# RSPCA are to STOP Hounding Fox Hunters.....



## Centauress (28 July 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...icism-politically-motivated-prosecutions.html


----------



## cptrayes (28 July 2014)

Centauress said:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...icism-politically-motivated-prosecutions.html

Click to expand...


RSPCA were prosecuting people who were breaking the law. They were not hounding anybody.


----------



## Centauress (28 July 2014)

Thought it was Worth a Share.... Sorry


----------



## cptrayes (28 July 2014)

No need to apologise, you're entitled to your view, and you won't be alone.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (28 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			RSPCA were prosecuting people who were breaking the law. They were not hounding anybody.
		
Click to expand...

That was the title of the article in the link.


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (28 July 2014)

So.......... do the RSPCA expect all those of us who unashamedly participate in country sports, particularly hunting - to all come rushing back to support them and fill their coffers?

Too little, too late, methinks. 

They had the last of my money and support a long time ago.


----------



## Echo Bravo (28 July 2014)

Yes too little too late with me and to be honest I don't like their attiude and nobody likes being talked down at by people who no very little about horses or wild animals.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			RSPCA were prosecuting people who were breaking the law. They were not hounding anybody.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong.  Their prosecutions were and still are biased and without moral stance.  The rspca are morally bankrupt in that they've targeted high profile cases,  not in an attempt at achieving justice but with only the thought that the higher profile the case,  so the greater the levels of subsequent donations.

High Court Judges have questioned their levels of integrity,  but you think that they're fine.  Perhaps you're right and perhaps the bulk of those who consider our World,  our Countryside and our Justice System,  are all wrong.

The rspca have no more interest in animal welfare than they have in Justice.  Fail to see that and you are as blinkered as they are.

Alec.


----------



## splashgirl45 (28 July 2014)

its about time the rspca went back to dealing with the huge amount of animal cruelty we have in this country , dog fighting, badger baiting, puppy farming  to name a few...  recently I have had rspca call at my door looking for donations and I told them the reason I wouldn't donate was that they were too political, and that is how I feel.  I used to support the rspca but now I donate by d/d to 2 other animal charities and the rspca wont get me back even if they do a turn around.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 July 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			The rspca have no more interest in animal welfare than they have in Justice.  Fail to see that and you are as blinkered as they are.
		
Click to expand...

That's an exaggeration. Unfortunately, the higher echelons of this much loved charity have gone somewhat astray in recent years, but there are still many foot soldiers doing valuable work under the RSPCA banner.

Let's all hope that the organisation can rally and regroup. If it falls, who do you suggest takes its place?


----------



## Alec Swan (28 July 2014)

Tiddlypom said:



			........

Let's all hope that the organisation can rally and regroup. If it falls, who do you suggest takes its place?
		
Click to expand...

I've had this conversation with an rspca official who is a forum member,  and it's long been my view that were the rspca to revert back to its previous precepts and focus on animal welfare,  and were the question of Court proceedings handled,  as they should be,  by the CPS,  then the charity may regain a level of the respect which it once had.

I want the current incumbents who administer to the rspca to be dismissed,  and a group put in place whereby we can again have The RSPCA who I want to respect.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (28 July 2014)

The RSPCA prosecuted thousands of animal cruelty cases in the last twelve months and had a 98% conviction rate, which is phenomenally  higher than that achieved in the rest of the criminal justice system.

I do not understand how anyone, no matter how they feel about prosecuting people who are illegally hunting fox, can say that they are not looking out for animal welfare in this country.


----------



## cptrayes (28 July 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			The rspca have no more interest in animal welfare than they have in Justice.  Fail to see that and you are as blinkered as they are.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Can you really call me blinkered at the end of a sentence like that?  I've lost a lot of respect I had for you Alec.


----------



## Goldenstar (28 July 2014)

They must be skint .


----------



## Alec Swan (28 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Can you really call me blinkered at the end of a sentence like that?  I've lost a lot of respect I had for you Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I understand,  but having sufficient respect for myself,  that there are those who are disappointed in me,  is an irrelevance. 

Alec.

ps.  and yes,  I'm arrogant too! a.


----------



## JanetGeorge (29 July 2014)

Tiddlypom said:



			That's an exaggeration. Unfortunately, the higher echelons of this much loved charity have gone somewhat astray in recent years, but there are still many foot soldiers doing valuable work under the RSPCA banner.
		
Click to expand...

