# RSPCA shoots 11 HEALTHY horses but claimed keep fees for months



## Fenris (13 September 2015)

RSPCA shoots 11 HEALTHY horses: Charity culled 'bright, alert and responsive' animalsand continued to claim vet and stable fees months AFTER deaths
RSPCA ordered the killing of 11 healthy horses after they were rescued
Several horses were described as 'doing ok' but were still shot days later
The charity then claimed thousands of pounds for stabling expenses 


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nued-claim-vet-stable-fees-months-deaths.html


----------



## EstherYoung (13 September 2015)

Considering the previous owners and breeders of some of these horses were itching to help/take them back, this is utterly depressing.


----------



## Slightlyconfused (13 September 2015)

I must be cold hearted then as the amount of horses needing rehoming at the moment in my mind worse things could have happened than them being shot.


----------



## terrierliz (13 September 2015)

Slightlyconfused said:



			I must be cold hearted then as the amount of horses needing rehoming at the moment in my mind worse things could have happened than them being shot.
		
Click to expand...

I'm in the same camp as you Slightlyconfused - so many horses about now and how much call for unrideable companions of any size let alone above 12 HH.  at least they can't be mistreated any longer....


----------



## EstherYoung (13 September 2015)

Maybe so. But they were good horses, some were very well bred, and there were people looking out for them, they were just blocked from doing so. Very, very sad.

RIP Taragun (Taz): http://www.waho.org/Blog/taragun-united-kingdom-2008-waho-trophy-winner/

RIP Heron:
http://www.arabianlines.com/forum1/topic_new.asp?TOPIC_ID=35402


----------



## be positive (13 September 2015)

EstherYoung said:



			Considering the previous owners and breeders of some of these horses were itching to help/take them back, this is utterly depressing.
		
Click to expand...




Slightlyconfused said:



			I must be cold hearted then as the amount of horses needing rehoming at the moment in my mind worse things could have happened than them being shot.
		
Click to expand...


The big difference being these were well bred, quality arabs with known history, some very successful competition animals, with previous owners and in some cases current owners as they were only on loan to the Peels, who would have given them homes and were trying to find out how to do so yet were not given a chance.

Most of the animals in rescues are coloured cobs, many with poor conformation that means they can only be companions, the arab enthusiasts are not going to take on one of those instead so the potential homes will not be filled with a different horse from a charity. 

Once again the RSPCA have proved they are more interested in prosecuting than the actual animals they "rescue" most of those photos show  horses that are in poor condition but nothing some tlc would not get right, in fact several are just a bit scruffy and unkempt nothing like as bad as I expected, rain scald is hardly difficult to treat and none appear badly affected, even the vet on behalf of the RSPCA questions the need to have shot them rather than continue with the treatment he had started, I hope this gets followed through by the people involved who are now able to speak up as the court case is over.


----------



## JillA (13 September 2015)

I'd like to know the Daily Fail's source - we all know they can be economical with the truth. I'm no fan of RSPCA but it seems to me if this is true it is a massive own goal for the charity, which could have a major impact on their income when it was made public


----------



## Archangel (13 September 2015)

I know what you mean SC but as Esther says these horses weren't just a load of unknowns they all had 'connections - they were very very well known in the Arab world - the woman posted as Templars on Arabianlines and Tannis on here (last vist August this year btw).  Some of the horses were on loan to the Peels.   This was a large breed rescue - the AHS have a welfare department.  The RSPCA stink frankly.

If you scroll down half way on this thread you get the idea  (Templars reply with grey stallion jumping)http://arabianlines.com/forum1/topic_new.asp?TOPIC_ID=49706

I am guessing the Nancy shown in the Daily Mail article is Twist Hoeves Nancy shown jumping in the above thread.  

And this beautiful horse...  RIP Phaaraoh 
http://www.arabianlines.com/forum1/topic_new.asp?TOPIC_ID=43174

Heron is Heron de la Forge

http://arabianlines.com/forum1/topic_new.asp?TOPIC_ID=40015&SearchTerms=heron,de,la,forge


----------



## EstherYoung (13 September 2015)

Cresh I believe was Last Crescendo (99.97% Crabbet): http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/last+crescendo


----------



## Flame_ (13 September 2015)

This has got to make struggling people less willing to sign over animals.

However, why weren't the loan horses checked on and taken back by their owners long before the RSPCA "rescue"?


----------



## twiggy2 (13 September 2015)

Slightlyconfused said:



			I must be cold hearted then as the amount of horses needing rehoming at the moment in my mind worse things could have happened than them being shot.
		
Click to expand...

I am with you on this and think that more should be PTS, the problem is that the RSPCA will keep animals in terrible condition alive to help gain a prosecution and publicity, I don't agree with the whole ethos of the RSPCA, the dishonesty and the fact that the horses welfare just does not seem to be at the heart of their work anymore-I feel for the inspectors that work there for all the right reasons whos hands are tied by those that make the rules and decisions.
PTS should be widespread for all rescue animals at the moment and I really feel I would reduce stress and suffering for so many animals-if security cannot be provided for those animals for life then the numbers need to be reduced.


----------



## EstherYoung (13 September 2015)

She was very, very credible. I can see why people were taken in.


----------



## EstherYoung (13 September 2015)

From the comments on the daily fail article:



			tizaala, LLANDRINDOD WELLS, United Kingdom, about 2 seconds ago NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO CONTACT US IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM REGARDING KHOOMI , SHE WAS ON LOAN TO THE PEELS , WE WOULD HAVE REHOMED HER IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE HAD WE KNOW HER FATE, TO HELL WITH THE RSPCA
		
Click to expand...


----------



## cobgoblin (13 September 2015)

Time this organisation was closed down.
I fail to see how they are still holding on to the prefix ' royal'.


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

It is shocking that no attempt was made to reunite those on loan with their owners , I have been reading the threads on arabianlines too. They wouldn't do that for any other animal handed to them, they would scan for a chip. The handling of the whole saga just seems ridiculous and terribly sad. They got their prosecution with pathetic sentencing. 

How can peel have signed over horses that weren't hers?
As they were 'evidence' for the court case and not in a critical condition (to need immediate PTS) surely they should have been keeping them and not rehoming them until the court case concluded either - I thought that was normal practice anyway? Or is that because she surrendered them and they weren't seized?

Did the AHS actually have any involvement with regards to reuniteing horses with owners etc?


----------



## EstherYoung (13 September 2015)

Ester, it's because she handed them over voluntarily.

Horse and hound, you have to pick this story up and run with it. Clearly the media stand a better chance of getting answers than the poor owners, breeders and ex owners who have been struggling to get information all this time.


