# RSPCA asking for urgent donations yet in court case against the Heythrop?



## Luci07 (12 May 2012)

Completely taken aback when I read this in this weeks horse and hound. I am not interested in the hunting aspect, I just can't understand why they don't leave this (with costs quoted at being nearly £1 million) to someone like the LACS. I know first hand that they have heavily cut down on taking animals in, leaving the lesser known smaller charities to pick this up. I know they are also picking and choosing which dogs they take in, so have seen a lot of the areas will ignore the Stafford or Stafford cross. Freely admit I am 100% biased here as I have 3 rescue staffords, all via rescue but can not understand how they can justify this waste of money. Their campaigns focus on rescue, not politics.

Oh and the article also states they are about to make 130 redundancies. Thoughts? And please not interested in the hunting debate...


----------



## rockysmum (12 May 2012)

I think its disgusting.  I used to be a big supporter but have lost any faith in them in the past few years.

I wish I could tell you a story from this week.  A friend of mine asked for help with what she described as "one of the worse abuse cases she had seen".  The animal in question needed to be put down on the spot as it could not move and was in agony and starving.

Urgent appeals to the RSPCA have met with no response, even though they have seen it.  She has taken it further so I cant give any details, dont worry she has not given up.

The big problem is the RSPCA have ways and means to seize, other charities find things much harder.


----------



## A1fie (12 May 2012)

I absolutely agree with you.  Whilst they have the power to prosecute, I think that they should leave it to the CPS who are better placed to prosecute cases as they have more money and more resources.

It seems that they have diversified too widely and need to decide what they want to achieve.  Do they want to rescue animals primarily?  Investivate and remove animals?  Provide facilitates for short and long term housing?  Prosecute?   It seems that they are not doing any of the above things very successfully. 

I can't help but think that the money it is costing to bring this prosecution would be better spent on reducing the number of redundancies they are having to make.


----------



## Marciamac (13 May 2012)

I won't have anything to do with the RSPCA because of their political stance on hunting, jump racing, etc. And I, too, know people who have had problems getting the RSPCA involved when horses needed help. In one case, people at a yard were feeding neglected horses as they couldn't contact the owner, who never came up. The RSPCA told them they couldn't do anything because the horses looked fine and they would have to stop feeding them and let them deteriorate before they could take action. And let the horses suffer in the meantime.


----------



## combat_claire (14 May 2012)

Luci07 said:



			I just can't understand why they don't leave this (with costs quoted at being nearly £1 million) to someone like the LACS.
		
Click to expand...

The League have even less money than the RSPCA and are already making huge cuts and are attempting to sell off bequeathed property to raise funds.


----------



## Luci07 (14 May 2012)

combat_claire said:



			The League have even less money than the RSPCA and are already making huge cuts and are attempting to sell off bequeathed property to raise funds.
		
Click to expand...

Still do not agree with the RSPCA taking this on. Not when they are actively turning away animals which need their help. Fact not a Daily Mail opinion


----------



## Alec Swan (14 May 2012)

Perhaps these previously wealthy charities should do as the rest of us,  and downsize.  The RSPCA,  could start with selling off their HQ which they bought for a staggering £6 *million*!

If the LACS are in similar trouble,  I wonder if they'd accept my offer on Baronsdown Wood. 

Alec.


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (14 May 2012)

Lets hope the rspca and lacs (NOT WORTHY OF CAPITAL LETTERS SOON GO BUST) as organisations thy have meddled in politics to suit their managements aims and are not well meaning genuine Animal charities I Hope they Fail Sooner rather than Later.


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (14 May 2012)

wont donate to RSPCA lost faith in them when they were left money in the 70's and  spent the money on personal things . then a few other things . RSPCA don't get my money


----------



## Echo Bravo (14 May 2012)

^^^^^ Hear, Hear


----------



## competitiondiva (18 May 2012)

rockysmum said:



			The big problem is the RSPCA have ways and means to seize, other charities find things much harder.
		
Click to expand...

No, the RSPCA are no different than any other charity, they do not have ways and means to seize, they just know the law... 

At the end of the day there is evidence that the law was broken, law made by parliament.  Just because the accused are the 'high and mighty' does this mean they should not be prosecuted? CPS very rarely take any prosecutions on animal welfare legislation etc, though I do agree that they should be taking this rather than leaving a charity to do so.  

Regarding the headquarters which yes cost alot to build, but at the time the charity had the money and had outgrown their old headquarters.


----------



## rockysmum (18 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			No, the RSPCA are no different than any other charity, they do not have ways and means to seize, they just know the law... 

At the end of the day there is evidence that the law was broken, law made by parliament.  Just because the accused are the 'high and mighty' does this mean they should not be prosecuted? CPS very rarely take any prosecutions on animal welfare legislation etc, though I do agree that they should be taking this rather than leaving a charity to do so.  

Regarding the headquarters which yes cost alot to build, but at the time the charity had the money and had outgrown their old headquarters.
		
Click to expand...


That interesting, does anyone know how you would go about it.

There is a reason for my question.  I know of a horse in dire condition at the moment that the RSPCA wont do anything about.


----------



## Luci07 (20 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			No, the RSPCA are no different than any other charity, they do not have ways and means to seize, they just know the law... 

At the end of the day there is evidence that the law was broken, law made by parliament.  Just because the accused are the 'high and mighty' does this mean they should not be prosecuted? CPS very rarely take any prosecutions on animal welfare legislation etc, though I do agree that they should be taking this rather than leaving a charity to do so.  

Regarding the headquarters which yes cost alot to build, but at the time the charity had the money and had outgrown their old headquarters.
		
Click to expand...

the question over whether the Heythrop should be taken to court is for another time. However as the CPS clearly felt it was not a good use of time and money, I still do not see how the RSPCA can justify this ....and advertise that they are desperate for funds on national television.  There are a lot of animal charities (Blue cross, PDSA etc) and you do not see them taking such a stance. Wish the RSPCA would get overhauled at the top and go back to being the animal charity we all want them to be.


----------



## Hunters (20 May 2012)

They RSPCA should stay out of politics and help unwanted or neglected animals. Shame on them putting politics first!!!


----------



## Ceris Comet (20 May 2012)

Hunters said:



			They RSPCA should stay out of politics and help unwanted or neglected animals. Shame on them putting politics first!!!
		
Click to expand...

I remember reporting a pony that couldnt walk due to lami.......I was told that as i was caring the pony the RSPCA wouldnt help unless it it was being starved


----------



## MerrySherryRider (21 May 2012)

The RSPCA last year had a successful 98%  conviction rate, pretty impressive by anyone's standards.
Those who think they shouldn't waste money prosecuting, just take a look at the case studies where horrific abuse has been inflicted.

 Where they wrong to prosecute Jamie Gray and save the lives of scores of horses at Spindles Farm ?
Were they wrong to save the life of my dying cob and succeed in sending his then owner to prison ?

The RSPCA gets a lot of things wrong but prosecuting animal abusers isn't one of them.


----------



## Moomin1 (21 May 2012)

Ceris Comet said:



			I remember reporting a pony that couldnt walk due to lami.......I was told that as i was caring the pony the RSPCA wouldnt help unless it it was being starved

Click to expand...

Too  bleedin right if you were caring for it!!! You should have dealt with it!!!


----------



## Moomin1 (21 May 2012)

Hunters said:



			They RSPCA should stay out of politics and help unwanted or neglected animals. Shame on them putting politics first!!!
		
Click to expand...

Get your facts and statistics straight before making a comment like this.  Fed up to the back teeth of uninformed statements on here.  Have a look at Horserider's post.


----------



## 1life (21 May 2012)

horserider said:



			The RSPCA last year had a successful 98%  conviction rate, pretty impressive by anyone's standards.
Those who think they shouldn't waste money prosecuting, just take a look at the case studies where horrific abuse has been inflicted.

 Where they wrong to prosecute Jamie Gray and save the lives of scores of horses at Spindles Farm ?
Were they wrong to save the life of my dying cob and succeed in sending his then owner to prison ?

The RSPCA gets a lot of things wrong but prosecuting animal abusers isn't one of them.
		
Click to expand...

^ Here, here ^

I am fed up with the amount of RSPCA bashing that goes on in this forum!


----------



## MileAMinute (21 May 2012)

1life said:



			^ Here, here ^

I am fed up with the amount of RSPCA bashing that goes on in this forum!
		
Click to expand...

Me too.


----------



## Ceris Comet (21 May 2012)

Moomin...The pony wasn't mine. I managed to lead the poor thing into a spare box I had and then rang rspca.


----------



## DawnRay (21 May 2012)

horserider said:



			The RSPCA last year had a successful 98%  conviction rate, pretty impressive by anyone's standards.
Those who think they shouldn't waste money prosecuting, just take a look at the case studies where horrific abuse has been inflicted.

 Where they wrong to prosecute Jamie Gray and save the lives of scores of horses at Spindles Farm ?
Were they wrong to save the life of my dying cob and succeed in sending his then owner to prison ?

The RSPCA gets a lot of things wrong but prosecuting animal abusers isn't one of them.
		
Click to expand...

If gained, a 98% conviction rate of the 52 charges against the Heythrop hunt could be a lot of crimes punished and have a huge impact on the trail hunting 'charade'.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2012)

horserider said:



			.......

 Where they wrong to prosecute Jamie Gray and save the lives of scores of horses at Spindles Farm ?

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

I'm not contradicting you,  but was it actually the rspca,  or the CPS who prosecuted the Grays?  From the little that I know of it all,  I suspect that whilst charitable bodies have the ability,  as we all do,  to bring about a private prosecution,  it's my belief that it's only State sponsored bodies who have the ability to prosecute directly.  The State sponsored bodies being Trading Standards and the Police via the CPS.  

I think you'll find that the rspca (and no,  I'm not a fan) have very limited rights.  They don't,  for instance,  have right of access to property or land,  that is only given to State sponsored bodies,  not charities.

Assuming that I'm right in what I say,  then the point of my argument,  and maybe others,  is that if the CPS don't have enough confidence in achieving a prosecution,  is a private prosecution such a good idea,  with all the attendant costs,  and considering their existing precarious state?

Alec.


----------



## DawnRay (21 May 2012)

The CPS have been without a backbone for some time now leading to many thousands of possible criminals never facing the legal consequences of crimes they may have committed.


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (21 May 2012)

1life said:



			^ Here, here ^

I am fed up with the amount of RSPCA bashing that goes on in this forum!
		
Click to expand...



 Well maybe  its because  the general public are not happy  with them.   I for one would never donate or call them again. :

 How they respond to urgent calls (ie Jamie Gray case)

* My cases with the RSPCA:*

*
  1 st case :    In the 70's they were given £ 2000 by a old lady in her will , and the manager at the time  brought a new car and carpet with the money  (My dad and I watched this on Panorama)

2nd case :  When you go to adopt you get some fat big rude woman  who tells you 
(after you have queued 1   1/2 hrs  for a kitten)*

" what do you want?? "
a kitten 
"Fill this form in"
I was third in queue 1st wanted kitten second dog
form completed
" where is your boyfriend"
at work
" well you cant have one unless he is here*
I am 23   I am an adult
"you cant have one unless he is here"
but he works all week
" go away and come back another time when he can make it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" 


 Never went back to them for kitten



3  rd experience  went to Southall Market which I did every week for years and years buying tack bargains and feed/ carrots.

 The RSPCA there sometimes usually sitting round chatting.


On this day A really sad dark bay almost black mare standing in the stalls behind the canteen place, head down thin as anything, given up on life.  I watched her patted her she was so sad.  About 12.30pm before auction for horses I went over the the RSPCA who was chatting as usual having his coffee .


 I said  "excuse me there is a mare over there who I don't think should be put through the auction  she is weak and looks ill" .   RSPCA looked at me nothing said   carried on chatting , so I stood there  then he said " yeh yeh yeh I will look after I finished my coffee. " Well I stayed there till 2.30pm and he NEVER looked at her sadly I couldn't wait as had to go back to yard.

 These are just my cases dealing with them . I watch the ASPCA they put the RSPCA to shame.



 So yes I will bash the RSPCA  these are just the main experiences I have seen and heard  with MY ears and eyes!!


----------



## Amymay (21 May 2012)

horserider said:



			Where they wrong to prosecute Jamie Gray and save the lives of scores of horses at Spindles Farm ?
		
Click to expand...

No, once they actually pulled their heads out of their backsides and decided to support the rescue organisation they did an excellent job.

It's just such a shame that over two years worth of calls and concerns went completely un-acted on........


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (21 May 2012)

RSPCA  Officer have you got what it takes to be one???  TV program


*
  Yes I have  ,  RSPCA  Criteria; 

 I can wear a headset
I can answer phone
I can drive a vehicle
I can sit around having coffee and chatting


 Yes I have what it takes to be one !!!*


----------



## competitiondiva (21 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			I'm not contradicting you,  but was it actually the rspca,  or the CPS who prosecuted the Grays?  From the little that I know of it all,  I suspect that whilst charitable bodies have the ability,  as we all do,  to bring about a private prosecution,  it's my belief that it's only State sponsored bodies who have the ability to prosecute directly.  The State sponsored bodies being Trading Standards and the Police via the CPS.  

I think you'll find that the rspca (and no,  I'm not a fan) have very limited rights.  They don't,  for instance,  have right of access to property or land,  that is only given to State sponsored bodies,  not charities.

Assuming that I'm right in what I say,  then the point of my argument,  and maybe others,  is that if the CPS don't have enough confidence in achieving a prosecution,  is a private prosecution such a good idea,  with all the attendant costs,  and considering their existing precarious state?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

No it was the RSPCA that prosecuted the grays and that cost millions! All RSPCA prosecutions are private prosecutions paid for by the charity.  The CPS yes have guidelines on whether to take prosecutions or not and not always based on whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a successfull result.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (21 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			I'm not contradicting you,  but was it actually the rspca,  or the CPS who prosecuted the Grays?  From the little that I know of it all,  I suspect that whilst charitable bodies have the ability,  as we all do,  to bring about a private prosecution,  it's my belief that it's only State sponsored bodies who have the ability to prosecute directly.  The State sponsored bodies being Trading Standards and the Police via the CPS.  

I think you'll find that the rspca (and no,  I'm not a fan) have very limited rights.  They don't,  for instance,  have right of access to property or land,  that is only given to State sponsored bodies,  not charities.

Assuming that I'm right in what I say,  then the point of my argument,  and maybe others,  is that if the CPS don't have enough confidence in achieving a prosecution,  is a private prosecution such a good idea,  with all the attendant costs,  and considering their existing precarious state?

Alec 




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

Yes,anyone can ring a private prosecution but it was the RSPCA that brought a private prosecution against Jamie Gray. Their prosecution department gathers evidence and presents it to the CPS. I think they work with other charities like the WHW etc but its the RSPCA that brings the case. They've been doing this ever since the charity began a 100 plus years ago.
With such a high conviction rate, I suspect legal costs would be awarded so it would seem to be a pretty effective use of their resources.

Why doesn't the state prosecute ? I really don't know. Perhaps their priorities lie with accusing people of fly posting for putting up lost pet posters. (I kid you not.)
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2012)

horserider said:



			.......

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

Yes,anyone can ring a private prosecution but it was the RSPCA that brought a private prosecution against Jamie Gray. Their prosecution department gathers evidence and presents it to the CPS. * So the reality is that they DIDN'T prosecute,  they left that to the CPS,  and that's my point.  If the CPS looses the case,  then the costs will be laid upon the State.  If the rspca take out a PRIVATE prosecution, and they loose the case,  then the costs (certainly theirs)  will be theirs.  Do you see what I mean?*

I think they work with other charities like the WHW etc but its the RSPCA that brings the case. They've been doing this ever since the charity began a 100 plus years ago. * The reality is that most charities,  certainly those which have parallel focus,  actually view other charities as opposition,  and there is a deal of in-fighting,  even though that's denied!! *
With such a high conviction rate, I suspect legal costs would be awarded so it would seem to be a pretty effective use of their resources.  *The conviction rate,  achieved by the CPS is achieved by quite simply,  only moving forwards on cases which are on safe ground. (Now see below!)*

Why doesn't the state prosecute ? I really don't know. Perhaps their priorities lie with accusing people of fly posting for putting up lost pet posters. (I kid you not.)  *The CPS decides upon prosecution,  on two main points;  Firstly,  "Is success likely?",  if it isn't,  then why waist public funds.  and then Secondly,  "Is it in the public Interest to proceed?"  and as I've already said,  it seems that as the CPS don't have the confidence to bring a prosecution,  should the rspca be taking this on?  If they fail,  then this could prove to be incredibly costly,  suicidal some might say.*

Click to expand...

Alec.

Ets,  another point for you to consider;  all the high profile charities employ highly skilled and very highly paid senior fund raisers.  By carefully targeting a minority interest,  in this case hunting,  they are presumably working on the basis that their massive advertising costs will be dwarfed by the response,  and that they will again have sufficient funds,  and it all smacks,  to me anyway,  of the gambler putting his shirt on the last horse.  I wish them luck,  but with the exception of the odd individual,  the country has neither the funds not the taste for it,  in my view.  a.


----------



## Amymay (21 May 2012)

Actually Alec, it was the RSPCA that footed the bill for the prosecution.


