posts and replied without reading to the end!


----------



## Alec Swan (17 January 2013)

Herne said:



			.......

Your basic premise of "if they were innocent they would have nothing to fear" would only hold true if we had a perfect legal system where miscarriages of justice never took place.

.......

Whoops. Oh dear, your entire argument just disappeared in a puff of logic. Goodbye.
		
Click to expand...

  A chap who I know is a barrister.  He was attempting to defend a guy who'd been charged with burglary.  It was known to the said chum of mine,  that the attending judge had himself been burgled but a couple of months earlier.

Whilst the good judge was out of Court and deciding just how best he could weigh off our young miscreant,  my chum advised his client that he thought 2 years to be a likely outcome,  warning his client that the judge was of uncertain mood.......

....... Back came the judge and handed down a 3 year term to the guilty man,  who replied "My brief said you were a c**t,  and he was right"!

The point is that it all depends upon the frame of mind,  and perhaps the breakfast consumed,  of the visiting judge,  doesn't it?

Alec.


----------



## joeanne (17 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			They already do that.  Hundreds and hundreds of neutering vouchers are issued for all sorts of animals.  There are also community action weeks where officers spend a whole week targeting certain streets in certain areas which are known to be less fortunate, microchipping, giving neutering vouchers, defleaing and also handing out vouchers to pay for veterinary treatment.

Of course, it's down to the owner to take the voucher with the animal to the vet for neutering or treatment, and some are less than 'active' in their approach to this. 

Click to expand...

Beg to differ!!!
The scheme that was set up to provide free neutering for those with staffy/staffy type breeds no longer runs due to lack of funds....Funny that 
If you are on certain benefits I believe you may qualify for discounted treatment, but thats about it.
Given the problem with housing/feeding/boarding the huge amounts of staffy type dogs, it would pay overall to just offer the free neutering.
Wonder how many staffies could have been neutered and chipped with £300k?


----------



## MillyMoomie (17 January 2013)

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Govern...PCAs-prosecution-Heythrop-Hunt/?HAYILC=LATEST


----------



## Alec Swan (17 January 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Govern...PCAs-prosecution-Heythrop-Hunt/?HAYILC=LATEST

Click to expand...

I'd prefer to hear chapter and verse from the Charities Commission,  *themselves*,  rather than a perceived take on their thoughts. 

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (17 January 2013)

joeanne said:



			Beg to differ!!!
The scheme that was set up to provide free neutering for those with staffy/staffy type breeds no longer runs due to lack of funds....Funny that 
If you are on certain benefits I believe you may qualify for discounted treatment, but thats about it.
Given the problem with housing/feeding/boarding the huge amounts of staffy type dogs, it would pay overall to just offer the free neutering.
Wonder how many staffies could have been neutered and chipped with £300k?
		
Click to expand...

They are given out daily Joeanne.  Cat and dog vouchers.  The dog vouchers are in conjunction with the Dog's trust, cat vouchers paid for by RSPCA headquarters.  Microchipping takes place for free.


----------



## MillyMoomie (17 January 2013)

Fair point Alec. This original thread was started by an article read in the The Telegraph. Also hardly chapter and verse.


----------



## Springy (17 January 2013)

I beg to differ

At work someone had dumped a cat in a bin on bin day with the end of her tail cut off... someone heard her crying and brought her in...

RSPCA contacted not interested....

I ended up with cat and paying vet bill to sort out tail etc...

Contacted them again re neutering voucher basically sod off you work.... found out cat pregnant... cat produces 2 kittens again ask RSPCA same repsonse...

However Cats protection League were great..... they gave me free neutering voucher for her and the 2 kittens... I donated £10 each for the vouchers and now all are done and Ill keep them all....

So free stuff maybe to people on benefits but not us workers....

I have a chihuahua I want speyed and dogs trust offered free neutering when she was a puppy when I got injections and chip.... I might take them up on this


----------



## Hunters (17 January 2013)

Been away for a few days. Just wanted to add that Julian Barnfield is not loaded with money & was worn ragged with the worry of the court case & what the future holds for him.

Oh & yes of course the RSCPCA vets are paid by the RSPCA!


----------



## joeanne (17 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			They are given out daily Joeanne.  Cat and dog vouchers.  The dog vouchers are in conjunction with the Dog's trust, cat vouchers paid for by RSPCA headquarters.  Microchipping takes place for free.
		
Click to expand...

Read what I posted Moomin....I said the STAFFY/STAFFY TYPE free neutering (which had been available for anyone with that type dog) was scrapped due to lack of funding.
If you are in reciept of benefits you will get discounted neutering, regardless of breed.
Given how many staffs are in rescue, you would think it would pay dividends to have continued with that scheme.