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

Quite, it is ridiculous that now the court case is done that they cannot publish a list of horses and their fate when they know the situation with owners etc. Or they should be being a bit proactive with the AHS and maybe finally making personal contact with them.


----------



## be positive (13 September 2015)

ester said:



			It is shocking that no attempt was made to reunite those on loan with their owners , I have been reading the threads on arabianlines too. They wouldn't do that for any other animal handed to them, they would scan for a chip. The handling of the whole saga just seems ridiculous and terribly sad. They got their prosecution with pathetic sentencing. 

How can peel have signed over horses that weren't hers?
As they were 'evidence' for the court case and not in a critical condition (to need immediate PTS) surely they should have been keeping them and not rehoming them until the court case concluded either - I thought that was normal practice anyway? Or is that because she surrendered them and they weren't seized?
		
Click to expand...

I think if they give up the horses, sign them over as these were then the RSPCA can dispose of them as they wish, if they had not signed them over then they would have been held until after the court case and I think the owners of the loan horses had probably expected this to happen, they must be devastated.
I cannot get my head around them making no attempt to work with the AHS or other capable people who were willing and able to help, it appears they made no effort to deal with a group of relatively healthy horses who were probably more sensitive and needed a bit more knowledge to care for than the cobs they take in by the lorry load.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (13 September 2015)

this is shocking. The rescue case was bad enough but what an awful end for those poor owners.


----------



## AdorableAlice (13 September 2015)

cobgoblin said:



			Time this organisation was closed down.
I fail to see how they are still holding on to the prefix ' royal'.
		
Click to expand...

Never happen, what would the Labour Party do without the vast funds the RSPCA donate.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (13 September 2015)

I've been quite taken aback that many members on here haven't quite grasped (or maybe aren't bothered?) by what went on in the Peel case. I even did a loaning thread and no-one seemed to pick up on my 'in light of the Peel case' question.

Many of these horses had *OWNERS *that they could have been returned to. *ALL* of them, that were healthy enough, would have found homes if the RSPCA had worked with the arab community and AHS. Maybe people don't realise, but there were people actively trying to find these horses to offer homes or have them back. 

I still don't understand why the whole of the horse community isn't up in arms over this.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (13 September 2015)

be positive said:



			I think if they give up the horses, sign them over as these were then the RSPCA can dispose of them as they wish
		
Click to expand...

How can a loaner sign ownership over to the RSPCA?


----------



## cobgoblin (13 September 2015)

The rspca doesn't care who owns the animals. Their answer would be that the animal's owner must prosecute the person that signed the animal over.


----------



## Fenris (13 September 2015)

The SHG has a multitude of complaints from people whose animals have been signed over by other people.  What happens is that the RSPCA bullies and threatens whoever is present, telling them that they will be arrested, prosecuted, anything that triggers a signature on a sign over form that includes a clause stating that if the animals are not the property of the person signing them over that person takes full responsibility.

for people in the middle of the traumatic experience of an RSPCA raid, it is all too easy to simply keel over and obey the demands of percieved 'authority'.

The RSPCA never changes. The SHG was formed over 20 years ago because of a case in which animals that the RSPCA had been ordered to return were sold for slaughter, died, crippled, bred from and lost, all while supposed to be in RSPCA 'care'. The problem is that anyone being investigated by the RSPCA is given no help whatsoever from those authorities who should have been doing the investigating and prosecuting, such as the police and local authority, or even the CPS who are meant to quality control private prosecutions such as those brought by the RSPCA. They all shirk their responsibilities and leave the RSPCA a free hand to destroy people's lives and of course their animals if they have no fund raising value. 

The SHG has long campaigned for the creation of a Charities Ombudsman who would have the power to investigate all of those complaints that do not fall within the remit of the Charity Commission and to order compensation to be paid by the charity concerned.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (13 September 2015)

Well they blimmin' should care. A quick scan of a microchip and a phonecall isn't much to ask. They certainly do that when they pick up a stray cat on their TV programmes, so they must be capable.


----------



## cobgoblin (13 September 2015)

Faracat said:



			Well they blimmin' should care. A quick scan of a microchip and a phonecall isn't much to ask. They certainly do that when they pick up a stray cat on their TV programmes, so they must be capable.
		
Click to expand...

Ah!...but that's for TV.


----------



## be positive (13 September 2015)

Faracat said:



			How can a loaner sign ownership over to the RSPCA?
		
Click to expand...

This is something that should not have happened and must be looked into as it will not be the first time or the last, the Peels are obviously mainly to blame but the buck stops with the RSPCA who made no effort to look into the ownership of the horses, the passports will have been available and not all in the Peels name so why did they not even contact the AHS to confirm ownership before destroying what appears to be, in the main, healthy animals.

This case is unusual because arab people care and would have done anything to get these horses in a safe place for life, the Peels were successful breeders and producers who were on the surface doing a good job with a lovely group of horses, people did not see what went on behind the scenes, I have read through the threads on AL including posts by Templers on there and today on here as her user name was put on earlier, it is easy to see how they got away with it and why they were loaned horses in good faith.  

This has disturbed me far more than the Spindles Farm case, the horses there were mainly unwanted, uncared for, yes they deserved better but their fate was sealed by being sold at the bottom end of the market for whatever reason, these arabs were all bred and owned at some time by caring people who believed they were doing the best for them, most will have cost plenty to buy, yet once they served no purpose to the Peels they were neglected, I think that is far worse than someone like Jamie Grey who never pretended to care and treated them all with the same lack of concern for their welfare.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (13 September 2015)

hard to believe horses were shot purely for rain scald and for being in need of a trim when they have poster boys of horrendous neglect that are kept going. I guess that this slaughter man keeps cropping up in these odd cases just by dint of being a slaughter man.
I've heard of this happening in the US during welfare cases. There was a notorious one on the COTH forums where a well known, popular member was done for neglect when she was off at WEG. She had some breeding mares on loan to her and some were eventually returned to the owners but it took months and months, the owners had to be extremely persistent (mostly interstate) and the owners were then liable to pay the stabling fees for the horses while they were retained. Of course, this wasn't the RSPCA or equivalent.


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

If they weren't asked to be involved why didn't the AHS muscle in?


----------



## Archangel (13 September 2015)

Further to Be Postive's post - let's not forget Rachelle Peel knew *each and every one of these horse's breeders and/or owners*.  The Arab world is a small world - you say a horse's name and most people can recite sire and dam, breeder, stud name, year of birth even horses going back 50 years.

If you google "rspca income 2014" and download their Annual Report it makes interesting reading - there are too many to point out but Page 6 point 2 sticks out "we will apply our highly successful horse rehoming policy...".  FAIL.