----------



## Luci07 (21 May 2012)

Would they be interested if the Heythrop didn't happen to fall into David Cameron's constituency? You cannot possibly compare the Spindles case ( and btw, the RSPCA supporters are not acknowledging the huge support they received from other charities...they did NOT deal with this on their own). I am involved, in a minor way with a small rescue and help fund raise. Talk to a lot to people involved with rescues such as Stafford Welfare etc. these rescues are overwhelmed with the sheer number of unwanted dogs they are trying to deal with and are completely relying on donations and volunteers. Depending on what you read, anything between 30 - 70 dogs are being PTS each day..and a huge number are really young dogs. So no! The RSPCA cannot justify this kind of money in this case. This is blatantly political. Leave that to the CPS, show support and put that money back where it should be. Caring for animals.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2012)

amymay said:



			Actually Alec, it was the RSPCA that footed the bill for the prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

I take it that you mean the case against Gray?  If that's so,  then I fail to see why the CPS didn't act,  with such irrefutable evidence,  and presumably,  the rspca are expecting,  what would be their substantial costs,  to be returned in the event that the Grays ever hand over the £400k penalty.  

I didn't,  or haven't actually followed the ramifications which were subsequent to the original case,  but the chances of him ever handing over the awarded money are slim,  I would think,  considering the appeal process,  and that staggeringly,  he seems to have had some success in that department.  I don't know,  to be honest.

Alec.


----------



## joeanne (21 May 2012)

The other thing to bare in mind is that the RSPCA will only take on and act on a case they are almost certain to win.
So that 96/98% conviction rate is not all that impressive. 
A few years back there was a huge fundraising campaign...."we need your help"......
Is that possibly because they had just refurbed their HQ at a staggering cost of 4 million pounds?
Yet several RSPCA shelters STILL have kennels/runs not really fit for purpose!


----------



## MerrySherryRider (21 May 2012)

Luci07 said:



			Would they be interested if the Heythrop didn't happen to fall into David Cameron's constituency? You cannot possibly compare the Spindles case ( and btw, the RSPCA supporters are not acknowledging the huge support they received from other charities...they did NOT deal with this on their own). I am involved, in a minor way with a small rescue and help fund raise. Talk to a lot to people involved with rescues such as Stafford Welfare etc. these rescues are overwhelmed with the sheer number of unwanted dogs they are trying to deal with and are completely relying on donations and volunteers. Depending on what you read, anything between 30 - 70 dogs are being PTS each day..and a huge number are really young dogs. So no! The RSPCA cannot justify this kind of money in this case. This is blatantly political. Leave that to the CPS, show support and put that money back where it should be. Caring for animals.
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA has since its conception, sought to bring animal abusers to justice when all other means failed. This is one thing that they do well and other charities rely on their expertise in bringing about prosecutions as the organisation has a prosecution service. This enables smaller charities to save their own meagre resources.

Don't forget that costs for expenses and legal fees are usually awarded otherwise not even the RSPCA could finanically do the work it does.

I don't think they did claim that the credit for the Spindles Farm rescue was theirs alone. It was a multi agency rescue with the RSPCA gathering the evidence to bring about the prosecution.

If your gripe is that the RSPCA should not bring about private prosecutions, fair enough. 
If its because you disagree with huntsman facing prosecution, then perhaps you are the one being political.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (21 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Alec.

Ets,  another point for you to consider;  all the high profile charities employ highly skilled and very highly paid senior fund raisers.  By carefully targeting a minority interest,  in this case hunting,  they are presumably working on the basis that their massive advertising costs will be dwarfed by the response,  and that they will again have sufficient funds,  and it all smacks,  to me anyway,  of the gambler putting his shirt on the last horse.  I wish them luck,  but with the exception of the odd individual,  the country has neither the funds not the taste for it,  in my view.  a.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with you re high profile charities. Having been a lifelong supporter of Save The Children and the NSPCC it is saddening to see career executives taking over these societies. 

However, much as I can find fault with the RSPCA, until the CPS stops using the RSPCA to do its work, I'll give them credit for doing a very effective job.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2012)

amymay said:



			Actually Alec, it was the RSPCA that footed the bill for the prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

I've thought further about this.  I am certainly no fan of the rspca,  and have always viewed them with a great deal of suspicion, BUT,  in the face of the overwhelming evidence against the Grays,  how on earth did the CPS,  which is a State run body,  hand over the costs to a charity?  Was it because no matter the award,  the chances of actually receiving any money,  were slim,  OR was it because the rspca not seeing or grasping the severity of this recession,  spent money which they didn't have,  or thought that such a high profile case would promote them in the fund raising race?  

The problem with some of these charities is that they are run by accountants and fund raisers.  What they need is someone who's run their own business for a lifetime and has a realistic grasp upon simple common sense.  They are still running a business like a charity.  They've got no chance,  in my opinion.

Alec.


----------



## marmalade76 (21 May 2012)

rockysmum said:



			The big problem is the RSPCA have ways and means to seize, other charities find things much harder.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, they manipulate people into believing they have more powers than they actually do.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (21 May 2012)

The Spindles case brought an overwhelming response from the general public with donations given to both help the rescued horses and to get justice for them and to prevent Mr Gray from continuing his business in horse misery.

Not only did the RSPCA recieve massive public donations, other equine rescues involved in the case did too.

Costs of £400,000 were awarded in their favour. 


Why would the CPS want to take over the RSPCA's role when they have the expertise in gathering evidence ? The CPS guards its own budget and it suits them very well to let a charity bear the brunt of the work, time and expense. 

Is it right that alleged criminals only face justice because a charity funds it ?

Would you prefer your taxes paid for these cases rather than a voluntary funded public service charity ?

Or would you prefer no animal abusers faced justice because of the cost ?

Read this and see if you still feel the RSPCA is wrong;http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2010/05/086.shtml


----------



## Luci07 (21 May 2012)

horserider said:



			If your gripe is that the RSPCA should not bring about private prosecutions, fair enough. 
If its because you disagree with huntsman facing prosecution, then perhaps you are the one being political.
		
Click to expand...

did you read my original post? I stated quite clearly I was not interested in the hunting aspect. It is about the RSPCA funding this case when there is so clearly a greater need with basic animal welfare. And see you completely ignored my points about the huge numbers of dogs being PTS every day.

I have to prioritise my budget. So should they. This is an animal charity. I just want them to go back to what they should be doing and a high profile political court case is not the answer. I have also stated there is no comparison between a case like Spindles and the case against the Heythrop.


----------



## competitiondiva (21 May 2012)

What I don't understand is:
Heythrop case expected to cost millions
James Gray case cost millions, 

Why should one be prosecuted and the other not??? Or because they are in financial difficulties this time should they say no to the Heythrop, but if another spindles case was identified tomorrow say, would your answer be the same???

People who are seeing a political agenda here, I think are seeing it because they want to see it.

Regarding all the staffies, yes it's a minefield and a very sad state of affairs. As you say it could be as much as 30+ dogs a day being PTS, what is the answer, spend millions on building more and more kennels to be filled by these dogs, when there aren't enough homes out there for them? No the only answer here is to legislate and try to stop it at it's source, not mop up.


----------



## marmalade76 (21 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			What I don't understand is:
Heythrop case expected to cost millions
James Gray case cost millions, 

Why should one be prosecuted and the other not??? Or because they are in financial difficulties this time should they say no to the Heythrop, but if another spindles case was identified tomorrow say, would your answer be the same???
		
Click to expand...

How on Earth can you compare what James Grey did to those horses with foxhunting, illegal or otherwise??


----------



## MerrySherryRider (21 May 2012)

Luci07 said:



			Completely taken aback when I read this in this weeks horse and hound. I am not interested in the hunting aspect,................................................................................... Thoughts? And please not interested in the hunting debate...
		
Click to expand...




Luci07 said:



			did you read my original post? I stated quite clearly I was not interested in the hunting aspect. It is about the RSPCA funding this case when there is so clearly a greater need with basic animal welfare. And see you completely ignored my points about the huge numbers of dogs being PTS every day.

I have to prioritise my budget. So should they. This is an animal charity. I just want them to go back to what they should be doing and a high profile political court case is not the answer. I have also stated there is no comparison between a case like Spindles and the case against the Heythrop.
		
Click to expand...

I thought you were critcizing the RSPCA for prosecuting those breaking the law as you clearly said you are not interested in the hunting aspect.

Clearly you meant hunts should be exempt.

Isn't that just a tweeny weeny bit political ?


----------



## Luci07 (21 May 2012)

horserider said:



			I thought you were critcizing the RSPCA for prosecuting those breaking the law as you clearly said you are not interested in the hunting aspect.

Clearly you meant hunts should be exempt.

Isn't that just a tweeny weeny bit political ?
		
Click to expand...

No. 

But if you really do believe that it is perfectly acceptable to put healthy animals to sleep because you truly think going to court over this is a better use of the charities money, then that is your choice. It is not mine, but then I do get to see what is really happening on the rescue coalface..


----------



## Luci07 (21 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			What I don't understand 

Regarding all the staffies, yes it's a minefield and a very sad state of affairs. As you say it could be as much as 30+ dogs a day being PTS, what is the answer, spend millions on building more and more kennels to be filled by these dogs, when there aren't enough homes out there for them? No the only answer here is to legislate and try to stop it at it's source, not mop up.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are making a very sweeping statement which will just not happen. Focus keeps being placed on the actions of some dogs, rather than this hugely irresponsible breeding. And it is a minimum of 30 per day. Other sources quote 70 at least. The RSPCA has publicly said it is reducing its rescue efforts as well...


----------



## competitiondiva (22 May 2012)

Luci07 said:



			Unfortunately you are making a very sweeping statement which will just not happen. Focus keeps being placed on the actions of some dogs, rather than this hugely irresponsible breeding. And it is a minimum of 30 per day. Other sources quote 70 at least. The RSPCA has publicly said it is reducing its rescue efforts as well...
		
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow, (yes it is late!!) Where or what is my sweeping statement????

Where has the RSPCA publicly said it's reducing its rescue efforts???


----------



## DawnRay (22 May 2012)

Luci07 said:



			No. 

But if you really do believe that it is perfectly acceptable to put healthy animals to sleep because you truly think going to court over this is a better use of the charities money, then that is your choice. It is not mine, but then I do get to see what is really happening on the rescue coalface..
		
Click to expand...

It is mine. Especially in some breeds, uncontrolled breeding has produced a huge surplus of pets that cannot be re-homed. It is not a welfare issue putting them to sleep despite it being very sad for those involved. It is simply common sense until someone actually deals with the situation ie the government. The RSPCA are a welfare organisation and receive donations to deal with welfare issues they are not a control organisation.
Illegal hunting and killing foxes with dogs is a welfare issue and the RSPCA are correct to be spending their donated money on this issue.


----------



## perfect11s (22 May 2012)

1life said:



			^ Here, here ^

I am fed up with the amount of RSPCA bashing that goes on in this forum!
		
Click to expand...

Im fed up  with the politcal meddeling, the fat salerys, the waste,  and the way they have treated  their core suporters, the top heavy bureaucratic slow response to welfare issues ..
 Sorry but they need a regular kicking otherwise it will get even worse ......


----------



## Alec Swan (22 May 2012)

A broad and sweeping statement,  I'll accept,  but _"generally",_  the bulk of animal charities are not fit for purpose.  They start off with all the right intentions,  but then through a combination of apathy,  ignorance,  and once they grow,  accountants,  they seem to lose their way.

Alec.


----------



## siennamum (22 May 2012)

I think the problem with the RSPCA & their prosecution of the Heythrop is that it seems disproportionate.

We all make ethical choices, donate to children in 3rd World countries, whilst living unsustainable lifestyles. The RSPCA could redirect the £1m to closing puppy farming, stopping tethering and flygrazing - a number of acitivities which prevent cruelty to hundreds, if not thousands of animals. Instead they are directing the money to a prosecution towards preventing cruelty to a few individual animals. It may still be wrong to hurt those animals, but is it a proportionate use of the money. Personally I think not, and I think the RSPCA should be run along more agnostic lines, with no political agenda and just the desire to do the maximum good for the maximum number of animals.


----------



## competitiondiva (22 May 2012)

siennamum said:



			I think the problem with the RSPCA & their prosecution of the Heythrop is that it seems disproportionate.

We all make ethical choices, donate to children in 3rd World countries, whilst living unsustainable lifestyles. The RSPCA could redirect the £1m to closing puppy farming, stopping tethering and flygrazing - a number of acitivities which prevent cruelty to hundreds, if not thousands of animals. Instead they are directing the money to a prosecution towards preventing cruelty to a few individual animals. It may still be wrong to hurt those animals, but is it a proportionate use of the money. Personally I think not, and I think the RSPCA should be run along more agnostic lines, with no political agenda and just the desire to do the maximum good for the maximum number of animals.
		
Click to expand...

You could argue the same thing for every single case the RSPCA brings, it only affects the animals involved, and whilst it may not affect the world, it affects the world for those animals......... 

From what you're saying it sounds like you would prefer for the RSPCA to become a campaigning body rather than an organisation that prosecutes?  I don't agree, but then that's what makes the world go around, people put value in different things, which is why this thread was initiated.....

Also what would be the point in campaigning for law changes etc, if the RSPCA aren't there to enforce it?


----------



## 1life (22 May 2012)

siennamum said:



			I think the problem with the RSPCA & their prosecution of the Heythrop is that it seems disproportionate.

We all make ethical choices, donate to children in 3rd World countries, whilst living unsustainable lifestyles. The RSPCA could redirect the £1m to closing puppy farming, stopping tethering and flygrazing - a number of acitivities which prevent cruelty to hundreds, if not thousands of animals. Instead they are directing the money to a prosecution towards preventing cruelty to a few individual animals. It may still be wrong to hurt those animals, but is it a proportionate use of the money. Personally I think not, and I think the RSPCA should be run along more agnostic lines, with no political agenda and just the desire to do the maximum good for the maximum number of animals.
		
Click to expand...

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't!

 Many will feel that it is a worthy cause that has been a 'tradition' for many years and should not be allowed to continue in the modern world. That is not necessarily going to be the case on this forum as it used by people who generally love horses and most things associated with them - but it will be the view of others who will feel the money needs to be spent.
On the other hand, people may believe that any animal, no matter how indiscriminately it has been bred, whether for profit or love, should be entitled to a good life and should be able to expect a welfare charity to safeguard them.

The funds are not limitless and the distribution may seem unbalanced to some but will, of course, seem perfectly balanced to others.

I have personally had need to contact the RSPCA on two occasions and on both have been impressed and grateful for their rapid response.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			.......

Also what would be the point in campaigning for law changes etc, if the RSPCA aren't there to enforce it?
		
Click to expand...

_"Enforcement"_ is the work of Government authorities,  not charities with political agendas.

Alec.


----------



## siennamum (22 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			You could argue the same thing for every single case the RSPCA brings, it only affects the animals involved, and whilst it may not affect the world, it affects the world for those animals......... 

From what you're saying it sounds like you would prefer for the RSPCA to become a campaigning body rather than an organisation that prosecutes?  I don't agree, but then that's what makes the world go around, people put value in different things, which is why this thread was initiated.....

Also what would be the point in campaigning for law changes etc, if the RSPCA aren't there to enforce it?
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA does run campaigns. I think since a great deal of cruelty arises from ignorance, then they should be running campaigns to inform people. They could help stop the puppy farming trade for instance.

I think we all have to make value judgements, every life may count, but saldy we all decide every day that some lives count more than others. I think a body like the RSPCA should be doing the maximum good for the maximum number of animals, and that while I understand the importance of test cases for campaign value, there has to be a judgement call about the merit on welfare grounds. I think on welfare grounds the pursuit of a few foxes and death of some is less concerning than the export of live animals for slaughter for instance, or the rise in Halal slaughter. I fail to see the logic in the RSPCA spending £1m on this prosecution.


----------



## Moomin1 (22 May 2012)

siennamum said:



			The RSPCA does run campaigns. I think since a great deal of cruelty arises from ignorance, then they should be running campaigns to inform people. They could help stop the puppy farming trade for instance.

I think we all have to make value judgements, every life may count, but saldy we all decide every day that some lives count more than others. I think a body like the RSPCA should be doing the maximum good for the maximum number of animals, and that while I understand the importance of test cases for campaign value, there has to be a judgement call about the merit on welfare grounds. I think on welfare grounds the pursuit of a few foxes and death of some is less concerning than the export of live animals for slaughter for instance, or the rise in Halal slaughter. I fail to see the logic in the RSPCA spending £1m on this prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

Do you fail to see the logic in spending a huge sum of money on this then too?

http://www.signal1.co.uk/news/local/winsford-man-convicted/

Before anybody criticises, they should stop to think of the amount of work, heartbreak and sheer determination that each officer puts in to secure these convictions.  If you walked in on this sort of case, I can guarantee you would be horrified at what you are greeted with.  The officers in this case where out from 7am until 4am the following morning with no break whatsoever and sipping the odd bit of warm manky water from a bottle in their vans.  This man inflicted SERIOUS cruelty and neglect on these animals and IMO every penny spent securing this sentence was worth the publics donations.