I am NOT an RSPCA 'fan' but you're right (although I wouldn't say in 'recent' years - it's been run by AR nutters since the '70s!)  But most of its work is good.  The hunting issue they have handled badly since the '70s - and they do love it if they get the 'dirt' on a big hunt.

But I doubt very much if they'll stop acting against hunts - they may just be a bit more diligent about the available evidence.  I also doubt very much if their 2013 drop in income has anything to do with the hunting debate - we HAVE had a recession and their departed CE wasn't 100% sound!


----------



## Shay (29 July 2014)

Problem is... even if the RSPCA stop funding the prosecutions against hunts it still won't stop the actions of other "charities" whose supporters seek to verbally abuse the riders, physically abuse the horses and commit criminal damage.  No blame to the police - it takes 10 - 15 policemen to keep control for us some days.  Stopping the prosecutions - for which they have been rightly criticized - is a step forward.  But it will not stop the harassment of those going about a fully lawful pursuit.


----------



## cptrayes (29 July 2014)

The people who are going about a fully lawful pursuit are continuing to be harassed because of the number of hunts openly (amongst their ranks) hunting fox illegally.  I have been invited to go out with four in the last two seasons drag hunting. When I ask if they hunt fox they tell me they do, and I tell them that in that case I can't go. If hunts stopped hunting fox the harassment by antis would stop. 

And they'd move on to bird shooting, but that's another thread!


----------



## RunToEarth (29 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The RSPCA prosecuted thousands of animal cruelty cases in the last twelve months and had a 98% conviction rate, which is phenomenally  higher than that achieved in the rest of the criminal justice system.
		
Click to expand...

I think many (such as myself) lost a lot of respect for the RSPCA when you consider how much money they spend on prosecuting hunts - £326,000 to bring the Heythrop to court is a ridiculous amount of money that could have otherwise been invested into equipment and salaries of those who work for the charity and genuinely care about welfare - to me the hunting trials have all been a political movement which the RSPCA should not have been involved. 



cptrayes said:



			The people who are going about a fully lawful pursuit are continuing to be harassed because of the number of hunts openly (amongst their ranks) hunting fox illegally.  I have been invited to go out with four in the last two seasons drag hunting. When I ask if they hunt fox they tell me they do, and I tell them that in that case I can't go. If hunts stopped hunting fox the harassment by antis would stop. 

And they'd move on to bird shooting, but that's another thread!
		
Click to expand...

There are plenty of packs which do hunt within the law, it is not just bloodhounds who are resigned to sockhunting these days. 

And then I suppose the whole point of foxhunting was to cull foxes, so shooting birds is not really relevant, although as most game birds exist for gameshooting it does make sense.


----------



## cptrayes (29 July 2014)

RunToEarth said:



			I think many (such as myself) lost a lot of respect for the RSPCA when you consider how much money they spend on prosecuting hunts - £326,000 to bring the Heythrop to court is a ridiculous amount of money that could have otherwise been invested into equipment and salaries of those who work for the charity and genuinely care about welfare - to me the hunting trials have all been a political movement which the RSPCA should not have been involved. 



There are plenty of packs which do hunt within the law, it is not just bloodhounds who are resigned to sockhunting these days.
		
Click to expand...


I know there are plenty which are legal and it must be incredibly annoying to be sabbed just because there are other hunts which are not 

And the RSPCA could not have pursued their 'political agenda' unless people had been hunting illegally.  

Whether the money was well spent or not depends on your point of view, but it was, let's not forget,  a successful prosecution.


----------



## RunToEarth (29 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I know there are plenty which are legal and it must be incredibly annoying to be sabbed just because there are other hunts which are not 

And the RSPCA could not have pursued their 'political agenda' unless people had been hunting illegally.  

Whether the money was well spent or not depends on your point of view, but it was, let's not forget,  a successful prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree - guilty as charged. However, they were required to pay damages of something like £5k. Whilst I agree that in principle justice was done, the charity have spent £326,000 of charity money to prosecute with such a small victory. IMO that trial made the charity look very foolish, and there were much more deserving cases begging for the money they threw at that trial.


----------



## JanetGeorge (29 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			And the RSPCA could not have pursued their 'political agenda' unless people had been hunting illegally.  

Whether the money was well spent or not depends on your point of view, but it was, let's not forget,  a successful prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

Of course it could - and has done.  There have been a number of unsuccessful prosecutions because there was no evidence worth tuppence.  And the reason this WAS successful was because the people charged couldn't afford the legal costs - the huntsman, for example - a family man on about £15,000 a year.  A decent barrister would cost you £1,000 a day - for 4 weeks or more??