----------



## Jill Lloyd (13 September 2015)

I believe that Peel gave the RSPCA the previous owners names and contact details. I would have thought that would be the RSPCA's first port of call?? Very sad.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 September 2015)

I'm wondering if,  despite my constant and vociferous railing against the rspca,  we shouldn't consider three points;

Firstly,  the Mail has never yet,  that I've seen,  produced a story which will stand up to inspection,  so there would be questions which they will probably refuse to answer.

Secondly,  if the rspca have been 'claiming' expenses including veterinary care and stabling for horses which are already dead and have been dead for some while,  just WHO were they claiming these expenses from?

Thirdly,  and possibly the least palatable,  is that re-homing of horses,  except in rare cases,  isn't and shouldn't be an option.  The ongoing management of loan horses can be and all so often is a costly and time consuming business.  However well intentioned,  if the 'loaner' can't afford to buy their own horse,  the chances are remote that they'll be able to care for one,  properly and which was acquired as a freebie.

I am generally the sternest critic of the 'charity' concerned,  and it would be very rare for me to offer them any support,  except for this one point.  There are far too many animal charities which are now being viewed and run as serious businesses,  and not for the betterment of those animals which they would claim to support.

The rspca has been extant for many years,  and it's generally my view that they have simply lost their way,  thanks in no small way to corrupt management.  Keeping unwanted horses alive for no other reason that we feel better about ourselves,  is a sign of the times.  Committed and responsible owners do the right thing for their equines and put them to sleep,  if they have no market for them and if there is no alternative than to simply unload them upon a charity.

We have to face reality and face our responsibilities,  and being led by a rag newspaper,  isn't the way forward.

Alec.


----------



## Evie91 (13 September 2015)

Don't think anyone involved in this has come out smelling of roses!
My question is; if so many of he horses were on loan, why did the owners not step in beforehand? Why wait until things are so bad RSPCA are involved?


----------



## TGM (13 September 2015)

Personally, I don't have a problem with horses that are "bright, alert and responsive" and not suffering from a life-threatening illness being PTS if necessary.  I had an elderly mare put down when her worsening arthritis meant her quality of life was going rapidly downhill - however she was still 'bright, alert and responsive' and her arthritis wasn't life threatening.  It is quite possible that some of these horses were found to have conditions which would prevent successful rehoming - one is stated as having a deformed foot due to a previous injury, so possibly could be chronically lame.  Another was described as having a difficult temperament - obviously the Mail does not go into enough detail to make a judgement whether euthanasia was justified in this case.  Just because a horse has good bloodlines and had a brilliant former career doesn't necessarily mean it might not have some issue that would make rehoming difficult.

What is more worrying is the allegations of financial misconduct and the fact that the real owners of the animals weren't traced - but the hoo ha over having the horses put down seems to be overshadowing these important issues.

It is clear that some members on here have a fuller understanding of the situation than is given in the Mail, so it would be great  if they could answer the following questions to clarify the situation for those of us less informed:

* How many of the horses euthanized belonged to people other than Peel?
* Is there evidence that the RSPCA knew that all the animals didn't belong to Peel, or did she claim ownership of them all?
* How long before the horses were seized did any of the loaners visit the loaned animals - did any of them spot signs of neglect?


----------



## Fenris (13 September 2015)

TGM said:



			Personally, I don't have a problem with horses that are "bright, alert and responsive" and not suffering from a life-threatening illness being PTS if necessary.  I had an elderly mare put down when her worsening arthritis meant her quality of life was going rapidly downhill - however she was still 'bright, alert and responsive' and her arthritis wasn't life threatening.  It is quite possible that some of these horses were found to have conditions which would prevent successful rehoming - one is stated as having a deformed foot due to a previous injury, so possibly could be chronically lame.  Another was described as having a difficult temperament - obviously the Mail does not go into enough detail to make a judgement whether euthanasia was justified in this case.  Just because a horse has good bloodlines and had a brilliant former career doesn't necessarily mean it might not have some issue that would make rehoming difficult.

What is more worrying is the allegations of financial misconduct and the fact that the real owners of the animals weren't traced - but the hoo ha over having the horses put down seems to be overshadowing these important issues.

It is clear that some members on here have a fuller understanding of the situation than is given in the Mail, so it would be great  if they could answer the following questions to clarify the situation for those of us less informed:

* How many of the horses euthanized belonged to people other than Peel?
* Is there evidence that the RSPCA knew that all the animals didn't belong to Peel, or did she claim ownership of them all?
* How long before the horses were seized did any of the loaners visit the loaned animals - did any of them spot signs of neglect?
		
Click to expand...

It is possible that there will be further revelations and actions related to this case.  While I cannot tell you any more than has appeared in the media or been said in open court, perhaps this comment from the Mail site will help:

"chris, preston, 1 hour ago
As someone who has been involved in this case from the start I hasten to add from the side of the original owners and breeders of the horses and has sat through the harrowing court case, may I say here and now that the RSPCA Inspector assured me throughout the case the horses were HAPPY HEALTHY AND SAFE I enquired after the case to be told they HAD BEEN REHOMED AND WERE ALL SAFE AND WELL. They lied through the court case they lied afterwards............there are heartbroken original owners and breeders out there who all wanted their horses back and would have moved heaven and earth to get them back paying the RSPCA the keep fees and other cost to have them safe and home again. BUT NO they were MURDERED by the very organisation that was supposed to PROTECT them."


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

I don't know TGM, as I have only dipped into the arabianlines threads and am not sure which were on loan, and which were owned by them but had previous owners and/or breeders that were concerned what had happened to them/would have had them back in an instant. - In which cases rehoming would have not have been difficult even if there were some issues.

I don't think that this situation was anything like that of having your mare PTS.

Alec I know what you mean about the mail but they are the ones that have this bit of the story. To be frank I found the whole of the rest of the story which has been going on for ages but hush hush because of the trial bad enough with regards to the conduct of the RSPCA and the AHS who seem to have failed their members in this instance. It seems to be only from the efforts of a some on arabianlines that the whereabouts of any of the live horses has been found out (at other equine rescue places) and the fate of those that didn't make it still hasn't been established. So if they haven't been tracked down at a rescue centre that means it is unknown if they were rehomed or dead.


----------



## TGM (13 September 2015)

The whole thing does sound very confusing and complex - perhaps it needs H&H to provide some factual and detached reporting so we can understand the case more clearly.  Currently, the information available in the Mail and on the Internet seems high in hysteria and sensationalism, whereas if action is to be taken against the RSPCA some hard facts and evidence are needed.