Now why should this man get prosecuted and an illegal foxhunter not?  They are both committing serious crimes.  

Incase people aren't aware of what is involved in cockfighting - two cockerels with sharp metal spurs attached to their legs are put in a ring and allowed to do what they would in the wild - savage each other to death.  A wager is put on the winner as it would be in dog fighting.  These birds suffer horrendous pain through the tearing injuries they recieve.  Now, what is the difference between a fox being ripped to shreds by a pack of dogs (however 'quick' the death is - they still feel a level of pain and suffering before they finally die) and a cockerel being torn to shreds and suffering the same?


----------



## Amymay (22 May 2012)

Do you fail to see the logic in spending a huge sum of money on this then too?
		
Click to expand...

I most certainly don't.

But of course they are two different incidents.  One worthy of the money being spent, the other not.


----------



## Moomin1 (22 May 2012)

amymay said:



			I most certainly don't.

But of course they are two different incidents.  One worthy of the money being spent, the other not.
		
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question AmyMay - what is the difference between a cockerel getting torn to shreds, and a fox being torn to shreds?  Does one feel any less than the other?  Both of them are offences?


----------



## Amymay (22 May 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			That doesn't answer the question AmyMay - what is the difference between a cockerel getting torn to shreds, and a fox being torn to shreds?  Does one feel any less than the other?  Both of them are offences?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, both of them are offenses in the eyes of the law.

However, as no other fail safe methods exist for managing fox's - i'll go with the hounds.  Sorry.


----------



## EAST KENT (22 May 2012)

The rspca in the last few months announced it would no longer be helping strays UNLESS they were the subject of cruelty and a prosecution case in the offing. Meanwhile there is the Blue Cross and the PDSA  doing sterling work with no political agenda whatsoever,not forgetting the Dog`s Trust.This last is actually getting it`s teeth into free neutering of Staffies in chosen rotating areas.Now THAT is a worthwhile step!
   The rspca  was behind the hunting ban,the banning of docking puppies..both these expensive moves have alienated thousands ,if not a million people.NO charity can afford to alienate anyone, donations tend to dry up if they do.
If they had stayed an ANIMAL charity ,then my fortune may have been left in part to them,as it is it will be anyone BUT the rspca. I detest them,they so often make nuisance calls on innocent people whose vile neighbours use them as a ploy against anyone they want to aggrieve.


----------



## Moomin1 (22 May 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			The rspca in the last few months announced it would no longer be helping strays UNLESS they were the subject of cruelty and a prosecution case in the offing. Meanwhile there is the Blue Cross and the PDSA  doing sterling work with no political agenda whatsoever,not forgetting the Dog`s Trust.This last is actually getting it`s teeth into free neutering of Staffies in chosen rotating areas.Now THAT is a worthwhile step!
   The rspca  was behind the hunting ban,the banning of docking puppies..both these expensive moves have alienated thousands ,if not a million people.NO charity can afford to alienate anyone, donations tend to dry up if they do.
If they had stayed an ANIMAL charity ,then my fortune may have been left in part to them,as it is it will be anyone BUT the rspca. I detest them,they so often make nuisance calls on innocent people whose vile neighbours use them as a ploy against anyone they want to aggrieve.
		
Click to expand...

Haha!!!  So you expect an RSPCA Inspector to be psychic now too?!!!  Yes they get hundreds and thousands of nuisance and malicious calls saying that next door's dog is emaciated and collapsed, which the officer clearly has to attend (sometimes they ARE emaciated and collapsed).  It is nothing short of disgusting that people abuse the charity by trying to alienate their neighbours and cause trouble.  I don't see those people offering a donation for the officer's time either.  In the meantime, many other animals go suffering waiting.  In short - it is the people who abuse RSPCA time and money that mean genuine people who donate and ring in get irrate because they are left waiting, and then the charity gets a bad name.


----------



## 1life (22 May 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			The rspca  was behind the hunting ban,the banning of docking puppies..both these expensive moves have alienated thousands ,if not a million people.NO charity can afford to alienate anyone, donations tend to dry up if they do.
If they had stayed an ANIMAL charity ,then my fortune may have been left in part to them,as it is it will be anyone BUT the rspca. I detest them,they so often make nuisance calls on innocent people whose vile neighbours use them as a ploy against anyone they want to aggrieve.
		
Click to expand...

They may alienate many...but they will probably gain the support of many too.

I have never had a nuisance call from any animal chartity....insurance companies, however...!!!!

Yes, a sad few may make calls to aggrivate neighbours, but I would hazard that the majority are in good faith with animal welfare in mind.

I guess that is the key point here, as I guess the OP was hoping we would discuss. Everyone's opinion on what is a worthwhile cause and how much is worth spending on it is different.


----------



## Luci07 (22 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			It is mine. Especially in some breeds, uncontrolled breeding has produced a huge surplus of pets that cannot be re-homed. It is not a welfare issue putting them to sleep despite it being very sad for those involved. It is simply common sense until someone actually deals with the situation ie the government. The RSPCA are a welfare organisation and receive donations to deal with welfare issues they are not a control organisation.
Illegal hunting and killing foxes with dogs is a welfare issue and the RSPCA are correct to be spending their donated money on this issue.
		
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should roll up your sleeves and spend time with a small rescue. Dogs are being PTS at an apalling rate. Healthy young dogs and yes of course it is a welfare issue and you are just turning away from this if you assume the answer is to keep destroying them till the govt step in and legislate.  That is where a organisation such as the RSPCA should devote its energies.


----------



## competitiondiva (22 May 2012)

Luci07 said:



			Then perhaps you should roll up your sleeves and spend time with a small rescue. Dogs are being PTS at an apalling rate. Healthy young dogs and yes of course it is a welfare issue and you are just turning away from this if you assume the answer is to keep destroying them till the govt step in and legislate.  That is where a organisation such as the RSPCA should devote its energies.
		
Click to expand...

How????? As I said earlier, you could spend millions on building a load more kennels, plus staff to man them etc, and all you would do is fill them, and still be in the same situation we are now..... The issue needs to be addressed at the heart of it.

Also consider the length of time all these extra dogs would have to wait in all these extra kennel spaces to find a new home??  The ones in centres already have to wait months... The simple fact is that they are being bred faster than they can be rehomed...


----------



## Mrs B (22 May 2012)

amymay said:



			Yes, both of them are offenses in the eyes of the law.

However, as no other fail safe methods exist for managing fox's - i'll go with the hounds.  Sorry.
		
Click to expand...

This. And that particularly ill-conceived, politically motivated law does, in fact, do the fox no favours.


----------



## 1life (23 May 2012)

Mrs B said:



			This. And that particularly ill-conceived, politically motivated law does, in fact, do the fox no favours.
		
Click to expand...

...whereas hunting them with dogs does them a favour....? Are you really putting that forward as an arguement?

OP wasn't asking for a hunting debate, but it does not seem possible to discuss this thread without it becoming part of the material.


----------



## Amymay (23 May 2012)

1life said:



			...whereas hunting them with dogs does them a favour....? Are you really putting that forward as an argument?
		
Click to expand...

Well, whilst it might not be ideal in many's eyes - at least they are dispatched quickly - unlike snaring or shooting.  




			OP wasn't asking for a hunting debate, but it does not seem possible to discuss this thread without it becoming part of the material.
		
Click to expand...

That's the joy of free speech and debate.


----------



## competitiondiva (23 May 2012)

The point of this thread was to discuss some people's opinions that a charity spending alot of money on a prosecution where there is sufficient evidence that people have broken animal welfare law was a waste of money.  

If this was anything other than a hunting issue it would not be a news worthy story, but because it is here we are.  In short this thread is nothing more than a hunting debate.....


----------



## MerrySherryRider (23 May 2012)

Here's a novel idea - How about the hunts stop breaking the law and then the RSPCA could channel those much needed funds into education and rescue ?
Living in a democratic society means we all bear the responsiblity of obeying the law. Picking and choosing the ones you like, isn't an option.
 If people didn't break the law, we'd save billions on policing, the court and prison system, insurance etc etc. The money could go to hospitals, schools, care of the elderly, lost staffie puppies....


----------



## Alec Swan (23 May 2012)

horserider said:



			Here's a novel idea - How about the hunts stop breaking the law and then the RSPCA could channel those much needed funds into education and rescue ?
Living in a democratic society means we all bear the responsiblity of obeying the law. Picking and choosing the ones you like, isn't an option.
 If people didn't break the law, we'd save billions on policing, the court and prison system, insurance etc etc. The money could go to hospitals, schools, care of the elderly, lost staffie puppies....
		
Click to expand...

Utopia,  and when you find it,  you will let me know,  wont you?

Alec.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (23 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Utopia,  and when you find it,  you will let me know,  wont you?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I was a child of the 60's


----------



## Alec Swan (23 May 2012)

1life said:



			...whereas hunting them with dogs does them a favour....? Are you really putting that forward as an arguement?

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

I can't speak for Mrs B,  but for myself,  then yes it is a valid argument,  and one which makes perfect sense.

Our countryside has evolved,  in part because of Hunting.  I know of many opposed to Hunting,  from the moral and humane aspect,  who accept that our world has evolved,  and that we are as we are because of our history.  They view it all as rather like when we were young,  and we were told to eat our crusts,  in that cherry-picking the bits that you like,  and discarding the rest,  is hugely damaging to our rural way of life,  and whilst I'm up on my back feet,  that includes our village schools,  our post offices and village shops,  and our public transport system.

Now it seems,  there are those who want to dismantle our world and change things,  irrevocably.  I'm glad that I'm the age that I am,  and I don't want to see the world in 50 years time,  thank you very much!! 

Alec.


----------



## 1life (23 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Our countryside has evolved,  in part because of Hunting.  I know of many opposed to Hunting,  from the moral and humane aspect,  who accept that our world has evolved,  and that we are as we are because of our history.  They view it all as rather like when we were young,  and we were told to eat our crusts,  in that cherry-picking the bits that you like,  and discarding the rest,  is hugely damaging to our rural way of life,  and whilst I'm up on my back feet,  that includes our village schools,  our post offices and village shops,  and our public transport system.

Now it seems,  there are those who want to dismantle our world and change things,  irrevocably.  I'm glad that I'm the age that I am,  and I don't want to see the world in 50 years time,  thank you very much!! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It's not a case of cherry-picking, it's a case of reviewing old traditions and seeing if they fit in the modern world.
I support my local post office and school, I work in the countryside every day and have done for the last 22 years and have seen many things change, often for the better. I'm more a 'pomp and ceremony' type of tradition person myself. Many things have changed, irrevocably, and quite often that has been through education not a wish to simply eradicate old ways. After all, if it wasn't for progress we wouldn't be having a debate on an internet forum now, would we  ?



amymay said:



			Well, whilst it might not be ideal in many's eyes - at least they are dispatched quickly - unlike snaring or shooting.  

That's the joy of free speech and debate.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say 'hunting with dogs does them a favour INSTEAD of shooting or snaring'. My meaning was that I cannot see how hunting any animal with dogs could be classed as 'doing them a favour'. I wasn't debating alternatives.

So, for my conclusion, I do feel that MAYBE the RSPCA are spending a disproportionate amount of money on this case BUT who is anyone to decide which law they do and which law they do not adhere to, however ridiculous they may think that law is? Now, that really is a case of cherry picking  .


----------



## EAST KENT (23 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			How????? As I said earlier, you could spend millions on building a load more kennels, plus staff to man them etc, and all you would do is fill them, and still be in the same situation we are now..... The issue needs to be addressed at the heart of it.

Also consider the length of time all these extra dogs would have to wait in all these extra kennel spaces to find a new home??  The ones in centres already have to wait months... The simple fact is that they are being bred faster than they can be rehomed...
		
Click to expand...

And that is Exactly what the Dog`s Trust are indeed doing..they get my vote every time.


----------



## Luci07 (23 May 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			And that is Exactly what the Dog`s Trust are indeed doing..they get my vote every time.
		
Click to expand...

And mine. The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make was that we cannot turn our back on the welfare issue of the dogs in pounds and wait for our government to sort out the issue.  Tackling this and raising the issue of over breeding , of treating domestic animals as a disposable commodity..that's where the RSPCA should be focusing public money and their efforts.  Actually I wonder why they choose to keep the "royal", seeing as quite a few members of the royal family do hunt..

After seeing what I see going on with dumped dogs, it is nice to come on this forum to remember that there are a lot of people who love and care for their animals.


----------



## Mrs B (23 May 2012)

1life said:



			It's not a case of cherry-picking, it's a case of reviewing old traditions and seeing if they fit in the modern world.
I support my local post office and school, I work in the countryside every day and have done for the last 22 years and have seen many things change, often for the better. I'm more a 'pomp and ceremony' type of tradition person myself. Many things have changed, irrevocably, and quite often that has been through education not a wish to simply eradicate old ways. After all, if it wasn't for progress we wouldn't be having a debate on an internet forum now, would we  ?
		
Click to expand...

So is that really how you do look at things? If so, then I'd say your 22 years working in the countryside have, sadly,  been blinkered ones. 

How can it have escaped you that IF (and the 'IF' is the only place a debate truly belongs after the Burns report) the fox population is to be controlled as humanely as possible, the 'best' means of dispatch is the most natural: by another predator? 

Just ignore all the cr@p about 'people dressing up to tear a wild animal apart for pleasure' bit. It's emotive rubbish. It doesn't matter one iota to the fox as it's an incredibly swift death and *that* is all that should be of any consideration. And if it *does* matter to you (or any other anti reading this who has a similar take on it), I'd suggest you look at your motives. Is it the act or the perceived politics or class that's upsetting you? If so, it's being outraged by proxy - something we're sadly good at in this country.

Therefore you'd say the  'doing them a favour' bit, under the current law isn't  to provide either a swift dispatch or total freedom - it's a high chance of dying slowly and painfully from a mis-aimed shot, poison or a snare?

NB ** All this is under the assumption that the fox population needs to be controlled. 

Part of growing up is recognising when the law (though political intervention) has become an ass. And no, I do not break this law, much as I disagree with it.

And as for your last 'cherry-picking' comment: it makes you sound at once pompous and naive. _"Who is anyone to decide which law they do and which law they do not adhere to?"_

So you, hand on heart, never speed? Far more dangerous to far more people and animals that hunting with dogs - and with terrible, far reaching consequences when it goes wrong. 

Or, more trivially, never litter by throwing an apple core out of your car? Or drop a cigarette butt, or don't declare a bit of cash for helping with someone's horse?

And back to the original post, which as far as I can see cannot be separated from the hunting debate.

The RSPCA are sadly now run by those with a political agenda first and a concern for animal welfare a long way second. Their 'concern' for the fox is as far removed from reality as was Tony Blair's when he tossed the Hunting Bill like an old bone as an appeasement to his back-benchers. The RSPCA have lost their way and understanding of what constitutes cruelty, more's the pity. I shall not support them again.


----------



## competitiondiva (23 May 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			And that is Exactly what the Dog`s Trust are indeed doing..they get my vote every time.
		
Click to expand...




Luci07 said:



			And mine. The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make was that we cannot turn our back on the welfare issue of the dogs in pounds and wait for our government to sort out the issue.  Tackling this and raising the issue of over breeding , of treating domestic animals as a disposable commodity..that's where the RSPCA should be focusing public money and their efforts.  Actually I wonder why they choose to keep the "royal", seeing as quite a few members of the royal family do hunt..

After seeing what I see going on with dumped dogs, it is nice to come on this forum to remember that there are a lot of people who love and care for their animals.
		
Click to expand...

What is it you feel or know the Dogs trust to be doing that the RSPCA isn't to address this issue???


----------



## Moomin1 (23 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			What is it you feel or know the Dogs trust to be doing that the RSPCA isn't to address this issue???
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.  The RSPCA offer free cat neutering vouchers to the more needy people, free microchipping, and assistance with veterinary treatment/consultations.  They do animal action weeks across the country where people can go along with their pets and have them de-flead, wormed and chipped for nothing.  They also work 24 hours a day going out to emergency complaints and collections, sometimes not getting home until 3,4,5am.  Just because the officers cannot get to everything immediately does not mean nothing is being done.  Each officer sometimes has between 60-100 jobs outstanding over an area of up to 250 square miles.  

The RSPCA are the only ones to do that and the less money people provide then animals WILL suffer undoubtedly.


----------



## Moomin1 (23 May 2012)

Do you know those people that you talk about?!  Have you seen first hand the work they do?  I hazard a strong guess no.

I can't tell you how mistaken you really are.  These people DO have animal welfare at heart, and the RSPCA have a scientific and veterinary dept which looks into all the research necessary and makes informed decisions as to what constitutes suffering and cruelty.  These people are VETS who are advising on this research.  

Of course everyone will have differing opinions as to what is classed as suffering.  Funnily enough, I bet half of the people on here would be up in arms over a tethered traveller's horse which had cracked hooves and no water for a few hours, yet they are not bothered about a fox being torn to shreds and being scared out of it's wits and run to exhaustion.


----------



## 1life (24 May 2012)

Mrs B said:



			So is that really how you do look at things? If so, then I'd say your 22 years working in the countryside have, sadly,  been blinkered ones. 