And this goes back YEARS!  When I was with the CA in the lae '90s we were helping hunts and hunt staff fight stupid prosecutions - in those days hunting wasn't illegal so they kept bringing prosecutions under the Badgers' Act.  And most of them were thrown out!


----------



## unicornystar (29 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The RSPCA prosecuted thousands of animal cruelty cases in the last twelve months and had a 98% conviction rate, which is phenomenally  higher than that achieved in the rest of the criminal justice system.

I do not understand how anyone, no matter how they feel about prosecuting people who are illegally hunting fox, can say that they are not looking out for animal welfare in this country.
		
Click to expand...




You have clearly never had to call them for assistance in a welfare case then!

Hunting totally aside.....not just their "hands tied" ie "can't help you as horse has access to water and grass" (despite looking poor and emaciated), many times I have needed assistance and they are simply not interested......


----------



## ester (29 July 2014)

The whole situation of private prosecutions being brought against criminal matters doesn't sit well with me if honest.


----------



## Illusion100 (29 July 2014)

Wish I had over 300k to spend *drifts off to imaginary but wonderful place*


----------



## Fides (29 July 2014)

The reason why there are so many convictions is because people cannot afford to defend themselves. The CPS is happy for the RSPCA to prosecute privately as it means that they don't have to review the cases and decide if there is enough evidence, this saving them work. It also means that as it is a private prosecution the defendent doesn't qualify for legal aid (again saving the government money). How many people can financially afford to take on the RSPCA and all their millions? Most will plead guilty because they cannot afford to defend themselves. The weight of evidence may not have been enough to gain a conviction (or even bring it to trial if it was a criminal proceeding) but who can afford to pay for a lawyer for 4 weeks? Even if there is a good chance you will win, it's the upfront costs that make people pleade.

My OH used to work for a firm that did RSPCA prosecutions and they will always do a private prosecution if the evidence is to shaky for a criminal one. Because they know people will have to pleade. THAT is the reason there are so many successful convictions, not because they have enough evidence to succeed in a proper trial


----------



## cptrayes (29 July 2014)

Legal aid is available to fight RSPCA cases, they are no different from CPS prosecutions. If an offence is imprisonable or the person cannot represent themselves, legal aid is available and the same for all prosecutions under criminal law.

The burden of proof is identical, and RSPCA prosecutions in a criminal court are identical in every respect to CPS prosecutions.

These prosecutions are not civil law, they are criminal law.


----------



## ester (29 July 2014)

under what circumstances is it deemed that a person cannot represent themselves? I imagine a lot of the cases are not imprisonable so that does not apply.


----------



## cptrayes (29 July 2014)

They aren't mentally capable, for example.

The point is that legal aid for RSPCA prosecutions is no different than for any other prosecutions under criminal law.


----------



## ester (29 July 2014)

No, apart from the fact that the CPS may not have taken them on and that they might therefore be proportionately more likely that other prosecutions to not meet what I have now googled as the interests of justice test, which I can imagine many do not meet the criteria for. 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid...y/crime-eligibility/interests-of-justice-test

Also if RSPCA are spending several hundred thousand on a case I should think that many people who do not qualify for legal aid (limits here) http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legal-aid/eligibility/criminal-keycard-45-april-14.pdf could match that by way of defence. And if innocent what an awful lot of money to find until proven so for a prosecution that has not been through the usual CPS system.


----------



## cptrayes (29 July 2014)

There is massive disagreement over whether that one case should have been taken. 

Whatever your point of view on that, it does not, in my opinion, justify accusing the RSPCA of wholesale injustice in the thousands of prosecutions it makes each year.

We would all prefer it was not a charity doing these prosecutions, I think, but that isn't going to change while the country is so short of money.


----------



## cptrayes (29 July 2014)

A1fie said:



			Legal aid is not available for all imprisonable offences especially in the magistrates court.  There is a two stage test - a means (financial) test, where you are only entitled to legal aid if you earn under £12.5k.  If you earn between £12.5 and £21k, a full assessement will be carried out and evidence of all income and outgoings must be provided.  If you earn over £21k, you are not entitled to legal aid.  If you pass the financial test, an interest of justice test is then carried out.   The interest of justice test is getting harder to pass and will not necessarily be granted even if the offence carries a sentence of imprisonment.  

Many people have no choice but to represent themselves at court and it is not true to say that they cannot represent themselves if an offence is imprisonable . . .  . .
		
Click to expand...