----------



## Sadika (13 September 2015)

The RSPCA has handled this appallingly IMO. Sir Edward Garnier MP QC is calling for an urgent inquiry. The AHS has a Welfare Officer who was well aware of the situation and waiting to step in and help. She and the former owners/breeders and owners of the LOAN horses were champing at the bit to HELP as were AHS members ... but a. they did not know what was going on until the neglect had happened (Rachelle Peel was still blowing Templars trumpet on Arabian Lines etc when she was in fact neglecting horses) and b. when they knew of the neglect they were not allowed any details until a certain number of days after the court case was over ... and in fact the full details of what has happened to all the horses is still not formally known ... This morning's revelations in the Mail on Sunday has completely rocked everyone who knows of the Peels ... those horses would have been safe today had the RSPCA used the passport info etc ... instead for some reason best known to themselves all but 2 were shot way before the case even got going in court ... the 2 "survivors" are not known at the moment ...
A further horse was pts by a "charity" as they said he was "dangerous" - his breeders would have had him back in a flash had they known about him ... they are completely devastated.
The RSPCA need to explain themselves ... why they LIED, why they instructed the killings, why they messed up over vet treatments and stabling for horses they knew to be DEAD ...


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

Why was AHS welfare officer waiting to step in, could they not have employed a bit more muscle??


----------



## Penny Less (13 September 2015)

Another passport fiasco then, they are not worth the money or paper they were written on


----------



## cbmcts (13 September 2015)

Even if we forget the fact that these horses legally belonged to other people and as a result, couldn't be signed over to the RSPCA, the Arab Horse world is renown for their rescue efforts - just look at how the posters on AL spring into action when there is a report of an Arab going through an auction. I have known more than one breeder who has taken horses back that they sold many years before and it does appear to be the norm for that to happen.

As soon as the news broke of the rescue/issues at the Peels, there were owners and breeders contacting the RSPCA to try and locate their horses and to offer homes either permanent or foster. There is no excuse for them not at least offering these horses, remembering that in this case they didn't have to hold them until after the trial. These people were directly lied to and the court was lied to by omission. This just isn't acceptable behaviour from anyone, let alone an organisation that presents themselves as the gold standard of animal welfare. I really hope - and would contribute - that one of the legal owners of the shot horses goes after the RSPCA through the courts. 

I am going to write to my MP requesting that the police and the CPS take over the investigation and prosecution of animal cruelty cases as at least they are accountable to Parliament and the public. A charity is not accountable in the same way and if they wish to act as a quasi police force they need to be. Withholding donations is not enough to stop these arrogant organisations.


----------



## Flame_ (13 September 2015)

Is it normal procedure to track breeders and former owners of neglected horses though? Once sold horses have no legal connection to them, do they?


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

No but they didn't need to track them (they were at the door) and it removes the 'difficult to rehome' issue.


----------



## cbmcts (13 September 2015)

Flame_ said:



			It it normal procedure to track breeders and former owners of neglected horses though? Once sold horses have no legal connection to them, do they?
		
Click to expand...

Probably not - but they were contacted by owners (not former!) and breeders as soon as they story broke. Of course it's very possible that at least some of the horses had been shot by then - I don't know how long the seizure took to become public.

Remember, the RSPCA were still implying that these horses were alive and doing well to the AHS (which has a very active welfare department) until todays article - that is just dishonest.


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

Yes, from AL

'Kat Hamlyn LIED through her teeth to Catherine and me she assured us all the way through that trial that the horses were SAFE HAPPY AND WELL, she told us they had all been REHOMED, she sat next to both of us and held my hand the day they showed that horrible video evidence, she even assured the judge in court ON OATH that the horses were safe and progressing well............she told me just last week they had been rehomed SHE LIED ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE TRIAL'


----------



## Alec Swan (13 September 2015)

ester said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Alec I know what you mean about the mail but they are the ones that have this bit of the story. To be frank I found the whole of the rest of the story which has been going on for ages but hush hush because of the trial bad enough with regards to the conduct of the RSPCA and the AHS who seem to have failed their members in this instance. &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

See below.



TGM said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

* How many of the horses euthanized belonged to people other than Peel?
* Is there evidence that the RSPCA knew that all the animals didn't belong to Peel, or did she claim ownership of them all?
* How long before the horses were seized did any of the loaners visit the loaned animals - did any of them spot signs of neglect?
		
Click to expand...

I'm now recovering from a lengthy 'phone call from a friend who has direct experience of the 'goings-on' and who is appalled at and applies blame,  indirectly perhaps,  to all parties.  Owners put horses out on trust,  but the responsibility remains theirs however apparently plausible the loaner.  My friend's view of the conduct of the rspca in this particular case,  is unprintable,  but with an incredible disregard for those who keep them in business,  the rspca are skating on very thin ice.  Were this an isolated case,  that would be put down to individual incompetence.  It isn't,  the problem is systemic.  I remain saddened that the rspca show complete disregard for public opinion,  their only immediately available contact being available to those who wish to 'donate'.

TGM,  to answer your questions,  and this is only my understanding;

1* I'm not sure,  but certainly there were those horses which were clearly not the property of Peel,  and were on loan.

2* Apparently so,  with no effort being made by the rspca to make contact with the owners and conversely,  a refusal to do so.  At no point in this sorry story did those horses which were not Peel's property,  become the property of the rspca.  The rspca are not a Government body,  they have no rights beyond that of the common man and certainly none to confiscation.

3* A good question,  and those who owned horses are not without blame,  either because they were gullible,  or because being unsure of their horse's future, they took the easy option and passed off the responsibility.  It will be for the owners to decide for themselves whether they are victim or culpable.  Harsh,  but true.

I have no problem with putting down horses which have no future.  Where I do have a problem is with a public funded body who display the most supreme arrogance and blatantly refuse to offer any level of justification,  beyond their questionable statements which are clearly untrue.

My views remain the same regarding those of us who have horses,  no further use for them,  and which are of no value.  'Fostering' 'loaning' call it what you will,  unless we are certain that we can monitor our 'loan',  then we really do need to think again,  and question why anyone wants a horse which is either of no use,  or no value.  I understand that PTS is a painful decision,  but it would be an option which I'd bet that those who loaned their horses to Peel heartily wish that they'd taken.  As Evie91 has said,  no one comes out of this,  blameless.

Alec.


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

I don't think those on loan were loaned out instead of PTS, they were loaned out because they thought these people were reputable (and really did appear so) and were running a successful stud and eventing program and they were happy for them to join that program and continue crabbet lines.