I'd suggest you look at your motives. Is it the act or the perceived politics or class that's upsetting you? If so, it's being outraged by proxy - something we're sadly good at in this country.

Part of growing up is recognising when the law (though political intervention) has become an ass. And no, I do not break this law, much as I disagree with it.

And as for your last 'cherry-picking' comment: it makes you sound at once pompous and naive. _"Who is anyone to decide which law they do and which law they do not adhere to?"_

So you, hand on heart, never speed? Far more dangerous to far more people and animals that hunting with dogs - and with terrible, far reaching consequences when it goes wrong. 

Or more trivially, never litter by throwing an apple core out of your car? Or drop a cigarette butt, or don't declare a bit of cash for helping with someone's horse?

Mrs B, you have reminded me of exactly the reason that I don't often enter H&H debates. You have turned an open debate into a personal attack. I don't need to look at my motives. Interestingly, I have never actually said if I do or do not support hunting, if I've ever been or observed hunting or if I've worked for a hunt. I've just debated people's statements.

The 'cherry-picking' comment was actually trying to touch on a little lighthearted humour by turning Alec Swan's phrase back at him. Maybe you hadn't read his post?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## competitiondiva (24 May 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Exactly.  The RSPCA offer free cat neutering vouchers to the more needy people, free microchipping, and assistance with veterinary treatment/consultations.  They do animal action weeks across the country where people can go along with their pets and have them de-flead, wormed and chipped for nothing.  They also work 24 hours a day going out to emergency complaints and collections, sometimes not getting home until 3,4,5am.  Just because the officers cannot get to everything immediately does not mean nothing is being done.  Each officer sometimes has between 60-100 jobs outstanding over an area of up to 250 square miles.  

The RSPCA are the only ones to do that and the less money people provide then animals WILL suffer undoubtedly.
		
Click to expand...

They also offer assissted dog neutering.  Aswell as having the inspector go out to these places and give advise direct to the people in the form of the complaints they attend, thereby tackling the less proactive dog owners.


----------



## EAST KENT (24 May 2012)

The Dog`S Trust offers free neutering vouchers for staffies in rotating areas,so that dogs coming out of,say Croydon,in rescue or not ,can be neutered at no cost beyond fuel of getting to the vet.They operate a NO KILL policy on healthy dogs. `Nuff said really.And NO they are NOT political.
 In fact they operate exactly as a charity should do,purely for the welfare of rescue dogs,no other agenda. The rspca has gathered a Hell of a lot of bad feeling ,especially among country folk and farmers,no charity can afford that
to happen;they ignored that rule and now want to raise funds to do a prosecution ,for God`s sake,that money would be better employed running their animal welfare facilities properly and with more compassion than as of the present.
  Over the years we have had five or more rspca visits,each one a malicious phone call result.I strongly resent the fact they bluff Right of Entry,and the fact just how very ignorant the inspectors are.  Next time they  will be refused entry,we have all our animals in great condition and accommadation and have nothing to hide whatsoever,but little ignorant Hitlers best keep away .
   It has a Hell of a long road to getting it`s respect back,and this latest stunt is just another nail in the coffin.


----------



## Dovorian (24 May 2012)

Used to support them by monthly DD, BUT having asked them to help with a awful welfare case and being given 'the evil eye' when the inspector realised that we hunted and shot and subsequetly ingnored the case. It dawned on me that they are purely a political lobbyist on the wrong side of my fence who use animals as a vehicle to persue political ambitions and keep themselves in jobs, no more, no less.

We persuaded the welfare case owner that the suffering animal needed to be helped - the local huntsman dealt with the matter humanely, kindly and without political posturing.

However, I then channelled my donations to a well known charity with bases in Egypt and hey presto! Negative vibes about them now - money is truly the root of all evil!


----------



## Echo Bravo (24 May 2012)

Lets face it the RSPCA have gone Political and as they are a Charity, they face having their license taken away and a good thing too. By doing what they have done over the Hunt people have lost them a good deal of good will up and down the country, I no longer support them and wouldn't allow them on my property for any reason.


----------



## HashRouge (24 May 2012)

What I dislike is the idea that they spend extremely large amounts of money helping to prosecute people who then essentially receive a slap on the wrist (generally speaking) that is unlikely to act as a deterrent. I can't help feeling that their money would be better spent helping the victims of abuse (i.e. the animals) and educating people about animal welfare.
I know that these hunt people have broken the law, but will spending a fortune prosecuting them change anything? Will they really receive the sort of punishment that would deter them (or others) in the future?


----------



## competitiondiva (24 May 2012)

How is upholding animal welfare legislation political?


----------



## competitiondiva (24 May 2012)

Hashrouge... And knowing no one will hold them accountable for their law breaking will stop them????


----------



## Freddie19 (24 May 2012)

Dovorian said:



			Used to support them by monthly DD, BUT having asked them to help with a awful welfare case and being given 'the evil eye' when the inspector realised that we hunted and shot and subsequetly ingnored the case. It dawned on me that they are purely a political lobbyist on the wrong side of my fence who use animals as a vehicle to persue political ambitions and keep themselves in jobs, no more, no less.

We persuaded the welfare case owner that the suffering animal needed to be helped - the local huntsman dealt with the matter humanely, kindly and without political posturing.

However, I then channelled my donations to a well known charity with bases in Egypt and hey presto! Negative vibes about them now - money is truly the root of all evil!
		
Click to expand...

Just like you, no help from our version (NI) of the RSPCA, far more interested in being on "tele", wasted money on buying an old zoo in the far end of now-where etc etc, I now give any spare money I have (very little) to local sanctuary (Crosskennan) and when I can the Brooke.  I also have two ponies from Crosskennan.  When I think of a long deceased relative of mine leaving money to the OLD RSPCA I could cry.  How dare they spend money on pursuing cases against hunts, when, out there, animals are being subjected to savage cruelty, in this, suppposedly humane country.  I feel for the guys and girls of the RSPCA on the ground, how must they feel, watching the guys in suits ruin the good, christian, honest name of the ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. I would also suggest that if the government can relieve Sir Fred Goodwin of his title, they should suggest that the society loses its Royal title.  I bet her Majesty would be up for this.


----------



## Luci07 (24 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			Hashrouge... And knowing no one will hold them accountable for their law breaking will stop them????
		
Click to expand...

CPS!!! Thats who should do it -  the RSPCA are supposed to be a welfare organisation not a political body. Their advertisements always tuck on the heart strings and would suggest that this is where all their money goes and this is not true.

So when the RSPCA goes in and takes some dogs out for rescue...brilliant you cry, doing what they are supposed to do, you say. Except in that instance, they didn't bother with the Stafford cross, they left that or behind. Luckily for that dog, another charity picked it up.


----------



## marmalade76 (24 May 2012)

Echo Bravo said:



			Lets face it the RSPCA have gone Political and as they are a Charity, they face having their license taken away and a good thing too.
		
Click to expand...

For what reason and is this a real posssiblity, or just your opinion?


----------



## competitiondiva (24 May 2012)

Luci please state fact, not fiction do I really need to put up a link to the rspca pet search for u to see how many staffi's and crosses are in rspca shelters.... Here it is for you anyway http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/pets/rehoming/petsearch

oh look random search and on the first page all but one are mastiff, staffi or bulldog crosses!!

But agree CPS should take the prosecutions, good luck with that one....... Also think on this, the CPS/trading standards (bodies who should be doing prosecutions) would never pay to board such as the amersham horses for 2 years plus etc, they would dispose of them as soon as possible by the most cost effective manner, Not necessarily one that would benefit the welfare of the animals.  How would we on this forum feel if the amersham horses had been disposed of through the local sales ring????..... Just food for thought....


----------



## combat_claire (24 May 2012)

Hashrouge, what the devil happened to innocent until proven guilty? How can you possibly know that the hunt has broken the law until the case is heard and the verdict given??


----------



## Mithras (24 May 2012)

The RSPCA is now basically considered a prosecuting agency, much along the lines of how the Environment Agency might be.  However the latter is publicly funded and not a charity.  This is obviously the direction that the RSPCA wishes to go in, and to emphasise.  It does seem rather piecemeal in some of the more headline grabbing type actions it decides to pursue, and of course it is not required to operate from a position of neutrality like the CPS.  

It also seems unwise to encourage the taking over of animal welfare related prosecutions from the CPS, which is perfectly well set up to bring them itself.  You wouldn't, for example, want things to get to the state where the CPS declines on budget or public interest grounds to prosecute anything animal related as the RSPCA is seen as the body to do the job, as the RSPCA is not neutral and is not monitored and audited as a public body.

The RSPCA also brings a surprising number of civil cases.  Gill v RSPCA in 2010 being one of the better known, where it challenged a finding of undue influence in relation to a will made out in its favour.  The RSPCA lost at first instance and at appeal.  These sort of civil actions which reach the higher courts certainly don't come cheap.


----------



## Moomin1 (24 May 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			The Dog`S Trust offers free neutering vouchers for staffies in rotating areas,so that dogs coming out of,say Croydon,in rescue or not ,can be neutered at no cost beyond fuel of getting to the vet.They operate a NO KILL policy on healthy dogs. `Nuff said really.And NO they are NOT political.
 In fact they operate exactly as a charity should do,purely for the welfare of rescue dogs,no other agenda. The rspca has gathered a Hell of a lot of bad feeling ,especially among country folk and farmers,no charity can afford that
to happen;they ignored that rule and now want to raise funds to do a prosecution ,for God`s sake,that money would be better employed running their animal welfare facilities properly and with more compassion than as of the present.
  Over the years we have had five or more rspca visits,each one a malicious phone call result.I strongly resent the fact they bluff Right of Entry,and the fact just how very ignorant the inspectors are.  Next time they  will be refused entry,we have all our animals in great condition and accommadation and have nothing to hide whatsoever,but little ignorant Hitlers best keep away .
   It has a Hell of a long road to getting it`s respect back,and this latest stunt is just another nail in the coffin.
		
Click to expand...

Right, just to set everyone straight on a particular misconception which keeps popping up.  

RSPCA rehoming shelters and branches are SEPARATE charities which take on the RSPCA name.  They are run SEPARATELY to the national society and run by their OWN rules, not that of the national society.


----------



## Moomin1 (24 May 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			The Dog`S Trust offers free neutering vouchers for staffies in rotating areas,so that dogs coming out of,say Croydon,in rescue or not ,can be neutered at no cost beyond fuel of getting to the vet.They operate a NO KILL policy on healthy dogs. `Nuff said really.And NO they are NOT political.
 In fact they operate exactly as a charity should do,purely for the welfare of rescue dogs,no other agenda. The rspca has gathered a Hell of a lot of bad feeling ,especially among country folk and farmers,no charity can afford that
to happen;they ignored that rule and now want to raise funds to do a prosecution ,for God`s sake,that money would be better employed running their animal welfare facilities properly and with more compassion than as of the present.
  Over the years we have had five or more rspca visits,each one a malicious phone call result.I strongly resent the fact they bluff Right of Entry,and the fact just how very ignorant the inspectors are.  Next time they  will be refused entry,we have all our animals in great condition and accommadation and have nothing to hide whatsoever,but little ignorant Hitlers best keep away .
   It has a Hell of a long road to getting it`s respect back,and this latest stunt is just another nail in the coffin.
		
Click to expand...

You do also realise that certain charities which 'never put a healthy animal to sleep' quite often have said animals sitting in kennels going stir crazy for years on end?  Some end their days in there.  Personally I don't think that is an effective welfare tool.


----------



## competitiondiva (25 May 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Right, just to set everyone straight on a particular misconception which keeps popping up.  

RSPCA rehoming shelters and branches are SEPARATE charities which take on the RSPCA name.  They are run SEPARATELY to the national society and run by their OWN rules, not that of the national society.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, so anyone who is against the RSPCA because of their lobbying for law changes, for their stance on hunting, or for the simple fact you don't like them enforcing animal welfare.  Don't rule out supporting your local RSPCA BRANCH who is an independant charity, in charge of it's own fund raising.  They pay for the vets bills of stray animals, rehome unwanted, abused and neglected animals, assist where possible with vet bills for those who cannot afford it.  Do neutering of cats and assisted neutering of dogs, etc etc. Here your money will go straight to the animals, not the national rspca who pay for the prosecutions, boarding of case animals, field staff to attend the complaints and collections of sick and injured animals, emergency vet attention for all animals without an owner, vet fees of case animals etc etc etc etc...........


----------



## competitiondiva (25 May 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			The Dog`S Trust offers free neutering vouchers for staffies in rotating areas,so that dogs coming out of,say Croydon,in rescue or not ,can be neutered at no cost beyond fuel of getting to the vet.They operate a NO KILL policy on healthy dogs. `Nuff said really.And NO they are NOT political.
 .
		
Click to expand...

And what do you suppose they do with the dogs that cannot be rehomed through temperamental or otherwise reasons????? Not take them in in the first place, therefore passing the buck to someone else? Take them in and keep them in kennels for life????


----------



## 1life (25 May 2012)

Freddie19 said:



			How dare they spend money on pursuing cases against hunts, when, out there, animals are being subjected to savage cruelty, in this, suppposedly humane country.  I feel for the guys and girls of the RSPCA on the ground, how must they feel, watching the guys in suits ruin the good, christian, honest name of the ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. I would also suggest that if the government can relieve Sir Fred Goodwin of his title, they should suggest that the society loses its Royal title.  I bet her Majesty would be up for this.
		
Click to expand...

Because maybe some people feel that hunting is 'savage cruelty' and that as a 'humane country' it should not be allowed, any more than mistreating any other an animal, wild or domestic', should be allowed?

I'm sure that if Her Majesty wanted to have the Royal prefix removed she could do so. And why would the government want it removed?

Lastly...'christian'? When has this ever been a religious issue?


----------



## Echo Bravo (25 May 2012)

Marmalde76, It was ever in the H/H or the Daily Telegraph that an MEP/MP who stated they had broken their Charity status and that it had been brought to the attention of the Charity Body, who was going to investigate.


----------



## Freddie19 (25 May 2012)

1life said:



			Because maybe some people feel that hunting is 'savage cruelty' and that as a 'humane country' it should not be allowed, any more than mistreating any other an animal, wild or domestic', should be allowed?

I'm sure that if Her Majesty wanted to have the Royal prefix removed she could do so. And why would the government want it removed?

Lastly...'christian'? When has this ever been a religious issue?
		
Click to expand...

I will deal with last point first, christian....treating all with respect and not wanting to hurt anyone - my OH is a christian although apart from weddings/funerals/christenings he has not been to church for some time, big difference between christian and religious, well in my eyes anyway.  secondly would you rather be shot/snared/gassed/beaten to death or die quickly matter of opinion.  We are soon going to be faced with an "urban fox" problem  its building up already.  The badger cull, marksmen go to badger dens/ do they really think that they are going to shoot dead all the badgers what happens to the ones who get away injured?  RSPCA have, in my view lost their way, they need to go back to what they did best, saving abused animals. Not getting caught up in political agendas.  Sorry if I have offended anyone, its the way I feel.  I do have first hand knowledge of the new modern RSPCA and I personally do not like it.


----------



## marmalade76 (25 May 2012)

Echo Bravo said:



			Marmalde76, It was ever in the H/H or the Daily Telegraph that an MEP/MP who stated they had broken their Charity status and that it had been brought to the attention of the Charity Body, who was going to investigate.
		
Click to expand...

Ah. 'Bout time too!


----------



## ponypilotmum (25 May 2012)

My solicitor told me if I leave the RSPCA a lump sum in my will they (rspca) would look after my pets after I die. 

I said I'd rather pre pay the vet to put my animals down thanks.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (25 May 2012)

Echo Bravo said:



			Marmalde76, It was ever in the H/H or the Daily Telegraph that an MEP/MP who stated they had broken their Charity status and that it had been brought to the attention of the Charity Body, who was going to investigate.
		
Click to expand...

Would that be Roger Helmer MEP ? Look at his track record, that's the laugh of the evening.


----------



## Moomin1 (25 May 2012)

(Sniggers) Was he the man who tried to suggest homosexuality could be treated as a mental illness?!!


----------



## 1life (26 May 2012)

Freddie19 said:



			I will deal with last point first, christian....treating all with respect and not wanting to hurt anyone..  

...secondly would you rather be shot/snared/gassed/beaten to death or die quickly matter of opinion.

 ...We are soon going to be faced with an "urban fox" problem  its building up already.
		
Click to expand...


But you can't use the 'christian' meaning when you want to and then not apply it to all living things, surely?  i.e. treating all living things with respect.

I would rather not be shot/snared/gassed/beaten to death or die quickly. 

You probably have the facts about the urban fox (I assume) but when did you last see a hunt operating in town?


----------



## Luci07 (26 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			Luci please state fact, not fiction do I really need to put up a link to the rspca pet search for u to see how many staffi's and crosses are in rspca shelters.... Here it is for you anyway http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/pets/rehoming/petsearch
...
		
Click to expand...

I am stating facts. Kindly do not attempt to reduce my statements to hysterics. I do know what I am talking about or would not have put it on the board.