My point is that all cases for legal aid  are treated the same, whether prosecuted by the RSPCA or not, so I gave only the bare bones as the rest was not relevant.

Nobody has even mentioned not being allowed to represent themselves.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 July 2014)

A1fie said:



			........

Thought you would know this as you have previously said you sit as a magistrate  .  . . . . . . .  . .
		
Click to expand...

Magistrates have a Clerk to the Court,  and they are generally steered by that august body.  Magistrates often talk complete poppycock,  but rarely take kindly to being told so! 

Alec.


----------



## Saneta (29 July 2014)

I think you're all missing the point somehow.  If hunting foxes is against the law, don't bleat on if you CHOOSE to break the law.  If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, and certainly don't cause an animal welfare charity to spend money trying to stop you!!!!  Why should you possibly imagine you are above the law???


----------



## ester (29 July 2014)

but if this is correct 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...RSPCA-hunt-prosecutions-failed-last-year.html

they are attempting to convict people who are not guilty... so I don't see how that is missing the point?


----------



## A1fie (29 July 2014)

Saneta said:



			I think you're all missing the point somehow.  If hunting foxes is against the law, don't bleat on if you CHOOSE to break the law.  If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, and certainly don't cause an animal welfare charity to spend money trying to stop you!!!!  Why should you possibly imagine you are above the law???
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is missing the point.  The objection is to being prosecuted by organisations other than the CPS.  The RSPCA are a charity and receive a huge amount of money from the public, the majority of whom, would like their donations to be spent on looking after animals and not prosecuting hunts.  The Heythrop prosecution cost them so much money and for what?  No one went to jail, no one was banned from keeping animals - the conviction had little effect.  

There was no reason why the RSPCA could not have submitted their file to the CPS for them to prosecute.  After all, it is their job.  They are also objective, unlike the RSPCA or the LACS,


----------



## cptrayes (29 July 2014)

A1fie said:



			I don't think anyone is missing the point.  The objection is to being prosecuted by organisations other than the CPS.  The RSPCA are a charity and receive a huge amount of money from the public, the majority of whom, would like their donations to be spent on looking after animals and not prosecuting hunts.  The Heythrop prosecution cost them so much money and for what?  No one went to jail, no one was banned from keeping animals - the conviction had little effect.  

There was no reason why the RSPCA could not have submitted their file to the CPS for them to prosecute.  After all, it is their job.  They are also objective, unlike the RSPCA or the LACS,
		
Click to expand...


There was every reason why the RSPCA could not have submitted this file to the CPS. Like it or not, and I don't, animal welfare prosecutions in this country are undertaken by the RSPCA and not the CPS.  That's just how it is.


----------



## cptrayes (29 July 2014)

ester said:



			but if this is correct 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...RSPCA-hunt-prosecutions-failed-last-year.html

they are attempting to convict people who are not guilty... so I don't see how that is missing the point?
		
Click to expand...

Well the point I was making was that people were dismissing the entire work the RSPCA on the basis of hunt prosecutions, which make up a miniscule proportion of the prosecutions that they pursue.

I felt that was a ridiculous stance, and I still do.You may hate their position regarding hunting, but to suggest that all their prosecutions are unfair and biased and unjust, as some have, is going too far, imo.

 Also, if you were in country that regularly illegally hunts fox, as I am, you might have a little more sympathy for the attempted prosecutions of people blatantly breaking the law.


----------



## RunToEarth (30 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Well the point I was making was that people were dismissing the entire work the RSPCA on the basis of hunt prosecutions, which make up a miniscule proportion of the prosecutions that they pursue.

I felt that was a ridiculous stance, and I still do.You may hate their position regarding hunting, but to suggest that all their prosecutions are unfair and biased and unjust, as some have, is going too far, imo.

 Also, if you were in country that regularly illegally hunts fox, as I am, you might have a little more sympathy for the attempted prosecutions of people blatantly breaking the law.
		
Click to expand...

It is entirely their own fault though - if they hadn't brought such high profile prosecutions about people wouldn't be questioning their £3direct debits being used to fund court battles - it was a stupid move, which is why the charity commission kicked up such a stink. 

I'd love to know why you insist on spreading such venom about nearby hunts - considering your source must be those cracking CFD rumours they like to start. You don't hunt with CF, their only conviction collapsed last year, with the taxpayer picking up around £30k costs after RSPCA couldn't bring evidence to the court - it's ridiculous.


----------



## cptrayes (30 July 2014)

Spreading venom?

Since when was it spreading venom simply to state the truth?