----------



## PipPups (18 January 2013)

Sadly it seems to me that the Heythrop case is just the latest in a long line of increasingly politically motivated prosecutions being brought by the RSPCA. They seem to be much happier these days pursuing an animal rights agenda than actually improving animal welfare.

An e-petition that asks the government to look into these inappropriate activities is quietly gathering momentum: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807

Hopefully it could be the start of getting the Society back on track.


----------



## Moomin1 (18 January 2013)

joeanne said:



			Read what I posted Moomin....I said the STAFFY/STAFFY TYPE free neutering (which had been available for anyone with that type dog) was scrapped due to lack of funding.
If you are in reciept of benefits you will get discounted neutering, regardless of breed.
Given how many staffs are in rescue, you would think it would pay dividends to have continued with that scheme.
		
Click to expand...

I repeat Joeanne.  The inspectors give FREE neutering vouchers out daily.  Doesn't matter what breed.  If someone is struggling financially, they will be given a voucher.

Out of interest Joeanne, was this your local RSPCA branch that offered this service?  As far as I am aware the National society never offered a solely staffie based neutering scheme.


----------



## Moomin1 (18 January 2013)

Springy said:



			I beg to differ

At work someone had dumped a cat in a bin on bin day with the end of her tail cut off... someone heard her crying and brought her in...

RSPCA contacted not interested....

I ended up with cat and paying vet bill to sort out tail etc...

Contacted them again re neutering voucher basically sod off you work.... found out cat pregnant... cat produces 2 kittens again ask RSPCA same repsonse...

However Cats protection League were great..... they gave me free neutering voucher for her and the 2 kittens... I donated £10 each for the vouchers and now all are done and Ill keep them all....

So free stuff maybe to people on benefits but not us workers....

I have a chihuahua I want speyed and dogs trust offered free neutering when she was a puppy when I got injections and chip.... I might take them up on this 

Click to expand...

Jeez, you work!!  Pay for your own animals, whether taken in or not!  That makes me mad!  If you can afford to take an animal in, you should be bloomin well able to pay for it to be neutered too.

Where did you get the chihuahua from?


----------



## Queenbee (18 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Jeez, you work!!  Pay for your own animals, whether taken in or not!  That makes me mad!  If you can afford to take an animal in, you should be bloomin well able to pay for it to be neutered too.

Where did you get the chihuahua from?
		
Click to expand...


Interesting Moomin1 that you have not answered my question on page 7 of the 'RSPCA shame on you' thread


----------



## Moomin1 (18 January 2013)

Queenbee said:



			Interesting Moomin1 that you have not answered my question on page 7 of the 'RSPCA shame on you' thread

Click to expand...

Err, I haven't actually seen it!  Have been a bit busy today with work!  What would you like to ask me?


----------



## Queenbee (18 January 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Err, I haven't actually seen it!  Have been a bit busy today with work!  What would you like to ask me?
		
Click to expand...


Sorry, didn't see your reply until you had logged off as HHO went down!  This was my question




			I am genuinely interested in knowing the answer to the following question moomin1, you always defend the RSPCA in their actions, whatever the scenario the appear to be able to do no wrong in your opinion. Is this really the case, is there nothing that you know the RSPCA have done, no action they have or have not taken, no decision they have made, no standpoint they have that didn't sit right with you, that you disagree with or that was to the detriment of an animal?

Are you so blinkered that you think that they really do ++++ miracles, are faultless and beyond reproach? No organisation or person can be classed as that!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Hunters (18 January 2013)

The RSPCA do generally do a reasonable job with small animals.

They do prosecute animal abusers, I have worked with them very occasionally and have found their employees to be well meaning, but not business savvy. 

For example, when the prosecuted a serious case of horse neglect, the vet concerned was most unhappy that the press department of the RSPCA were so slow with press reports, that although the person was successfully prosecuted, no one was ever told. Therefore the man in question could keep horses at a different location & no one would be any the wiser.

The new CEO of the RSPCA has admitted to having a political agenda & has demonstrated this by way of spending £300k prosecuting the Heythrop. 

I find the RSPCA almost an animal activist group now & that is what worries me & I sincerely hope that the Charities Commission take a long hard look at the motives & direction of the RSPCA.


----------



## Springy (18 January 2013)

Moomin....

Im paying for other peoples dumped animals!!!

The ones I have bought I have paid for including injections micro chip neutering etc... the resuce dog 9hound) came all done and I paid a donation £150 to cover it all) I was taking in the cat as RSCPA werent interested even though her tail was cut to the bone??? 

The Chihuahua is from Durham 

My point is why should people who dont work get free neutering and I should it should be free to everyone or noone.....

As usually people doing naff all get all the help.... they should get a job 

The CPL are trying to help people and cats but they are smaller charity.... so Im sure the RSCPA could help too........


----------