Can't find the quote about putting down dogs that are unfit for rescue. Realistically I would tend to agree but this is NOT what is happening. Dogs are being PTS due to no room in rescues and pounds. It is charities and private individuals trying to make a difference in saving and rehoming these dogs, there is no public body to pick up the pieces. Very happymto send anyone who wants it, links to some of the PTS list. It is heartbreaking. Now if the RSPCA put its weight behind indiscriminate breeding then I would support that. 

And just for the record, staffies are actually a good dog to rehome as they so love human company. All mine settled in really quickly. Sadly this also means they dont always show themselves off well in kennels as it really really stresses them out.

The whole situation with dogs in rescue is much more important than focusing on a political issue.  Battersea are running campaigns to show people that staffords are great little soft dogs but work needs to be done earlier.

And actually, staffords are starting to fall out of favour for huskies and malamutes...


----------



## competitiondiva (26 May 2012)

I have never said Staffies don't make pets....


----------



## competitiondiva (26 May 2012)

Sorry phone texting!! was supposed to say good pets!


----------



## Freddie19 (26 May 2012)

1life said:



			But you can't use the 'christian' meaning when you want to and then not apply it to all living things, surely?  i.e. treating all living things with respect.

I would rather not be shot/snared/gassed/beaten to death or die quickly. 

You probably have the facts about the urban fox (I assume) but when did you last see a hunt operating in town?
		
Click to expand...

we could get into a real, not sure what you mean, not sure what YOU mean, conversation.  Thank you for your comments.  I have said all I wish to say.


----------



## Moomin1 (26 May 2012)

Luci07 said:



			I am stating facts. Kindly do not attempt to reduce my statements to hysterics. I do know what I am talking about or would not have put it on the board.

Can't find the quote about putting down dogs that are unfit for rescue. Realistically I would tend to agree but this is NOT what is happening. Dogs are being PTS due to no room in rescues and pounds. It is charities and private individuals trying to make a difference in saving and rehoming these dogs, there is no public body to pick up the pieces. Very happymto send anyone who wants it, links to some of the PTS list. It is heartbreaking. Now if the RSPCA put its weight behind indiscriminate breeding then I would support that. 

And just for the record, staffies are actually a good dog to rehome as they so love human company. All mine settled in really quickly. Sadly this also means they dont always show themselves off well in kennels as it really really stresses them out.

The whole situation with dogs in rescue is much more important than focusing on a political issue.  Battersea are running campaigns to show people that staffords are great little soft dogs but work needs to be done earlier.

And actually, staffords are starting to fall out of favour for huskies and malamutes...
		
Click to expand...

Can you explain how the RSPCA are meant to stop people from indiscriminately breeding status dogs?!  One thing that you obviously don't realise is that many households where an officer visits they are offered neutering vouchers for their dogs, but of course these people are not the sort of people who will bother to take them to the vet.  What do you propose the RSPCA do?!!  Literally pick up every dog in every household and take them, against the owner's will (they want to breed from them to get money) to a vet, at the RSPCA's expense and time (when animals out there are being hit by cars/suffering/being starved) to get them neutered?!!  

Another thing - the RSPCA used to issue Dog's Trust neutering vouchers on every visit to households with unneutered dogs.  The Dog's Trust withdrew them after a while because the officer's where handing out so many that it was costing the Dog's Trust too much money.


----------



## Wundahorse (26 May 2012)

About time the RSPCA spent it's funds supporting the needs of the animals in it's care rather than wasting money on a pointless court case.I have heard so many bad things about the RSPCA that i would not give them a penny.There are much better rescue centres who do great work,don't pts healthy animals and who rehabilitate them in preperation for rehoming.In my experience the RSPCA always deal with things too late.


----------



## Moomin1 (26 May 2012)

Wundahorse said:



			About time the RSPCA spent it's funds supporting the needs of the animals in it's care rather than wasting money on a pointless court case.I have heard so many bad things about the RSPCA that i would not give them a penny.There are much better rescue centres who do great work,don't pts healthy animals and who rehabilitate them in preperation for rehoming.In my experience the RSPCA always deal with things too late.
		
Click to expand...

Sigh.  The RSPCA have behaviouralists in their branches who retrain every dog who is rehomed.  I wish people would at least get the correct information before making a judgement.

As for a pointless court case - POINTLESS?!!!  The law has been broken.  It is not up to you to which laws are pointless and which aren't.  Sorry about that.  Appeal to the House of Commons if you don't agree.

As for not pts'ing healthy animals - as I have previously said - that causes more of a welfare issue in many cases - you ask a decent vet and they will not agree that it is in the animal's best interests to be sat in kennels for years on end.  And believe me it happens.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 May 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Sigh.  The RSPCA have behaviouralists in their branches who retrain every dog who is rehomed.  I wish people would at least get the correct information before making a judgement.

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

I was expecting a knowing wink at the end of that paragraph.   Honestly now,  are you being serious?  

You wish others would at least get their facts straight?  I'm with you on that one! 

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (26 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			I was expecting a knowing wink at the end of that paragraph.   Honestly now,  are you being serious?  

You wish others would at least get their facts straight?  I'm with you on that one! 

Alec. 

Click to expand...

HA HAHAA!!!  You have no idea how ironic it is that you question whether I have my facts straight on this one.

Let's just say I know.


----------



## Dave282B (26 May 2012)

Hi Moomin1
Why can't you tell us why you know you have your facts straight, please ?


----------



## Dobiegirl (26 May 2012)

Moomin you must be dismayed at all the negative replies in here but if you go on any  horse or dog forum the thinking is much the same. The public perception of the RSPCA is not good and most people have first hand knowledge hence the negative replies. What I want to know is what  the RSPCA intend to do about it because very soon their donations which they rely on heavily will completely dry up.


----------



## competitiondiva (26 May 2012)

Well u hit the nail on the head there, it is public perception created by stories of both fact and fiction, spread on public forums by both genuine people and sometimes by people who have an ulterior motive or may have even been prosecuted by them'??!


----------



## competitiondiva (26 May 2012)

Oh and misconceptions! Take for instance a response I read on here where someone was anti rspca because they believed they euthanased animals by drowning them (through injecting water into their lungs) what they didn't realise was what they'd seen was an ip injection. A perfectly humane method used by vets. Yet they had openly slated rspca prior to this.


----------



## Moomin1 (26 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			Oh and misconceptions! Take for instance a response I read on here where someone was anti rspca because they believed they euthanased animals by drowning them (through injecting water into their lungs) what they didn't realise was what they'd seen was an ip injection. A perfectly humane method used by vets. Yet they had openly slated rspca prior to this.
		
Click to expand...

Ha haa!! That is cracking!  Of course I suppose anyone who hasn't done or seen an IP injection won't have a clue what they are, but seriously - did they actually think that drowning would be an approved euthanasia method?!!  Funny coloured water too - blue or yellow!!


----------



## Dobiegirl (26 May 2012)

Glad you can laugh about it, wont be so funny when the money dries up.


----------



## Moomin1 (26 May 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			Glad you can laugh about it, wont be so funny when the money dries up.
		
Click to expand...

Oh diddums - who's rattled your cage?!! Have you no sense of humour?!!  I think it's quite funny that someone would be convinced that water was being injected into the lungs!!  

Sorry - maybe it's just me that finds that amusing!


----------



## Dobiegirl (26 May 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Oh diddums - who's rattled your cage?!! Have you no sense of humour?!!  I think it's quite funny that someone would be convinced that water was being injected into the lungs!!  

Sorry - maybe it's just me that finds that amusing!
		
Click to expand...

I have a great sense of humour thanks, you just come over as being very childish and do your cause no good.

The winter before last I found a very sick badger in our haybarn in broad daylight, he appeared to be uninjured but was breathing very heavily. I called the RSPCA and they came very quickly, they had quite a few attempts at killing this poor prostrate badger. The officer  put the badger in a sack to take away and I asked was he not worried about the badger having TB, he asked do Badgers get TB? to which I replied yes and he said I never knew that. I asked what he was going to with the badger and he said he would take back and cremate, I asked would he be contacting Defra to see if they wanted to test the Badger. He asked what for and I replied for Tb and he said no he wouldnt be doing that. 

So perhaps you would like to laugh at that because TB in Badgers has been widely known for years and is often in the news unlike ip injections as euthanesia in horses.


----------



## competitiondiva (26 May 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			So perhaps you would like to laugh at that because TB in Badgers has been widely known for years and is often in the news unlike ip injections as euthanesia in horses.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry if my reply inferred ip as a method in horses, this is not the case, the poster was referring to a procedure witnessed in a kitten I believe (it was a small/medium mammal that's for sure) not a horse.

I think ear tips of dead badgers used to be sent to defra to test for tb, (can be corrected on that one if someone knows for sure) but believe Defra decided they no longer did this? Again maybe wrong, I do know that a wildlife centre I visited said any badger being released is tested.

I'm not sure how you can have a few attempts at killing a badger though? care to explain?


----------



## Dobiegirl (26 May 2012)

The RSPCA officer pointed the gun at his head and shot the badger, the badger continued to breathe and so he shot it again and again. Each time he shot it the badger continued to breathe. Sorry to be so graphic  but you did ask, he did say if we found one again we could shoot it ourselves if it was a welfare case.

Any horses of ours that we have had to put down in the past have been sedated and then injected by our very good equine vet. What the vet gave them Ive no idea and I was merely quoting  you on your earlier post and you didnt mention a kitten.


----------



## competitiondiva (26 May 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			The RSPCA officer pointed the gun at his head and shot the badger, the badger continued to breathe and so he shot it again and again. Each time he shot it the badger continued to breathe. Sorry to be so graphic  but you did ask, he did say if we found one again we could shoot it ourselves if it was a welfare case.

Any horses of ours that we have had to put down in the past have been sedated and then injected by our very good equine vet. What the vet gave them Ive no idea and I was merely quoting  you on your earlier post and you didnt mention a kitten.
		
Click to expand...

As I said, I was sorry if my reply mislead you to thinking the ip injection refered to a horse, as I did not state what animal in my reply, but made the assumption that as I said it was a recognised humane method used by vets that it would be obvious I was not talking about a horse, sorry for making this assumption.

Regarding your experience with the badger, please report the person to the RSPCA headquarters, it sounds like the person was not up to using the equipement and needs re-training.


----------



## Dobiegirl (26 May 2012)

Not to mention the fact that he knew naf all about TB in badgers and I would question the fact as to how much actual training he received.

Dosnt do the RSPCA any favours does it.


----------



## EAST KENT (26 May 2012)

Actually it always amazes me how uninformed the inspectors are; years ago now they were called about some extremely ribby in foal pony mares..they advised feeding.OK,but they were quite satisfied with some wheat straw being thrown down,not exactly a decent build up diet for in foal mares..but apparently sufficent to appease them.


----------



## Moomin1 (26 May 2012)

Just to point out also, for those people saying that funds should go to live export etc etc, that in the past few months, RSPCA officers attended Ramsgate after a meeting between Compassion in World Farming and Thanet Council, which secured permission to allow vets and RSPCA inspectors to monitor calves being exported for slaughter.  The result was that all port facilities and boats were inspected, inspectors actually travelled on board with the animals cross-channel, and between the police and Animal Health ensured welfare standards were met.  During this time welfare notices were given and improvements were made.


----------



## Caledonia (27 May 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Just to point out also, for those people saying that funds should go to live export etc etc, that in the past few months, RSPCA officers attended Ramsgate after a meeting between Compassion in World Farming and Thanet Council, which secured permission to allow vets and RSPCA inspectors to monitor calves being exported for slaughter.  The result was that all port facilities and boats were inspected, inspectors actually travelled on board with the animals cross-channel, and between the police and Animal Health ensured welfare standards were met.  During this time welfare notices were given and improvements were made.
		
Click to expand...

They only went to that after the group that had started the protest got so large that they couldn't NOT go without publicly losing face. 

They do NOTHING about the live exports except when there's a publicity issue such as Ramsgate.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 May 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Just to point out also, for those people saying that funds should go to live export etc etc, that in the past few months, RSPCA officers attended Ramsgate after a meeting between Compassion in World Farming and Thanet Council, which secured permission to allow vets and RSPCA inspectors to monitor calves being exported for slaughter.  The result was that all port facilities and boats were inspected, inspectors actually travelled on board with the animals cross-channel, and between the police and Animal Health ensured welfare standards were met.  During this time welfare notices were given and improvements were made.
		
Click to expand...

I will be honest here,  and hopefully without causing offence,  but how you can be quit so gullible,  and be taken in,  by such nonsense,  is beyond me.  I'm staggered that anyone would give any credibility to the rspca,  regardless of the subject.  

One small consolation for you though, you're not alone!  The powers that be,  in an effort to placate the critics of the Grand National,  invited the _experts_ rolleyes,  the rspca in,  and acted upon their advice,  lowered the Aintree fences,  and made matters worse!!  Were it not so serious,  it would be funny!

Those who are involved in the live export of calves have come to realise that if they manage to get the dubious distinction of a Seal of Approval,  from the rspca,  then trade can continue unhindered.  The protestors will be loathe to argue with the charity,  the charity will be able to claim a worthy achievement award,  and the traders will continue with minimum interference.  

I would also suggest Moomin1,  that you look into the antics of the American version of our leading cruelty charity,  because that's the way that your heros are travelling.

Alec.


----------



## EAST KENT (27 May 2012)

The ASPCA Alec? Tell us more! Watch the progs and everything looks fine..so what do they get up to?


----------



## marmalade76 (27 May 2012)

Mrs B said:



			Maybe it is. You do come across as a bit of a prat, TBH...
		
Click to expand...

Ha ha, quite agree!


----------



## Alec Swan (27 May 2012)

E_K,

there was a thread about them on here,  some while back,  and I'm now going from memory,  so may be wrong,  but it involved those people in New York (?) who drive tourists about in horse drawn carriages,  a horse died,  the ASPCA distorted the vet's report,  to the extent that the vet (an employee of the ASPCA) told them where to stick their job,  it then transpired that one of the ASPCA's major benefactors happened to be a property developer,  and for years had been doing his best to get his hands on the carriage drivers stabling area,  and there was something of a row about it. 

It also turned out,  from the thread on here,  that the ASPCA are in part Government funded,  have the right to direct prosecution,  but despite the *$16 million income*,  there were a pitifully small number of animals which received any attention what so ever.

I may not be correct in every thing,  but that was the gist of it.  It was an eye opener,  and a hoot!!  If someone could find the previous thread,  I'll be happy to be corrected.

Alec.


----------



## 1life (27 May 2012)

Mrs B said:



			Maybe it is. You do come across as a bit of a prat, TBH...
		
Click to expand...

Personally insulting someone does not make your arguement right. So far, I think many have made valid contributions to this debate trying to put their individual point across without being personal. 

Bearing in mind your tagline...

Attack the evil that is within yourself, rather than attacking the evil that is in others. 
&#8213; Confucius


----------



## 1life (27 May 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			Ha ha, quite agree!
		
Click to expand...

Just so this is a balanced arguement...I don't agree.


----------



## marmalade76 (27 May 2012)

1life said:



			Just so this is a balanced arguement...I don't agree.



Click to expand...

lol!


----------



## Mrs B (27 May 2012)

1life said:



			Personally insulting someone does not make your arguement right. So far, I think many have made valid contributions to this debate trying to put their individual point across without being personal.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, I was merely stating the obvious in response to Moomin's rather puerile post.

I think you'll find I have also made valid contributions to this debate, even if you don't agree with my point of view. 

And quoting that particular Confucianism at me? Rather OTT don't you think?

In any case, I rather think I follow mine to ensure I also adhere to yours. Do you?


----------



## EAST KENT (27 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			I will be honest here,  and hopefully without causing offence,  but how you can be quit so gullible,  and be taken in,  by such nonsense,  is beyond me.  I'm staggered that anyone would give any credibility to the rspca,  regardless of the subject.  

One small consolation for you though, you're not alone!  The powers that be,  in an effort to placate the critics of the Grand National,  invited the _experts_ rolleyes,  the rspca in,  and acted upon their advice,  lowered the Aintree fences,  and made matters worse!!  Were it not so serious,  it would be funny!

Those who are involved in the live export of calves have come to realise that if they manage to get the dubious distinction of a Seal of Approval,  from the rspca,  then trade can continue unhindered.  The protestors will be loathe to argue with the charity,  the charity will be able to claim a worthy achievement award,  and the traders will continue with minimum interference.  

I would also suggest Moomin1,  that you look into the antics of the American version of our leading cruelty charity,  because that's the way that your heros are travelling.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

 Mmm the rspca was responsible largely for making the National fences less daunting..result a lot of horses going faster than before,resulting in more deaths.The race should be more in line with the Par de Beche(??) rather than classed as an ordinary steeplechase in my opinion.Typical though ,total lack of understanding their subject.
 Recently some cats were removed from an old couple hereabouts ,the rspca PTS immediately. A certain vet paid for an independent PM on the cats..there was absolutely nothing amiss with any of them..before they were removed as "ill treated and neglected". Watch this space


----------



## 1life (27 May 2012)

Mrs B said:



			Actually, I was merely stating the obvious in response to Moomin's rather puerile post.

I think you'll find I have also made valid contributions to this debate, even if you don't agree with my point of view. 

And quoting that particular Confucianism at me? Rather OTT don't you think?

In any case, I rather think I follow mine to ensure I also adhere to yours. Do you?
		