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

They duped a lot of people 



Tannis said:



			We totally support the use of Arabs in sport horse breeding - and we event our pure bred Arabians.

Many years ago, I remember reading that a performance breeder used to add a dash of native pony blood to add the speed and agility.  We've adopted the same approach but replaced the native pony with Arabian breeding.

Our pure bred mare, Taragun was made World Arabian Horse Organisation Horse of the Year for her eventing, partnered by our (then) 12 year old daughter.  We were presented with the award by Tamarillo's owner (who also happens to be a senior committee member of the Arab Horse Society).

We also have a wonderful French bred Anglo, a 16.3, who has taken our daughter to JRN and who previously competed to 3* level and represented France and Italy.

This year, we started competing our pure bred stallion, Templars Orchestral Pearl - he's 15.3.

The Arabian horse is a wonderful breed.  The bond with them has to be earned, but once formed, it is a life long partnership that will never fade and they will literally give their lives for you.  It's one of the closest relationships people can ever experience.  

I know I'm biased and I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise but after 20 years of people trying to dissuade me, I still believe that Arabian bloodlines are the holy grail in having the ability to add courage, talent, temperament, style and immeasurable amounts of love!
		
Click to expand...




htobago said:



			Magic104 - you learned something good today! Tannis and her family and their super-talented horses have the admiration and affection of everyone in the Arab-horse world, myself very much included.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Sadika (13 September 2015)

No - the court would not allow release of any details ... and still haven't ... shortly the time is up and there is a procedure to follow ...


----------



## EstherYoung (13 September 2015)

The horses that were put down by the rspca included:

Taz, who I believe to be "Taragun", winner of the coveted World Arabian Horse Organisation Trophy in 2008:*http://www.waho.org/Blog/taragun-united-kingdom-2008-waho-trophy-winner/ Nb I understand that accidents happen, but Taragun was a well mannered and very well travelled little mare, and it is not clear how she could have broken her leg travelling unless the transport was unsuitable.

Khoomi, a performance bred Arabian broodmare who was only on loan to the Peels; it would appear that the RSPCA made no attempt to contact or engage with her actual owners.

Cresh, who I believe to be "Last Crescendo", a purebred Arabian stallion with rare and sought after bloodlines: he was 99.97% Crabbet Arabian, meaning that 99.97% of his lineage can be traced back to the original Arabian imports to the UK.

Sparky, full name Vlacq Tinwe, bred by Vlacq Stud - an excellent and much loved child's pony and both his previous homes would have had him back in a heartbeat

Pip, full name "Against all Odds", a performance bred Anglo Arab by the premium stallion "Djammal"

Heron, full name "Heron de la Forge", a French bred anglo arab and successful affiliated eventer.

Those are just the ones I've managed to identify as an outsider.

There was also Mouse, the mare that most of the successful neglect charges centred on. Mouse was on loan, and her fate is unknown I believe.


----------



## Jackiedo (13 September 2015)

The horses were not unwanted "difficult" horses loaned out to the Peels.  Because they maintained such a high profile and promoted the Arabian as a performance animal rather than just a pretty face, it meant a lot to people who wanted to raise the profile of the breed and get them out there doing a job, in the public eye and they also went back to basics to promote part breds.  Because of this, and because they were seen regularly at shows in person, people let them have horses that they would not have let go anywhere under normal circumstances, believing they were doing the breed as a whole good service.  Horses that they intended one day to have back home once they had done their bit.  I met them personally and they were charming people, both of them, their Setters accompanied them and they were in great shape and seemed much loved.  RP told me that she was writing a book about the Arabian concentrating on Performance lines, and expressed an interest in my colt who was from a particular female line., to go on and promote as a sports pony stallion.  I did not feel that my colt was big enough to make it economic to keep him entire so before he was homed I had him gelded.  And yes, he too is on loan, as a 5 year old professionally broken sports pony gelding I did not sell him, or try to sell him, not because he would not have been impossible to sell or for me to keep but because I wanted to be able to offer him a place of safety should he ever need to come home, and did not want to lose title.  This is a different story to the for loan I am pregnant, have no money, am running off with the milkman type of ads sometimes seen, they were loans from people who wanted the world to see what Arabs can do, and who wanted to offer long term protection to their horses.  Remember, all this time we were seeing pictures, proud posts etc.  it's so hard to understand HOW this happened


----------



## Fenris (13 September 2015)

A question for those who are finally beginning to accept that the RSPCA might have lied or presented false evidence.  Are you still absolutely certain that every single person who has been prosecuted and has said that the RSPCA lied, bullied, concealed evidence or presented misleading evidence was wrong?  

Remember that sometimes it is difficult for defence vets to obtain access to seized animals.  If the animals are missing, whether dead or sold, the defence case is weakened.

If the prosecution has been shown to be so untrustworthy in at least aspects of this case, should their evidence in the rest of the case be called into doubt?  In cases like this should there be a retrial with permission given to change pleas if deemed necessary in the light of new evidence (or lack of it)?


----------



## EstherYoung (13 September 2015)

Fenris, if anything the RSPCA's inadequacies here have meant that the prosecution was not as strong as it could have been.... No-one is doubting that there was a serious issue with neglect at the farm, that much has been proven in a court of law. Horses died from neglect before the RSPCA got their mitts on them. The heartbreaking thing, here, is that the horses that survived, and for which keen and willing homes were available, were put down by their 'rescuers'.


----------



## ozpoz (13 September 2015)

Well,I am truly shocked at this. But not, sadly, surprised. I would add to the voices calling for an investigation into the workings of the RSPCA. 
How very,very sad for the owners of these horses.  : (


----------



## Meowy Catkin (13 September 2015)

If anyone knows what happened to my grey's paternal half brother, please let me know. He's the appy X arab on the link here. 

http://www.gkjarabians.co.uk/id11.html


ETA this was posted on AL if anyone wants to email their support for an enquiry into this sorry mess.




			Here is an email address for Sir Edward Garnier the Conservative MP who wants to open and enquiry into what went on and wants answers. please do write to him and offer your support plenty of people doing the same.

office@harboroughconservatives.com

Click to expand...


----------



## Bigbenji (13 September 2015)

I put this on the thread running in the Tack Room as well: 

The guy who put them down, according to that daily mail article, his name rings a bell. 

Is he the same man who shot that horse at the g-g center?


----------



## EstherYoung (13 September 2015)

One and the same, Bigbenji.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (13 September 2015)

Not sure what g-g centre is, but to have horses with a stables run by a horse slaughterman, must be pretty dubious thinking, there must be other places. 
Perhaps no others want to have the  RSPCA "cast offs"?
If the RSPCA have this problem, they need to have a suitable facility, WHICH IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, not a place where people can't see what is going on.