My source was members of two hunts who have invited me to hunt with them, a member of a hunt who freely talks about hunting fox, and a friend who was chatting about being sabbed who, when I asked why he was being sabbed, laughed and said 'because we hunt fox of course !'  Four different hunts.


----------



## MagicMelon (30 July 2014)

Echo Bravo said:



			Yes too little too late with me and to be honest I don't like their attiude and nobody likes being talked down at by people who no very little about horses or wild animals. 

Click to expand...

I doubt they know very little about horses / wild animals. They do their job as best as they can and there are a hell of a lot of people who work for the RSPCA at ground level who care deeply for animals. They simply want the laws regarding hunting to be followed which ultimately is for the welfare of the fox which IMO is good news (but hey I'd be glad if it was banned completely). I agree they have spent too much money on court cases etc. when they should be spending it elsewhere.


----------



## MagicMelon (30 July 2014)

A1fie said:



			The RSPCA are a charity and receive a huge amount of money from the public, the majority of whom, would like their donations to be spent on looking after animals and not prosecuting hunts.
		
Click to expand...

I think thats a massive generalisation, prosecuting hunting is helping the foxes welfare so it is animal protection at the end of they day.  The vast majority of the country are against hunting I imagine so to say they dont want people who break the law prosecuted is off the mark IMO.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 July 2014)

MagicMelon said:



			........ , prosecuting hunting is helping the foxes welfare so it is animal protection at the end of they day.  The vast majority of the country are against hunting I imagine ........
		
Click to expand...

Two points and both are entirely wrong.  From the health perspective of any animal,  in this case The Fox,  having a natural predator,  in this case Man,  is actually beneficial to the general well being of the population.  Sanctuary was most certainly provided in harbours,  and as for the vast majority,  I can assure you that they are in the main ambivalent,  and in the main have other things in life which occupy their thoughts.  The bulk of those who are opposed to Hunting are more opposed to those who Hunt,  seeing it as a class selective sport.  Were they right,  then I'd agree with them.  They're wrong and I don't.

Incidentally,  I don't hunt and hold a degree of ridicule for some of those who do,  but the simple fact is that the countryside did benefit from hunting,  and though few will accept this,  I feel sure,  so did the Fox.

Alec.


----------



## Fides (30 July 2014)

Agreed Alec. Scotland banned hunting first so are ahead in terms of 'control'. Populations aren't selectively controlled any more, outside of breeding season. Now foxes are shot on site all year. I lived in Scotland for 3 years and the only fox I saw during that time was a dead one, in the town. Foxes are going to go the way of the wolf - total extermination. There is no need now to selectively maintain a population - farmers just want to protect their stock.


----------



## RunToEarth (30 July 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Two points and both are entirely wrong.  From the health perspective of any animal,  in this case The Fox,  having a natural predator,  in this case Man,  is actually beneficial to the general well being of the population.  Sanctuary was most certainly provided in harbours,  and as for the vast majority,  I can assure you that they are in the main ambivalent,  and in the main have other things in life which occupy their thoughts.  The bulk of those who are opposed to Hunting are more opposed to those who Hunt,  seeing it as a class selective sport.  Were they right,  then I'd agree with them.  They're wrong and I don't.

Incidentally,  I don't hunt and hold a degree of ridicule for some of those who do,  but the simple fact is that the countryside did benefit from hunting,  and though few will accept this,  I feel sure,  so did the Fox.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I'm torn, as a supporter of both hunting and shooting, I was saddened to see how many keepers upped their snaring use after the ban, but their job is predation control and snaring is legal. The tragedy for me is knowing that any fox can get in a snare - some old mangy thing or a young sucked vixen, at any time of the year. Hunting provided a season and a hunted fox killed would not have been a healthy fox, who would have easily outrun a pack of hounds. 

I find the whole "RSPCA fox welfare" a complete smack in the face, anyone who genuinely cared about the foxes' welfare would not be supporting the ban.


----------



## splashgirl45 (30 July 2014)

I agree with alec for a change,  I am neither for or against hunting but foxes need to be controlled and shooting IMO is not the best way.  how many foxes are killed outright?  if they are hunted they either get away completely or die straight away...this was always a class decision not an animal welfare decision.my friend has just had 2 of her 3 pet chickens taken by foxes and she now agrees with hunting!!!!  why don't we ban fishing???  this is very unfair on the fish, loads of people who don't know what they are doing, throwing injured fish back in to die slowly..the reason we don't ban fishing is because it is more of a working class sport...


----------