Click to expand...

Ah, you see this is where text lets us down - lack of intonation. Yes, many have made contributions (including yourself), as I said, and we are all entitled to our opinions...but without being labelled or name-called by others if they don't happen to agree.

No, I don't think it's OTT as I wasn't thinking of 'evil' in a traditional sense, more like looking at our own ways and weaknesses before we throw a bolt at other people.


----------



## rockysmum (27 May 2012)

Just read the other thread on the go at the moment.

Obviously not much of their money goes where the public thinks it does.

They are also employing people who have no idea of what welfare is.

Just look at the pics of that poor horse.


----------



## 1life (27 May 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			lol! 

Click to expand...

Bloomin multi quote function not working for me today, hence individual replies...

I do love these smiley face things, they help to get the correct meaning across, my reply (and then yours) would have seemed totally different without them.

BTW, Gloucester, love it!! My original neck of the woods, near Cranham. Stunning at this time of the year .


----------



## marmalade76 (27 May 2012)

I remember something form one of those animal rescue programmes. A pair of neighbours found a pair of abandoned kittens. Each neighbour took a kitten, one decided to keep theirs, the other rang the rspca and asked them to take it. After taking the first kitten, the 'inspector' took it upon herself to visit the other neighbour and bully them into handing over the other kitten. First she tried telling them the kitten desperately needed to see a vet 'cause it might be ill, then she kept on and on asking them if they were absolutely sure that they could afford to keep a cat, could they afford to have it spayed and vaccinated? Could they afford to pay the vet bills if it got injured or sick? Eventually the poor folks gave in and handed it over. The 'inspector' took both kittens to a vet who announced that both kittens were in the best possible health, not even a flea between them! They were then rehomed, no doubt for a tidy fee. All this for a kitten in no danger, yet genuine reports of neglect go ignored, like some horses both a friend and I have reported, under fed and feet neglected, they still have not been out to 'inspect' these. And people wonder why some can't stand them.


----------



## marmalade76 (27 May 2012)

1life said:



			Bloomin multi quote function not working for me today, hence individual replies...

I do love these smiley face things, they help to get the correct meaning across, my reply (and then yours) would have seemed totally different without them.

BTW, Gloucester, love it!! My original neck of the woods, near Cranham. Stunning at this time of the year .
		
Click to expand...

My Dad's not far from there, lovely place.


----------



## Mrs B (27 May 2012)

1life said:



			No, I don't think it's OTT as I wasn't thinking of 'evil' in a traditional sense, more like looking at our own ways and weaknesses before we throw a bolt at other people.
		
Click to expand...

I was certainly not thinking that you were linking me to Beelzebub!  

But even taken in its less than literal sense; I constantly look at my own failings and question things. Therefore I also feel entitled to point out, having done so, when I think another is being an prat...


----------



## neelie OAP (27 May 2012)

Yes totally agree, I do not support the RSPCA, there are far more charities that do a hell of alot more for needy animals


----------



## 1life (27 May 2012)

Mrs B said:



			I was certainly not thinking that you were linking me to Beelzebub!  

But even taken in its less than literal sense; I constantly look at my own failings and question things. Therefore I also feel entitled to point out, having done so, when I think another is being an prat...
		
Click to expand...

Crikey, I haven't heard the Beelzebub phrase for aaaaaaages. That's going to be my 'word of the week'!

As long as you can take any return shots then, of course, you may feel you are allowed to serve a few .


----------



## Mrs B (27 May 2012)

1life said:



			Crikey, I haven't heard the Beelzebub phrase for aaaaaaages. That's going to be my 'word of the week'!

As long as you can take any return shots then, of course, you may feel you are allowed to serve a few .
		
Click to expand...

It's one of my favourites 

Be my guest. If the worst I'm ever called in my life is a prat, I'll have either got off very lightly, or not been paying attention...


----------



## competitiondiva (27 May 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			I remember something form one of those animal rescue programmes. A pair of neighbours found a pair of abandoned kittens. Each neighbour took a kitten, one decided to keep theirs, the other rang the rspca and asked them to take it. After taking the first kitten, the 'inspector' took it upon herself to visit the other neighbour and bully them into handing over the other kitten. First she tried telling them the kitten desperately needed to see a vet 'cause it might be ill, then she kept on and on asking them if they were absolutely sure that they could afford to keep a cat, could they afford to have it spayed and vaccinated? Could they afford to pay the vet bills if it got injured or sick? Eventually the poor folks gave in and handed it over. The 'inspector' took both kittens to a vet who announced that both kittens were in the best possible health, not even a flea between them! They were then rehomed, no doubt for a tidy fee. All this for a kitten in no danger, yet genuine reports of neglect go ignored, like some horses both a friend and I have reported, under fed and feet neglected, they still have not been out to 'inspect' these. And people wonder why some can't stand them.
		
Click to expand...

As you would imagine from a programme, selective editing can sometimes distort the message, but is it so bad that the inspector ran through all the expenses of keeping a pet to check the people were capable of meeting the animals needs?

Regarding a 'tidy' fee, do you realise that all animals rehomed by RSPCA have the neutering, vaccination, microchipping, worming, defleaing paid for??? The cost of doing all this far outweighs any adoption fee.....

If you have reported neglected animals, and not had anyone attend, either it's a case of too many calls, not enough inspectors.  Or maybe on describing the animals to the call centre the urgency of the conditions was not fully understood? If these animals were/are in these conditions and no one has been out, either call call and call again, or if you don't support the rspca anyway. Then call someone else..........????


----------



## competitiondiva (27 May 2012)

rockysmum said:



			Just read the other thread on the go at the moment.

Obviously not much of their money goes where the public thinks it does.

They are also employing people who have no idea of what welfare is.

Just look at the pics of that poor horse.
		
Click to expand...

what horse???


----------



## competitiondiva (27 May 2012)

scrap that last reply rockysmum, think i've seen the thread.


----------



## marmalade76 (28 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			As you would imagine from a programme, selective editing can sometimes distort the message, but is it so bad that the inspector ran through all the expenses of keeping a pet to check the people were capable of meeting the animals needs? 

FFS, it was a bloody cat! And would you be happy if an 'inspector' turned up at your place uninvited and questioned your ability to afford your animals?? They found a kitten and were happy to look after it, it was none of the rspca's business, how many times have peole been told that they can't do anything about an animal unless it's suffering? Well this one certainly wasn't, yet that 'inspector' went to a lot of trouble to get it from them.

Regarding a 'tidy' fee, do you realise that all animals rehomed by RSPCA have the neutering, vaccination, microchipping, worming, defleaing paid for??? The cost of doing all this far outweighs any adoption fee.....

This cat would have cost them nothing if they'd left it where it was.

If you have reported neglected animals, and not had anyone attend, either it's a case of too many calls, not enough inspectors.  Or maybe on describing the animals to the call centre the urgency of the conditions was not fully understood?
		
Click to expand...

More than likely as the these rspca employees seem to know FA about horses!


----------



## Moomin1 (28 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			As you would imagine from a programme, selective editing can sometimes distort the message, but is it so bad that the inspector ran through all the expenses of keeping a pet to check the people were capable of meeting the animals needs?

Regarding a 'tidy' fee, do you realise that all animals rehomed by RSPCA have the neutering, vaccination, microchipping, worming, defleaing paid for??? The cost of doing all this far outweighs any adoption fee.....

If you have reported neglected animals, and not had anyone attend, either it's a case of too many calls, not enough inspectors.  Or maybe on describing the animals to the call centre the urgency of the conditions was not fully understood? If these animals were/are in these conditions and no one has been out, either call call and call again, or if you don't support the rspca anyway. Then call someone else..........????
		
Click to expand...

You know what always strikes me with posts like this - (the ones you are referring to) is that they say that the RSPCA still haven't been out to these terribly neglected animals, yet there is no mention of whether they have rung another agency.  Can't be that concerned.

If another agency has been called, can they tell us about the improvements that have now been made?


----------



## competitiondiva (28 May 2012)

ahh marmalade you're one of the damned if they do and damned if they don't lot!

you infer that the rspca wanted the kitten to make money out of adoption fees, then when it's pointed out what that adoption fee pays for, you say, this cat wouldn't have cost them anything if they'd left it. And if they'd left it and the cat then got hit by a car and the new 'owners' hadn't considered this and couldn't afford it what then???

and please 'bloody cat'?????


----------



## Moomin1 (28 May 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			More than likely as the these rspca employees seem to know FA about horses!
		
Click to expand...

Yes I would be happy if an inspector questioned my financial ability to look after an animal.  Too often inspectors come across people who take on animals willy nilly without a second's thought about whether they can afford them if something goes wrong.  There is nothing more infuriating than someone who 'rescues' an animal and then doesn't have the means to actually meet the animal's needs themselves.

It sounds very much like the person in question came across as one of those sorts.


----------



## siennamum (28 May 2012)

Although I see 'those sorts' on programmes and I often feel that they are a bit batty & ignorant rather than neccessarily cruel, my experience of the RSPCA is that inspectors are unlikely to act if the person who has had a complaint levelled at them is wealthy, or bullying.

I've seen pitiful cases reported to the RSPCA which were brushed under the carpet when the inspector was hoodwinked/bullied into thinking that this 'expert' knew better and look at all the other shiny healthy animals they have.I certainly support the statement that they really can be clueless.


----------



## NoseyPosey (28 May 2012)

I haven't read the entire thread but it sounds a bit like giving aid to countries that can afford nuclear weapons programs. Or our government asking us to tighten our belts whilst giving aid to countries that can afford nuclear weapons programs....


----------



## Copperpot (28 May 2012)

I stopped supporting them years ago. They care more about the press they will get from something like this than helping animals in my opinion. 

I now support smaller charities instead who don't waste money.


----------



## Moomin1 (28 May 2012)

Copperpot said:



			I stopped supporting them years ago. They care more about the press they will get from something like this than helping animals in my opinion. 

I now support smaller charities instead who don't waste money.
		
Click to expand...

It's a real shame that people feel this way because the less donations given means people like Jamie Grey won't be brought to justice.  Too many people focus on the negative sides and don't focus on the positive.  It is amazing how whenever a positive story comes on here of a succesful prosecution hardly anybody gives credit where credit is due - and instead of feeling pleased that justice has been done and an animal has been saved, people just find it more appropriate to slate the RSPCA.  Very sad state of affairs.

If people on here really had animal welfare at heart they would perhaps look at the prosecution/rescue/rehoming statistics of the national society.  

I stress again, each individual branch are SEPERATE charities under the RSPCA name.  Experiences without rehoming branches do not reflect or have anything to do with the National Society.


----------



## Copperpot (29 May 2012)

It probably is a shame and it's not the RSPCA inspectors I have issues with. Maybe they are not trained as much as the should be according to others posts on here but I know they do not get paid much, so they obviously do the job as they care about animals. 

It's more the hierarchy that I have issues with. 

However, helping smaller charities is just as beneficial to animals. I have an ex death row dog sat next to me who would no longer be on this earth and I have helped financially with kennelling fees, vets fees for others. At least I can see where my money goes and that it is actually helping.


----------



## competitiondiva (29 May 2012)

All registered welfare organisations do the best they can with what they have and all fully need our support whether small or large, maybe the RSPCA is guilty of trying to be everything to everyone, as it's run by councillors they each have their own priorities of what they want the RSPCA to be, so it tries to do it all. But in doing so spreads itself too thin??? Even on this forum peoples opinions of what they want the RSPCA to be are vastly different!  

Regarding Inspectors who 'know naf all about horses' you're probably right, but that Inspector probably knows a hell of a lot about dogs, cats or some other animal etc, regarding training, I think it would be an impossible task to train every inspector to be fully knowledgeable about every animal that is covered by the law.  But at the end of the day it is a vet who says whether an animal is suffering or not, not the inspector, if the inspector feels the animal is suffering then a vet will be called.

And regarding the whole 'not interested unless the press is there' theory..... Have you seen the statistics for the animals rescued, collected, cases brought etc, I for one can honestly say that i have not heard of that amount of stories in the press!!! The majority of an inspectors job is going giving improvement notices, these are usually acted upon, things improve and that's it, never hits the news.  Similarly nor do all the collections of injured pigeons and gulls and myxy rabbits etc etc!


----------



## rockysmum (29 May 2012)

If the RSPCA and their inspectors are not always knowledgable about horses, should they even be involved.  What would we say about a horse charity employing inspectors with little idea.

IMO horses should not come under the RSPCA, they should stick to smaller animals.  Nor should they come under the farm animal inspectors.

Its time someone accepted that horses are different, vets have done it, many practices wont touch them.

Why dont we have a national horse charity with the same powers as the RSPCA.  Not saying it has to be one of the existing ones, although that might make sense.  Perhaps combine some of the better ones somehow.  Maybe a totally seperate branch of the RSPCA, I dont know.

I'm pretty sure many at the RSPCA would be relieved and it would allow specialists to be recruited.


----------



## MurphysMinder (29 May 2012)

I agree that some RSPCA officers have a lack of equine knowledge.  They were called to a TB locally, basically not being fed through the winter and was a walking hat rack.  The little native type pony with him was poor but nowhere near as bad as the tb, as obviously he was able better to survive on fresh air.  The RSPCA inspector stated that if it had just been the tb he would have removed it, but as the pony was okay (ish) he thought it might be an underlying problem so gave the owner time to get a vet to check it.  Bizarrely the owner then paid a fortune for vet visits, bloods etc knowing full well the horse was thin as it hadn't been fed.  Once it got some food down it not surprisingly he started looking better again, though was pts before the next winter.


----------



## Fenris (29 May 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			If people on here really had animal welfare at heart they would perhaps look at the prosecution/rescue/rehoming statistics of the national society.
		
Click to expand...

Well now the stats that the RSPCA put out, as you know, have been looked at time and again by the SHG. It is well known that at least 50% of all living creatures that come into possession of the RSPCA die.  Not sure if the formatting will come over to here but let's think of treatments given, after all, one would expect that to be a real measure of the way in which the RSPCA helps animals.

1998 there were 286,540 treatments given.

2000            280,880

2004            238,265

2007            230,868

2008            214,657

2009            217,497

2010            211,188

2011            Not found this yet


Not very impressive to show a continual decline when demand is bound to be rising in a recession, is it?

How about the massive rises in cruelty according to the RSPCA media machine (aimed at parting everyone with their money).

According to the RSPCA comparing 2010 with 2011 figures there was a

    24% rise in the number of people convicted for cruelty and neglect (1,341);
    22% rise in the convictions relating to cruelty to dogs (2,105);
    21% increase in disqualifications imposed by courts (1,100);
    27% rise in prison sentences imposed by courts (74);
    9% increase in the numbers of people reported to our prosecutions team (3,036); and
    13% rise in the number of phone calls received by the RSPCA (1,314,795)

But is this really reflective of a massive rise year on year? Or do the figures show a different situation?  (I have a spread sheet but can't find a way to transfer it over here.  It will eventually hit the public domain).  Not worked out the percentages for the following so:

Comparing 2011 with

2008 there was an an overall drop in convictions from 3252

2008 there was a very slight drop in disqualifications from 1104

2008 there was a dramatic drop in prison sentences from 133 with only 2010 being lower than 2011.

2008 there was a drop in  the number of people reported to the prosecutions department from 3252

2008 telephone calls were higher in 2011 from 1098680 but the following year 2009 had 1338057 calls made.

But there were over 19000 more complaints investigated in 2011  than in 2008 which begs the question of why such a decrease in results.

The real result is that the figures vary year on year and it is easy to produce a low year or high year as required.  

But then you might reflect on the new peer reviewed paper mentioned in the SHG blog post at

http://theshg.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/government-plans-to-microchip-dogs-has-no-evidential-support/

that states:




			Furthermore, animal cruelty offences recorded by the police are not collected by the Home Office &#8211; we therefore have little other than anecdotal testimony in the absence of sustained criminological research to rely on in dealing with the seeming growth in the problem, for example, of abuse of dogs and their
involvement in crime and anti-social behaviour (see Hughes et al. [26]).
		
Click to expand...

"RSPCA and the criminology of social control" is an incredibly important paper and everyone who has doubts about the RSPCA stats that are published each year should read it.


----------



## competitiondiva (29 May 2012)

rockysmum said:



			If the RSPCA and their inspectors are not always knowledgable about horses, should they even be involved.  What would we say about a horse charity employing inspectors with little idea.

IMO horses should not come under the RSPCA, they should stick to smaller animals.  Nor should they come under the farm animal inspectors.

Its time someone accepted that horses are different, vets have done it, many practices wont touch them.

Why dont we have a national horse charity with the same powers as the RSPCA.  Not saying it has to be one of the existing ones, although that might make sense.  Perhaps combine some of the better ones somehow.  Maybe a totally seperate branch of the RSPCA, I dont know.

I'm pretty sure many at the RSPCA would be relieved and it would allow specialists to be recruited.
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA have no powers, there is no reason why the BHS or WHW couldn't take a prosecution, they choose not to because of the drain on resources, financial and staffing.  So whilst i would agree with you, I think you first need to be contacting the other organisations to get them to take on this responsibility.  The RSPCA take over cases started by these organisations if a prosecution entails, because they are the only ones willing to....