----------



## EstherYoung (13 September 2015)

Bonkers: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?680347-Facebook-Horse-shot-by-livery-owner


----------



## Bigbenji (13 September 2015)

EstherYoung said:



			One and the same, Bigbenji.
		
Click to expand...

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse. Think he needs investigating as seems to be very trigger happy. 

Poor horses. No words for the owners who had loaned the Peels their horses only to find that's how they met their fate. Disgusting.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (13 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			My views remain the same regarding those of us who have horses,  no further use for them,  and which are of no value.  'Fostering' 'loaning' call it what you will,  unless we are certain that we can monitor our 'loan',  then we really do need to think again,  and question why anyone wants a horse which is either of no use,  or no value.  I understand that PTS is a painful decision,  but it would be an option which I'd bet that those who loaned their horses to Peel heartily wish that they'd taken.  As Evie91 has said,  no one comes out of this,  blameless.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I am definitely pro PTS of unwanted horses. However in this case the horses were wanted, they did have value and they were useful.

If you as an owner, loan out a horse, what sort of keeping tabs on it is required to safeguard the horse? Weekly/monthly/bi-monthly visits in person? Email, texts, forum updates or phone calls? If the loaner mistreats the horse at all, should the owner forfeit ownership as they haven't kept a close enough eye on it even if they were lied to by the loaner?


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

Presumably given the time lines he shot these before the livery horse issue?

Surprised DM missed that nice juicy connection!


----------



## siennamum (13 September 2015)

and one of them broke it's leg when he transported them to his yard. Sounds like a true horseman.


----------



## Sadika (13 September 2015)

Yes and Taragun who it was was well used to travelling ... I've not seen any explanation offered as to what happened but I am trying to find out - it's mentioned in all the emails I've sent out today to RSPCA Vice Presidents, MPs et al ...


----------



## Bigbenji (13 September 2015)

Someone should give the daily mail a nudge about him  

Something is very off in his handling of situations. Trigger happy springs to mind and his position should be reviewed in light of his actions. 

It's one thing to PTS an animal who is suffering or has no chance of recovery but that doesn't appear to have been the situation in this sad case.


----------



## Flame_ (13 September 2015)

Were the horses aged?

I've just read some of the dead-horse-dumped-in-garden thread and there's no doubt something's extremely wrong with that operation but at the same time I think animal rescue staff must need to get quite hard hearted to stick at what they do.

It does sound highly plausible that the prosecution of the Peels has been compromised by these goings on afterwards and trying to keep them out of the public eye. Disturbing stuff that I hope is fully investigated.


----------



## HashRouge (13 September 2015)

Faracat said:



			I am definitely pro PTS of unwanted horses. However in this case the horses were wanted, they did have value and they were useful.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not either but I really believe that it should be routine to scan the microchip of any animal seized and at least try to contact any previous owners listed to see if they would be willing to take them back. Because I bet a fair number would, you know, and surely that could only be a good thing for charities? It would certainly have saved some major heartbreak in this case!


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

heron was 20
last crescendo 19
taragun 23
phaaraoh 9
nancy 22

though as the owner of a fit, functional 22 year old I'm not sure I see that as aged.


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

Khoomi was 9


----------



## Bigbenji (13 September 2015)

Ester- was one of those the grey stallion?


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

Sparky was Vlacq Tinwe - welshx arab and poss evie's first pony? - He is quoted as the one who started it all anyway. 
He was 23.


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

No, I'm not sure what happened to him. I have just taken those from the daily mail article.


----------



## SO1 (13 September 2015)

I would expect in this instance the RSPCA to issue a press statement to explain their actions as the DM article is not good for their reputation. I don't like to pass judgement without hearing some reasons for the actions from the RSPCA. 

With regard to the law I would expect the Peels to only be able to sign over horses in their ownership to the RSPCA. The loaned horses would have been seized and normally with seized animals where it is not clear who the owner is, the RSPCA would try and trace the owners with an attempt to prosecute them. With regard to the horses loaned I am not sure if the owners would be liable for the welfare of the horses even if they are out on loan and at risk of being prosecuted if formally identified. I have a feeling that even if the horses are on loan the owners are still responsible legally for any welfare issues?

I don't think the RSPCA have good relationships or a lot of trust with the breed societies. I think there was a similar case with a Dartmoor Pony Breeder. If the owners are held to be legally responsible for the welfare of the horses whilst on loan, then the RSPCA i expect would not be keen on returning the horses to the owners even if they were only indirectly responsible for the neglect in that they did not check the horses were being cared for properly whilst on loan.


It is a very sad situation these poor horses have been let down primarily by the Peels who were trusted with their care, by also partly by the owners of the loaned horses who did not check the on the horses to make sure they were being cared for properly whilst on loan, {though I appreciate in a hard winter a horse that is wormy and not being fed properly can lose condition within a matter of months so the owners may have checked them a few months before and they could have seemed ok} as well as the RSPCA if the horses where healthy enough to recover with the option of rehoming or care at a rescue center. 

None of the people involved come across well or blameless, however I would say the RSPCA out of the three parties involved are the least responsible for the fate of these horses.


----------



## Art Nouveau (13 September 2015)

There's this in the telegraph, which seems to be the only paper since the DM to have run the story. Press release perhaps?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/118...ses-as-cases-of-neglect-hit-crisis-point.html


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

I think that the RSPCA would have had a hard job in court getting a prosecution for any owners of loaned horses. 

How are they the least responsible when one broke a leg and 10 others died in their care?


----------



## ester (13 September 2015)

The RSPCA spokesman said: Equine experts did assess the welfare and temperament of the horses in this case and the realistic likelihood of them being rehomed, given that over 1,000 equines in the RSPCAs care at that time were also needing new homes.
"Some of the horses were humanely euthanised on veterinary advice but others were euthanised because there was no realistic prospect of them being rehomed in the prevailing circumstances at that time.


The prevailing circumstances being that people were desperately trying to find out where these horses were....


----------



## Alec Swan (13 September 2015)

Sadika said:



			.. ... those horses would have been safe today had the RSPCA used the passport info etc ... instead for some reason best known to themselves all but 2 were shot way before the case even got going in court ... the 2 "survivors" are not known at the moment 
.. ...
		
Click to expand...

The rspca prosecuting counsel are very well known for their dirty tactics.  With a Court hardly being in a position to contradict 'Experts'  and with little in the way of evidence to counter their claims,  ANY Court is going to accept that the value of such a prosecution would hinge around the fact that the horses were in such a state that the only humane answer was their humane destruction.