----------



## Luci07 (30 May 2012)

Wouldn't it be grand if someone (not me, I am not an RSPCA fan Imcase that had bypassed anyone! ) sent this thread to the RSPCA press and suggested that this thread is a very strong showing of the publics feelings about them.

BTW, I don't accept the arguement that the individual branches are completely separate from the main body. They carry the name, presumably have some sort of standards set. (..and if not WHY not?) so therefore are perceived to come under the same banner


----------



## Dobiegirl (30 May 2012)

Luci07 said:



			Wouldn't it be grand if someone (not me, I am not an RSPCA fan Imcase that had bypassed anyone! ) sent this thread to the RSPCA press and suggested that this thread is a very strong showing of the publics feelings about them.

BTW, I don't accept the arguement that the individual branches are completely separate from the main body. They carry the name, presumably have some sort of standards set. (..and if not WHY not?) so therefore are perceived to come under the same banner
		
Click to expand...

I agree with what you have said and posted a similar answer about the public perception of the RSPCA. It dosnt matter whether it is right or wrong the important thing is their perception. We must all know brand names of goods that have been tarnished in some way  so they have lost trade.  The RSPCA will lose funds if they dont take up a massive publicity drive and try to restore confidence again. IMO they need to get back to the grass roots for which they were originaly formed.


----------



## competitiondiva (30 May 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			The RSPCA will lose funds if they dont take up a massive publicity drive and try to restore confidence again. IMO they need to get back to the grass roots for which they were originaly formed.
		
Click to expand...

And then they'll be criticised heavily on here for wasting money in advertising and only being about publicity, as they already are.............


----------



## Dobiegirl (30 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			And then they'll be criticised heavily on here for wasting money in advertising and only being about publicity, as they already are.............
		
Click to expand...

Whats your suggestion then?


----------



## Alec Swan (30 May 2012)

Luci07 said:



			Wouldn't it be grand if someone .... sent this thread to the RSPCA press and suggested that this thread is a very strong showing of the publics feelings about them.

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

Yes,  I think that it would be,  but as most large and unwieldily bodies,  the chances are that they'd simply refuse debate,  and bury their collective heads in the sand.

It might be worth a try though! 

Alec.

Ets,  and before anyone says "Well go on then",  I would if only I knew how!! a


----------



## competitiondiva (30 May 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			Whats your suggestion then?
		
Click to expand...

!!!?!?!?!?!

Unfortunately everyone wants it to be something different, and criticises it when it uses its money doing something else! Which is why so often they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Whereas organisations like dogs trust, cpl, WHW, bluecross in comparison keep their work centred in only a few areas, therefore attract the supporters who want their money spent on these things.  The RSPCA is almost too big in that it tries to cater for almost anything and everything to do with an animal, therefore upsets some people in some areas but not in others. (not sure if I'm explaining myself right!!) 

Of the list below where would you want your money as a supporter used? 

a) caring, treating and rehoming of unwanted animals.
b) An inspectorate who goes into peoples homes and addresses the issues at the heart and if needs be (i.e if conditions are so bad or if there is no other option) brings prosecutions.
c) Campaingning
d) Helping aid those who cannot financially afford vet, neutering costs
e) Having people going out collecting injured and trapped animals both wild and domestic etc.
f) having education officers attend school giving talks/lessons.
g) research

plus am sure there are a hell of a lot of other areas I've missed!!!


----------



## Fenris (30 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			Of the list below where would you want your money as a supporter used? 

a) caring, treating and rehoming of unwanted animals.[/OUOTE]

I would expect the RSPCA to undertake all of a).  

More than that I would expect them to work to ensure that when people offer in animals for rehoming they try to find out why the animals can no longer be kept and to try to find a means of keeping animal and owner together.

I would not expect them to take animals off people who cannot afford veterinary treatment, that is just removing an animal from a home that is good in all other respects.  

Too often people are told that the RSPCA will not treat their animal but will kill it for them, or will accept it to be signed over whereupon they will treat it and rehome it.

This turns animals into throw away commodities to be discarded when the going gets tough.  



competitiondiva said:



			b) An inspectorate who goes into peoples homes and addresses the issues at the heart and if needs be (i.e if conditions are so bad or if there is no other option) brings prosecutions.
		
Click to expand...

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 gave powers to local authority appointed inspectors and the police.  It is a waste of donated money for a charity to double up on inspections, investigations and prosecutions when a perfectly good and free service is provided by the state.  If people are unhappy with the service provided then they should complain via the local government ombudsman and the IPCC.  They should certainly make their MP aware of the problems.



competitiondiva said:



			c) Campaingning
		
Click to expand...

Depends on what and on the cost:benefit ratio.  

ampaigns such as dogs in hot cars are important and non-political.  

Other campaigns are clearly political and people who wish to undertake them should move into the political arena, not stay in the charity world.



competitiondiva said:



			d) Helping aid those who cannot financially afford vet, neutering costs
		
Click to expand...

Helping with vet costs absolutely.  Neutering costs no.  Far too many concerns about the safety of neutering these days.

If all of the animal related legislation since the 1911 Act had been replaced by an animal NHS if only for the animals of pensioners, and run similarly to the NHS dental service, retaining private practitioners, it would have done far more for animal welfare than has been achieved with the waving of the big legislative stick method.  It would help double the number of animals because it would free up charities like the PDSA to provide for a different group of needy animal owners.

These days it could be funded via the national lottery - give people a choice to tick whether they want their 'donation' to go to the usual 'good causes' or to fund an animal NHS.



competitiondiva said:



			e) Having people going out collecting injured and trapped animals both wild and domestic etc.
		
Click to expand...

RSPCA usually call in the experts to do this anyway, be they the fire brigade or RNLI etc. 



competitiondiva said:



			f) having education officers attend school giving talks/lessons.
		
Click to expand...

Not really sure that this should be a specialist job.  One for people with genuine experience if at all.  Sooner see our failing schools teach children to read - then they can find information on the net themselves.



competitiondiva said:



			g) research

plus am sure there are a hell of a lot of other areas I've missed!!!
		
Click to expand...

Again, not so sure about research.  Plenty of institutions fund and carry out research.  The RSPCA has a bad name for dumping research it funded when it didn't like the results.  Research needs an open mind, and doesn't seem to be the right place for campaigners trying to prove their point.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## competitiondiva (30 May 2012)

Fenris said:





competitiondiva said:



			Of the list below where would you want your money as a supporter used? 

a) caring, treating and rehoming of unwanted animals.[/OUOTE]

I would expect the RSPCA to undertake all of a).  

More than that I would expect them to work to ensure that when people offer in animals for rehoming they try to find out why the animals can no longer be kept and to try to find a means of keeping animal and owner together.

I would not expect them to take animals off people who cannot afford veterinary treatment, that is just removing an animal from a home that is good in all other respects.  

Too often people are told that the RSPCA will not treat their animal but will kill it for them, or will accept it to be signed over whereupon they will treat it and rehome it.

This turns animals into throw away commodities to be discarded when the going gets tough.  



The Animal Welfare Act 2006 gave powers to local authority appointed inspectors and the police.  It is a waste of donated money for a charity to double up on inspections, investigations and prosecutions when a perfectly good and free service is provided by the state.  If people are unhappy with the service provided then they should complain via the local government ombudsman and the IPCC.  They should certainly make their MP aware of the problems.



Depends on what and on the cost:benefit ratio.  

ampaigns such as dogs in hot cars are important and non-political.  

Other campaigns are clearly political and people who wish to undertake them should move into the political arena, not stay in the charity world.



Helping with vet costs absolutely.  Neutering costs no.  Far too many concerns about the safety of neutering these days.

If all of the animal related legislation since the 1911 Act had been replaced by an animal NHS if only for the animals of pensioners, and run similarly to the NHS dental service, retaining private practitioners, it would have done far more for animal welfare than has been achieved with the waving of the big legislative stick method.  It would help double the number of animals because it would free up charities like the PDSA to provide for a different group of needy animal owners.

These days it could be funded via the national lottery - give people a choice to tick whether they want their 'donation' to go to the usual 'good causes' or to fund an animal NHS.



RSPCA usually call in the experts to do this anyway, be they the fire brigade or RNLI etc. 



Not really sure that this should be a specialist job.  One for people with genuine experience if at all.  Sooner see our failing schools teach children to read - then they can find information on the net themselves.



Again, not so sure about research.  Plenty of institutions fund and carry out research.  The RSPCA has a bad name for dumping research it funded when it didn't like the results.  Research needs an open mind, and doesn't seem to be the right place for campaigners trying to prove their point.
		
Click to expand...

and that is your version of the direction you would want rspca to go in.

But to address your points, the council yes are the ones appointed under the act, but very few have officers to deal with these welfare complaints. To do so would require a substancial increase in budget, the knock on effect is a substancial increase in council tax. Plus the choice on whether to prosecute would be a financial one, take for instance the gray case, those horses would have been disposed of by the most cost effective way at the earliest opportunity, i.e sold through the sales ring, where is the animal welfare there?

Am just shocked and speechless at your anti neutering stance!!!!!!!

Regarding collections and rescues, sorry i wasn't aware the fire brigade or RNLI went out collecting injured birds, hedgehogs, deer, myxy rabbits etc etc etc!!!????? granted they will attend where the specialist equipement is required.....
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Dave282B (30 May 2012)

Do they really collect rabbits with myxy - I never knew that


----------



## Dobiegirl (30 May 2012)

Fenris I take issue with you as regards neutering, where and how do you think the thousands of dogs come from that go into rescue. By not neutering you are potentially allowing pets to breed indiscriminately. Spaying helps prevent mammary tumours and pyrometra in bitches which can be fatal.

I would like to see a drive by the RSPCA to help stop puppy farming and byb, also raising awareness of the pitfalls of giving dogs away for free on internet sites and the liklihood of them falling into the hands of fight gangs who use them for bait dogs.


----------



## competitiondiva (30 May 2012)

Dave282B said:



			Do they really collect rabbits with myxy - I never knew that
		
Click to expand...

If it's an animal and is sick, injured or trapped and can't be taken to a vet by the finder (which by the way usually gets charged to the RSPCA too!) then yes:http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/wildlife/injuredanimals


----------



## EAST KENT (31 May 2012)

Nothing can be done for myxie rabbits except put it out of it`s misery,which any country man could do there and then,no vet fees required. Pointless.


----------



## competitiondiva (31 May 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			Nothing can be done for myxie rabbits except put it out of it`s misery,which any country man could do there and then,no vet fees required. Pointless.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed but alot of people won't..........


----------



## Dave282B (31 May 2012)

Wow , no wonder they're skint


----------



## Alec Swan (31 May 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			Nothing can be done for myxie rabbits except put it out of it`s misery,which any country man could do there and then,no vet fees required. Pointless.
		
Click to expand...

And as even the hardened wouldn't be too struck on breaking the neck of a puss filled rabbit,  the final act for them is generally administered with a stick.  Kindness doesn't always have a pretty face.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (31 May 2012)

Dave282B said:



			Wow , no wonder they're skint
		
Click to expand...

So the RSPCA are now doing wrong by humanely pts'ing mixxy rabbits?!!  

Dear me.  Clearly we should just let some animals suffer but not others then.


----------



## Fenris (31 May 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			and that is your version of the direction you would want rspca to go in.
		
Click to expand...

Those are my current thoughts - but the real test is what the donating public are prepared to support.  The problem the RSPCA has now is that it has been depending on legacy income for a long time.  The people who left them legacies are generally those who did so when they saw a very different RSPCA.  An RSPCA that went round with flea spray and wormer in the van which they used on  people's animals instead of seizing and prosecuting. 

Legacy income is dropping - for whatever reason.  They need to address the problem and to do that they need to persuade the people who are critical to come back on board.




competitiondiva said:



			But to address your points, the council yes are the ones appointed under the act, but very few have officers to deal with these welfare complaints.
		
Click to expand...

Many have appointed an inspector with the powers of the Act.  Indeed, some have more than one inspector.




competitiondiva said:



			To do so would require a substancial increase in budget, the knock on effect is a substancial increase in council tax. Plus the choice on whether to prosecute would be a financial one, take for instance the gray case, those horses would have been disposed of by the most cost effective way at the earliest opportunity, i.e sold through the sales ring, where is the animal welfare there?
		
Click to expand...

Other organizations dealt with the re-homing of the Gray horses.  More importantly though, local authorities have a proper complaints procedure that is governed by the local government ombudsman and they are also subject to judicial review of their decisions and actions.  If they fail to act reasonably then any organization can take any of these steps.  

Cost effectively it would only need one council or police force to have complaints about their failure to act upheld to send a shock wave through the rest of the country.

Equally cost effectively, how is it supportive of animal welfare for a charity which is losing the support of the public and which is rapidly going broke ? What decisions are then made in terms of who to prosecute and why?  Even if we ignore the political influence which would generally be knocked out of any local authority or police/CPS prosecution?



competitiondiva said:



			Am just shocked and speechless at your anti neutering stance!!!!!!!
		
Click to expand...

http://www2.dcn.org/orgs/ddtc/sfiles/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

http://www.caninesports.com/SNBehaviorBoneDataSnapShot.pdf

Essentially spay/neuter is elective invasive surgery that has major downsides as well as good and should in my view, not be undertaken lightly.  

Even anaesthetic can cause problems for people as well as animals.



competitiondiva said:



			Regarding collections and rescues, sorry i wasn't aware the fire brigade or RNLI went out collecting injured birds, hedgehogs, deer, myxy rabbits etc etc etc!!!????? granted they will attend where the specialist equipement is required.....
		
Click to expand...

And of course they don't, most such rescues are by small specialist organizations that do the jobs the RSPCA ought to be doing which is why there is such dissatisfaction!

However your original  question stated:

e) Having people going out collecting injured and trapped animals both wild and domestic etc.

And of course I was thinking of sheep or horses trapped by the tide, animals off cliffs, cats up trees etc.


----------



## competitiondiva (31 May 2012)

Fenris whilst in some areas you some speak sense and I have no problem with. In others you are naive and illinformed.


----------



## competitiondiva (31 May 2012)

Damn phone!!! That's supposed to say speak some sense.....


----------



## CAYLA (1 June 2012)

I have to say dealing/working very closely with the RSPCA some years back I could see this happening. All the inspectors I knew left because of the sheer frustration from the suits above.
I was headed for joining the RSPCA as an inspector and decided against it from what I was witnessing it was not for me.
I think they went a little crazy with alot of money and never had/thought about the future/contingency.

The RSPCA do subsidize vet fees in extenuating circumstances but I am not sure I agree with people randomly having vet bills payed, it encourages irresponsible ownership, either insure your pet or don't get one otherwise it's going to suffer through your own selfishness/ignorance.

I have to say though I do think neutering is massively important considering we are dealing with the aftermath of mass production here which can only strain the system, it would also be cheaper to prevent than treat, so if folk cannot afford neutering they cannot afford an emergency pyo thats for sure and if the RSPCA have to fund or subside this, it's a bigger drain.
I think we need FREE neutering clinics everywhere.

An we certainly need education to try and educate tomorrows abusers/ignoramuses, Im not sure who other than the RSPCA who would perform this task? and who would fund it?

In regard to wild life then of course they should be on hand to attend, unless it's something managable and to be fair half the public could man up a little put said animals in a box and take it to an out of hours vet (they wont refuse it) esp the likes of injured, birds hedgehogs, rabbits or even cats/dogs found on the roadside. All the public need do is contact the RSPCA and they will direct you to a local vet and they will sort out log number if it's a cat/dog but some wont even travel up the road. 

What services would you like to see the PDSA freed up to do? as mentioned somewhere above?


----------



## Fenris (1 June 2012)

CAYLA said:



			I

What services would you like to see the PDSA freed up to do? as mentioned somewhere above?
		
Click to expand...

If there was a government funded animal NHS if only for the animals of pensioners then the PDSA would be freed from providing for those animals and able to use their funds to provide for different but perhaps equally needy people and their animals.


----------



## Moomin1 (1 June 2012)

Fenris said:



			If there was a government funded animal NHS if only for the animals of pensioners then the PDSA would be freed from providing for those animals and able to use their funds to provide for different but perhaps equally needy people and their animals.
		
Click to expand...

You do of course realise in your wisdom that many people that use the PDSA's goodwill and funds are actually sat at home drinking heavily, smoking heavily, playing on new xbox's with all the latest games? 

There needs to be an organisation, as the RSPCA does, taking those people to task and seeing that they start setting their priorities straight.


----------



## Tormenta (1 June 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			You do of course realise in your wisdom that many people that use the PDSA's goodwill and funds are actually sat at home drinking heavily, smoking heavily, playing on new xbox's with all the latest games? 

There needs to be an organisation, as the RSPCA does, taking those people to task and seeing that they start setting their priorities straight.
		
Click to expand...

Yep and some of them no doubt are the biggest culprits when it comes to the indiscriminate breeding of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and such like who end up putting extra strain on the charities in the UK, not forgetting the abundance of healthy dogs put to sleep every day.


----------



## Moomin1 (1 June 2012)

Tormenta said:



			Yep and some of them no doubt are the biggest culprits when it comes to the indiscriminate breeding of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and such like who end up putting extra strain on the charities in the UK, not forgetting the abundance of healthy dogs put to sleep every day.
		