A question;  Do the rspca only destroy horses on the grounds of qualified veterinary advice,  or do they rely upon the opinion of a pouting girl who cuddles terriers?  Does anyone now?  Are unqualified and biased Inspectors at the lowest of ranks,  allowed to make such decisions?  If they aren't,  and if it wasn't an MRCVS registered Veterinary professional,  then who was it,  do you suppose?  Was a qualified Veterinary Surgeon,  one within the employ of the rspca present at the slaughter of these horses,  OR present at the Court case?

Our Courts need to 'wise-up' and recognise when they're being hoodwinked.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 September 2015)

ester said:



			"Some of the horses were humanely euthanised on veterinary advice &#8230;&#8230;. ....
		
Click to expand...

That sort of answers my last question,  except I wonder just who this person was who gave veterinary advice.  I dish out veterinary advice regularly,  but I'm not a Vet.  Did the rspca rely upon the advice of a QUALIFIED equine Vet?  If they did,  I wonder who it was and how they can explain their opinion.  The rspca won't respond to members of the public,  but they would to a judge,  should the owners of the unfortunate horses club together.

Alec.


----------



## Flame_ (13 September 2015)

ester said:



			heron was 20
last crescendo 19
taragun 23
phaaraoh 9
nancy 22

though as the owner of a fit, functional 22 year old I'm not sure I see that as aged.
		
Click to expand...

From a general rehoming POV I'd class over twenty as aged. The point made about the loan horses owners being indirectly responsible for their horses' neglect by not checking them is a valid one and if returning horses to them, or to former owners is not a supported policy, it is reasonable to put down these horses. On paper their value at that age, in that condition wouldn't be any higher than that of an unregistered gypsy cob , which people seem to be comfortable with them putting down. If you sell a horse on you have no right or claim to get it back if you find out where it is a few years later and it's not good news, it is very naive and a bit cheeky to think otherwise. If you loan a horse it is still your responsibility to oversee its welfare.


----------



## be positive (13 September 2015)

If you look at the animals on the rspcas rehoming pages they are nearly all small, young cobs a lot of 3 year olds that are two a penny, if someone wants a cob of that type they can buy one without going through a home check etc. 
The arabs were far more likely to find decent homes probably all through known contacts, breeders and former owners, I think the prospect of finding homes for every single one was excellent, people were trying to find them and being stonewalled, did none of the messages get through or do they just not care?


----------



## Alec Swan (13 September 2015)

Flame_ said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. and if returning horses to them, or to former owners is not a supported policy, it is reasonable to put down these horses. &#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

Would that be Former Owners,  or if the horses were loaned,  Current Owners?  rspca 'Policy' cannot make decisions which contradict Law.

Alec.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (13 September 2015)

Flame_ said:



			From a general rehoming POV I'd class over twenty as aged. The point made about the loan horses owners being indirectly responsible for their horses' neglect by not checking them is a valid one and if returning horses to them, or to former owners is not a supported policy, it is reasonable to put down these horses. On paper their value at that age, in that condition wouldn't be any higher than that of an unregistered gypsy cob , which people seem to be comfortable with them putting down. If you sell a horse on you have no right or claim to get it back if you find out where it is a few years later and it's not good news, it is very naive and a bit cheeky to think otherwise. If you loan a horse it is still your responsibility to oversee its welfare.
		
Click to expand...

The community of Arabian horse keepers and breeders are remarkable when it comes to rehoming Arab horses in need-even had they not had owners asking after them, homes could have been found. Most rescues are full of tiny ponies or high maintenance companions whenever I've looked-I'd be far more likely to take on an Arab, even an aged one.
There is a valid point about loaners doing checks although surely legally, the horses were not the Peels to sign over ownership of? Regardless, fact was that owners were trying to find them, they just didn't appreciate how too late they were and then they were lied to. If the rspca are so damn quick to pts rescues of any species, doesn't it make a mockery of branding and chipping?


----------



## Flame_ (13 September 2015)

Its true that if the RSPCA take the angle that in the cases of the loaned horses, the owners were at least partly responsible for the horses' condition, they ought to have been traced and prosecuted, not just not given their horses back or any information about them.


----------



## SO1 (13 September 2015)

I am not saying that the RSPCA made the right decision but the horses were only in the care of the RSPCA because of the neglect the horses had suffered under the Peels. 

I would say order of responsibility for deaths of horses are

1}Peels - if Peels had not neglected horses they would not have been with RSPCA and therefore not PTS by RSPCA

2} {For the horses that were not owned by the Peels - Owners of loaned horses but only if they never visited the horses to check all was ok}. It is not clear if the owners visited the horses or not. It the owners did not visit the horses whilst under the care of the Peels to check they were ok then had they done so they may have noticed the horses condition and taken them home again before the RSPCA intervened. However I appreciate in a hard winter a horse's condition can deteriorate in a couple of months if the horse does not have adequate feed and worming so it maybe the owners did visit the horses and they seemed well and the neglect happened very quickly in which case owners did there best by visiting at regular intervals.  l  have to say if loaned my pony out and did not check on him and he ended up PTS by RSPCA due to neglect from the loaners, i would feel responsible for this for not checking he was ok. 

3} RSPCA - if they could have cared for the horses and the horses were not suffering they should not have PTS



ester said:



			I think that the RSPCA would have had a hard job in court getting a prosecution for any owners of loaned horses. 

How are they the least responsible when one broke a leg and 10 others died in their care?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## be positive (13 September 2015)

Flame_ said:



			From a general rehoming POV I'd class over twenty as aged. The point made about the loan horses owners being indirectly responsible for their horses' neglect by not checking them is a valid one and if returning horses to them, or to former owners is not a supported policy, it is reasonable to put down these horses. On paper their value at that age, in that condition wouldn't be any higher than that of an unregistered gypsy cob , which people seem to be comfortable with them putting down. If you sell a horse on you have no right or claim to get it back if you find out where it is a few years later and it's not good news, it is very naive and a bit cheeky to think otherwise. If you loan a horse it is still your responsibility to oversee its welfare.
		
Click to expand...

So if a loan horse gets into a home where it becomes "neglected" through no fault of the owner who may check regularly but have through no fault missed a visit or two, then it gets seized by the rspca it can be destroyed because the policy is to not return to the owner, the rspca is not above the law the loaner should be able to have property returned or at least have the chance to fight for it's return, these owners had no chance, they were told the horses were safe all the way through the court proceedings, even the judge was told they were safe and well, if they can lie in court on this what else goes on that they are not held accountable for.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 September 2015)

Flame_ said:



			Its true that if the RSPCA take the angle that in the cases of the loaned horses, the owners were at least partly responsible for the horses' condition, they ought to have been traced and prosecuted, not just not given their horses back or any information about them.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong.  The Law takes the view that it's the 'Keeper' who is responsible for the welfare of an animal,  and that may or may not be the owner.  Whilst in the care of another,  then that person is deemed to be The 'Keeper'.