Click to expand...

A voice of sensibility Tormenta!!  Yes these are the very same folks that CAUSE the likes of heavily burdened charities to HAVE to turn away or potentially pts healthy animals - all in the name of animal welfare (it would not be in the animal's best interests to leave it with owner, but also not welfare minded to leave them going stir crazy in kennels for years on end trying to find a new home - with thousands of other staffies available and not wanted too).  It's a nightmare.  IMO better pts than leave with those types of people, or risk them ending up being passed around and bred from by that type.


----------



## Dobiegirl (1 June 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			You do of course realise in your wisdom that many people that use the PDSA's goodwill and funds are actually sat at home drinking heavily, smoking heavily, playing on new xbox's with all the latest games? 

There needs to be an organisation, as the RSPCA does, taking those people to task and seeing that they start setting their priorities straight.
		
Click to expand...

So how on earth is the RSPCA going to know who is sat at home drinking and smoking heavily whilst playing on their new xboxs? and how are they going to take them to task and get them to buck up their ideas.


----------



## Moomin1 (1 June 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			So how on earth is the RSPCA going to know who is sat at home drinking and smoking heavily whilst playing on their new xboxs? and how are they going to take them to task and get them to buck up their ideas.
		
Click to expand...

Errr, because they visit houses like this every single day and take prosecutions on them?!

I could post a pic on here of a dog subject to such an example but I haven't got a clue how to do it.


----------



## Dobiegirl (1 June 2012)

But you make it sound like all people who visit the PDSA are all shysters this is clearly not true. How do you know the xboxs are not presents from someone else.

I think you will find the PDSA would take someone to task if an animal was brought in that was clearly neglected.


----------



## Moomin1 (1 June 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			But you make it sound like all people who visit the PDSA are all shysters this is clearly not true. How do you know the xboxs are not presents from someone else.

I think you will find the PDSA would take someone to task if an animal was brought in that was clearly neglected.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not intending to make it sound as if everyone who takes their pets to PDSA are like that at all.  I apologise if it came across that way.  What I am trying to say is that many of those people could in actual fact fund their pets themselves if they had their priorities in line.  The RSPCA work in line with PDSA often, by referring people to them, or following up complaints made by pdsa when people have brought in neglected animals or when people haven't followed up treatment as advised.  

Members of public don't have this idea - they obviously don't realise that the RSPCA are the port of call for most organisations, including many vets and charities, to take further action when they are not satisfied with the people and animals they are dealing with.  It is satisfying to know to that many succesful prosecutions have taken place as a result of the organisations notifying and working in conjunction with the RSPCA.  

That in essence was what I was trying to say - the RSPCA needs the other organisations, as the other organisations also need the RSPCA.  It's a shame all of the organisations don't show how they work together, because I can understand that to the general public it may not be obvious or clear that they really do form an effective lattice on many occassions.

As for the xbox instance - you ask any authority - be it housing, police, RSPCA, child protection etc, what they often encounter when they deal with neglect (of animals and children) - and what they see in the surroundings of the house.

Rubbish galore, dirt, neglected animals, neglected children, and LARGE SCREEN TV'S, PLAYSTATIONS, GAMES, ALCOHOL BOTTLES, CIGARETTE PACKETS, DRUGS.  And debt collector's letters laying around by the letterbox...


----------



## rockysmum (1 June 2012)

Here is a thought.

If the police can recruit volunteers to walk the street when they dont have the manpower.  Why cant the RSPCA.

If they were careful with selection and training perhaps these people could do the first checks.  Obviously not when it was in someones home.

Be honest, any one of us could probably check a horse in a field and report back on whether it needed attention.  If it did then the inspectors are called in.

Same with collecting wildlife (small) and dropping it at the RSPCA.

It would weed out the hoax and downright stupid calls at least.  Perhaps free up the inspectors to do more for the really needy cases.

I bet they would get thousands of people willing to help.


----------



## competitiondiva (1 June 2012)

Rockysmum, in theory good, in reality what it would cost to train the people to recognise offenses, plus insurance to cover these people. Baring in mind when an inspector knocks on a door for knows what they will face. Would probably make it not as cost effective as you would initially think. It takes 6 months to train an inspector in the associated legislation. What you are stating is similar in effect to the bhs. Who's field officers I believe are volunteers. Problem here is the quality of the person as they are such is far ranging. Plus they are only dealing with horses in fields, not going into people's homes.. Regarding collection of contained wildlife I am completely in qgreement


----------



## Moomin1 (1 June 2012)

rockysmum said:



			Here is a thought.

If the police can recruit volunteers to walk the street when they dont have the manpower.  Why cant the RSPCA.

If they were careful with selection and training perhaps these people could do the first checks.  Obviously not when it was in someones home.

Be honest, any one of us could probably check a horse in a field and report back on whether it needed attention.  If it did then the inspectors are called in.

Same with collecting wildlife (small) and dropping it at the RSPCA.

It would weed out the hoax and downright stupid calls at least.  Perhaps free up the inspectors to do more for the really needy cases.

I bet they would get thousands of people willing to help.
		
Click to expand...

You're right Rockysmum - that is in theory a good idea - and in fact what the RSPCA have over the past two years tried to do.

They used to have inspectors who dealt with complaints (all) and also a number of collections, and collection officers who solely dealt with collections.  They thought it would be more efficient to do what the police have done and retrain the collection officers to become Animal Welfare Officers (AWO's) in order for them to concentrate on the low level complaints and collections whilst freeing up the inspectors to deal with high level complaints and prosecutions.  This is the structure that the RSPCA currently operate under on the ground.  But the sheer volume of calls coming in, in comparison with the amount of officers on the ground (taking into account maternity, paternity, sick leave, secondment etc etc) means that it does not work as effectively as the police who have hundreds and hundreds of officers in each region.

Plus, without actually attending the complaint - you never ever know what is behind the door to greet you.  Something that sounds HORRENDOUS actually turns out to be nothing.  And quite the opposite too.  

Unfortunately we live in a culture where people like to cause trouble for their neighbours at the expense of well meaning charities, and more importantly, well meaning public who donate to those charities, who then unfortunately get understandably riled by the fact that their sincere calls and complaints wait a while whilst officers make visits to horrific sounding calls when in fact it's nothing but a domestic feud.  Very sad.


----------



## CAYLA (1 June 2012)

Fenris said:



			If there was a government funded animal NHS if only for the animals of pensioners then the PDSA would be freed from providing for those animals and able to use their funds to provide for different but perhaps equally needy people and their animals.
		
Click to expand...


The state we are in, I doubt an animal NHS for pensioners pets would be a priority, The number of pensioners using the service is actually pretty low in the grand scheme.


----------



## rockysmum (1 June 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			They used to have inspectors who dealt with complaints (all) and also a number of collections, and collection officers who solely dealt with collections.  They thought it would be more efficient to do what the police have done and retrain the collection officers to become Animal Welfare Officers (AWO's) in order for them to concentrate on the low level complaints and collections whilst freeing up the inspectors to deal with high level complaints and prosecutions.  This is the structure that the RSPCA currently operate under on the ground.  But the sheer volume of calls coming in, in comparison with the amount of officers on the ground (taking into account maternity, paternity, sick leave, secondment etc etc) means that it does not work as effectively as the police who have hundreds and hundreds of officers in each region.

QUOTE]

Thats interesting, so in theory the cases where people are complaining about inspectors might actually have been dealt with by the Animal Welfare Officers.


I dont think their current structure would stop them using more volunteers.  Certainly they need to do something if their resources are so stretched.  It would be better to tell people who ring they cant deal properly with the case, than promise to investigate and then not, or take too long.

If people were aware of this they would have the chance to try other charities or the local authority instead.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Moomin1 (2 June 2012)

rockysmum said:





Moomin1 said:



			They used to have inspectors who dealt with complaints (all) and also a number of collections, and collection officers who solely dealt with collections.  They thought it would be more efficient to do what the police have done and retrain the collection officers to become Animal Welfare Officers (AWO's) in order for them to concentrate on the low level complaints and collections whilst freeing up the inspectors to deal with high level complaints and prosecutions.  This is the structure that the RSPCA currently operate under on the ground.  But the sheer volume of calls coming in, in comparison with the amount of officers on the ground (taking into account maternity, paternity, sick leave, secondment etc etc) means that it does not work as effectively as the police who have hundreds and hundreds of officers in each region.

QUOTE]

If an AWO comes across something that is potentially a case - or looks serious - they should hand it promptly back to an inspector to deal.  The sheer amount of serious complaints made per day means unfortunately, as with every other charity which has field officers (but a bit worse because the RSPCA deal with all animals AND collections of wildlife), that not every complaint can be seen to immediately or even within a few days.  It is a case of prioritising on the information given - and even then it is very difficult becaus so many sound so bad.  An individual officer covers an area specifically designated to them, which can be anything between 50 square miles to 250 square miles.  So one inspector may have an area which is highly populated over 50 square miles in which they can drive from job to job quickly, whereas the rural inspectors (where the horsey complaints quite often are) can have an area of 250 square miles to cover and takes all day to get to one to the other and deal.  It really is down to staffing and funds.  If there were more staff - like the police, then I have no doubt whatsoever that the system you suggest would work very effectively.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...


----------



## Tormenta (2 June 2012)

rockysmum said:



			Here is a thought.

If the police can recruit volunteers to walk the street when they dont have the manpower.  Why cant the RSPCA.

If they were careful with selection and training perhaps these people could do the first checks.  Obviously not when it was in someones home.

Be honest, any one of us could probably check a horse in a field and report back on whether it needed attention.  If it did then the inspectors are called in.

Same with collecting wildlife (small) and dropping it at the RSPCA.

It would weed out the hoax and downright stupid calls at least.  Perhaps free up the inspectors to do more for the really needy cases.

I bet they would get thousands of people willing to help.
		
Click to expand...

Small charities have volunteers. Inspectors for home visits, 6 monthly check ups etc, I was one myself. If I had reported back that a horse/pony in the care of someone who loaned one of the equines were not adequately cared for the charity involved (small and local) had the legal right to remove and/or call the police for support.  I can't see how this would be entirely out of the question for larger charities investigating cases if a volunteer Inspector was trained adequately. A volunteer Inspector could do the general checks freeing up a more trained Inspector to do proper cruelty/neglect/ignorance cases. I am sure they would have people willing to do that and they could quite easily be covered legally, as with some of the smaller charities.


----------



## Dobiegirl (2 June 2012)

Wildlife charities rely on their volunteers as do a lot of dog rescues, they just need to be people with common sense and there are a lot around surprisingly enough.

If other charities can do the same I dont see why the RSPCA cant do the same, and as for there not being enough Inspectors perhaps they could recruit more and not bother pursuing expensive cases like the thread title. I also think they should not get involved with the Grand National as they have. They have little knowledge of racing and have caused more deaths by their actions in trying to make it safer imo.


----------



## competitiondiva (2 June 2012)

Dobiegirl. So recruit more inspectors.... But then don't pay for the prosecutions which result from having those inspectors.... Unfortunately it's a catch 22!! If the rspca didn't pursue this case, then who will? If no-one then what's the point in having the law.... If the law has been broken then the perpetrator imo should be held accountable...


----------



## Dobiegirl (2 June 2012)

I didnt say less prosecutions, there are loads of ways they can save money, they are a huge organisation with perhaps too many chiefs and not enough Indians.


----------



## competitiondiva (2 June 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			I didnt say less prosecutions, there are loads of ways they can save money, they are a huge organisation with perhaps too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
		
Click to expand...

Agree and I think the new man at the top is starting to address this..... fingers crossed hey!!!


----------



## Echo Bravo (2 June 2012)

For heaven sake just give up the RSPCA are crap,they keep asking for money but it's not spent where it is needed and the worse thing they ever did was going on tv as they came over as real bullys on people that should have needed help and now they have gone policitcal. Why should I spend my hard earnt money, helping them waste thousands.


----------



## rockysmum (3 June 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			Dobiegirl. So recruit more inspectors.... But then don't pay for the prosecutions which result from having those inspectors.... Unfortunately it's a catch 22!! If the rspca didn't pursue this case, then who will? If no-one then what's the point in having the law.... If the law has been broken then the perpetrator imo should be held accountable...
		
Click to expand...

I do agree however its all about prioritising the use of limited resouces.

I personally would prefer that all animals in need were helped first.  If they can afford it then prosecute the worst cases.

Often the penalties are small anyway and even those banned from owning animals seem to find a way round it.

I'm not saying this is right, but then neither are a lot of other things in the world.


----------



## 1life (3 June 2012)

Echo Bravo said:



			For heaven sake just give up the RSPCA are crap,they keep asking for money but it's not spent where it is needed and the worse thing they ever did was going on tv as they came over as real bullys on people that should have needed help and now they have gone policitcal. Why should I spend my hard earnt money, helping them waste thousands.
		
Click to expand...

Considering this thread and having contributed to it previously I thought the proceedings I saw today quite apt.
I saw a man knocking on the door of someone living down the road from me when I was walking my dog this morning. When he got no reply he walked to a van parked nearby...an RSPCA van. He had come to investigate as last night they had a report that 2 dogs had been left 'home alone' while their owners went away for a long weekend. He has checked the dogs, he has taped a notice to the door and he is coming back later on tonight to check again. Not so 'crap' after all.........? And it did lift my spirits to see them doing the work that so many of you are slating them for supposedly not doing.


----------



## Echo Bravo (3 June 2012)

1life, how do you know they had been left alone for a long weekend?


----------



## 1life (3 June 2012)

Echo Bravo said:



			1life, how do you know they had been left alone for a long weekend?
		
Click to expand...


Because their neighbour had asked them where they were off to when they saw them loading the car and trailer up from Thursday onwards. I presume he thought they were taking the dogs with them...but it turns out they didn't. Don't know who reported them but it was obviously someone who was concerned.

Could have been someone going in to check them but I obviously don't know the full details - my POINT being that the RSPCA inspector obviously didn't know the full details either, so was investigating.


----------



## Ceris Comet (3 June 2012)

When I go away I have a lady go in twice a day to feed my cats and check all is ok. It costs a tenner a day but is much kinder than sticking them in an enclosed cattery when they are used to 24/7 freedom .


----------



## 1life (3 June 2012)

Ceris Comet said:



			When I go away I have a lady go in twice a day to feed my cats and check all is ok. It costs a tenner a day but is much kinder than sticking them in an enclosed cattery when they are used to 24/7 freedom .
		
Click to expand...

My parents' neighbour used to look after their cat for them in return for the help they gave her round the house. The only problem was that when they came back they always had problems getting said cat to come back to theirs for her food...she obviously preferred the extra treats she had been spoiled with while they were way .


----------



## Box_Of_Frogs (4 June 2012)

Haven't read all 21 pages of posts so sorry if this has already been said but just to clarify it IS the CPS that prosecutes criminal cases, not RSPCA. RSPCA gather evidence and then pass the file to CPS who make the decision on whether or not to prosecute.


----------



## competitiondiva (4 June 2012)

Box_Of_Frogs said:



			Haven't read all 21 pages of posts so sorry if this has already been said but just to clarify it IS the CPS that prosecutes criminal cases, not RSPCA. RSPCA gather evidence and then pass the file to CPS who make the decision on whether or not to prosecute.
		
Click to expand...

No the RSPCA pay to bring private prosecutions, nothing to do with the CPS (though agree it should be), the RSPCA (a charity) on a whole are left to bring animal welfare perpetrators to justice.


----------



## Laura&Lucas (4 June 2012)

i personally feel that the RSPCA can go whistle! they are money grabbers who arnt interested in anything that isn't in the media. so so so many times have we called for help from them to be fobbed off and told that the animal was fine, only for them to die days or weeks later. useless idiots!


----------



## competitiondiva (5 June 2012)

LauraLucas.. Everthought they didn't be there because they physically can't deal with the amount of calls that come in? If the animal died after weeks of the rspca not attending, did u call someone else? Why did they not attend? And as I've said time and again regarding the press. Look at their statistics... If u can hand on heart say you've seen that many stories in the press then I'll accept the argument, if not then it's no argument at all....


----------



## Moomin1 (7 June 2012)

Box_Of_Frogs said:



			Haven't read all 21 pages of posts so sorry if this has already been said but just to clarify it IS the CPS that prosecutes criminal cases, not RSPCA. RSPCA gather evidence and then pass the file to CPS who make the decision on whether or not to prosecute.
		
Click to expand...

This comment is a prime example of where the public are so misinformed of how the RSPCA operate.  This poster sounds absolutely confident of what they are saying yet they are completely wrong.


----------



## Moomin1 (7 June 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			LauraLucas.. Everthought they didn't be there because they physically can't deal with the amount of calls that come in? If the animal died after weeks of the rspca not attending, did u call someone else? Why did they not attend? And as I've said time and again regarding the press. Look at their statistics... If u can hand on heart say you've seen that many stories in the press then I'll accept the argument, if not then it's no argument at all....
		
Click to expand...


If those instances really happened (let's face it how many people have honestly seen SO MANY animals neglected, dead and dying without any intervention) then that poster has obviously not had enough concern to call other organisations or even a vet to try and save the animals in question.  Shame.


----------