Alec.


----------



## Flame_ (13 September 2015)

be positive said:



			So if a loan horse gets into a home where it becomes "neglected" through no fault of the owner who may check regularly but have through no fault missed a visit or two, 

Neglect like this does not happen overnight, I don't think you could claim the owners aren't at fault

then it gets seized by the rspca it can be destroyed because the policy is to not return to the owner, the rspca is not above the law the loaner should be able to have property returned or at least have the chance to fight for it's return, these owners had no chance, they were told the horses were safe all the way through the court proceedings,

No, you're quite right, it does seem a case of "shoot first, ask questions later"

 even the judge was told they were safe and well, if they can lie in court on this what else goes on that they are not held accountable for.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is a quite separate problem and one they stand to be in serious trouble for, I think, especially if it is in order to pretty much have committed fraud.


----------



## cbmcts (13 September 2015)

Art Nouveau said:



			There's this in the telegraph, which seems to be the only paper since the DM to have run the story. Press release perhaps?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/118...ses-as-cases-of-neglect-hit-crisis-point.html

Click to expand...

God, that's a mealy mouthed article if there ever was one!

But there were homes for these particular horses...Arab people were clamouring for them and the RSPCA lied about what had happened to them for the best part of 2 years. If they were so certain that they made the right decision - and I'm not saying that PTS isn't a viable alternative in many cases, so no fluffiness here - why weren't they upfront about it?

There is also the issue that the identity of the pure breds and registered part breds was easily verifiable, the AHS has been DNA typing and microchipping for many years now so there is no excuse for PTS as quickly as they did unless BVA guidelines were met. Vets are on record as saying that it wasn't the case here and there the queries over legal ownership of the loaned horses. I thought that was the whole point of passports/microchipping and freeze marking? AFAIK if you or I were to unwittingly buy stolen property we would be liable to lose it to the true owner without compensation?

What is most shocking here is that an organisation that uses the law to prosecute others doesn't appear to feel that it needs to follow the processes of the law. Double standards and hypocrisy or what? And I won't even mention the questionable attempt to claim keep for dead horses - again if you or I ran a business whose account keeping was so sloppy especially during a prosecution I doubt that we would get a 'Oh dear, that's a bit careless' from a judge. Some would even call it fraud. 

So personally speaking I would hold the RSPCA secondly responsible in this fiasco but the big difference is that they had the had the resources and time if they wished to give it to allow a different outcome. They made no effort whatsoever to save these animals once they had the reports and video to allow prosecution because that was their only interest not the ultimate welfare of the animals. And they lied again and again. There is no excuse IMHO. The Peel woman is the person who neglected these poor animals and has no excuse so has to be ultimately responsible. I have no doubt that the owners, former or current of any of these horses are already tearing themselves apart and yes, they probably could have done more in hindsight. But they were duped by a well known and respected member of their world who, at any time could have asked for help and would have received it. As I said before the Arab world is well known for stepping in and assisting any of their own. However it appears that she treated these horses as commodities and once they were no longer of us to her they were left to rot. How is her evilness the owners fault?


----------



## SO1 (13 September 2015)

Not sure about this as I think there is dual responsibility and under the animal welfare act if a horse is on loan  as "a person who owns an animal shall always be regarded as being a person who is responsible for it"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/3



Alec Swan said:



			Wrong.  The Law takes the view that it's the 'Keeper' who is responsible for the welfare of an animal,  and that may or may not be the owner.  Whilst in the care of another,  then that person is deemed to be The 'Keeper'.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (13 September 2015)

cbmcts said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

What is most shocking here is that an organisation that uses the law to prosecute others doesn't appear to feel that it needs to follow the processes of the law. Double standards and hypocrisy or what? &#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

Which calls in to question the ability to prosecute,  which has been passed on to the charity.  The power to prosecute should be returned to the CPS,  and very soon.  The rspca are not fit for purpose in this roll,  or many others from what we can see.

Alec.


----------



## SO1 (13 September 2015)

What she did is not the owners fault. I expect the owners checked the living conditions at her yard before leaving the horses in her care and the horses they saw looked good and well cared for otherwise they would not have left the horses with her. 

I just think if that had been my pony and I had not gone and checked frequently that he was ok whilst on loan then I would blame myself for what happened, my pony my responsibility. [Disclaimer I am not saying the owners did not check on the horses they may have done and neglect happened quickly, or they may not have been able to check due to ill health and did not know anyone who they could ask to do so on their behalf and in this case they did their best} 





cbmcts said:



			However it appears that she treated these horses as commodities and once they were no longer of us to her they were left to rot. How is her evilness the owners fault?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (13 September 2015)

SO1 said:



			Not sure about this as I think there is dual responsibility and under the animal welfare act if a horse is on loan  as "a person who owns an animal shall always be regarded as being a person who is responsible for it"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/3

Click to expand...

Interesting,  but when the Keeper is clearly guilty of neglect or of disregard of an animal's welfare and so the Laws and responsibilities of such care would be outside of the owners reasonable efforts and daily routine,  and were the owner not present (as in a permanent loan situation),  then the Keeper would be the one deemed responsible,  I'd have thought.  I'll agree that no owner is ever absolved of all responsibility regarding the care of their possessions,  in this case horses,  but that is more of a moral issue than one of Law,  I feel.

Alec.


----------



## Leo Walker (14 September 2015)

I'm quite tough and pragmatic about the PTS of horses that might not have a decent chance of rehoming, but this whole thing brought me to tears. These were horses that had people who desperately wanted them back, quality, well bred horses who had breeder back up and the bloody RSPCA shot them anyway 

I dont know what can be done, but something needs to be! I had an horrific run in with the RSPCA due to a very nasty set of circumstances which basically boiled down to my YO wanting my boy, physically threatening me, to the point I had the police involved,  and having a friend who was an inspector. I have NEVER found an organisation so bloody difficult to deal with! I had police reports, vet reports and photos backing up what I was saying and they couldnt have cared less!

They also told me outright lies and posted a note through my door saying my boy had been seized due to abandonment. He hadnt been abandoned and I was visiting him three times a day and taking date stamped photos! He also hadn't been seized! I am almost certain they gave me that notice so I would think he wasnt there, and wouldn't visit, in order for them to seize him and hand him over to her. I am STILL 3 yrs later waiting for the inspector to bloody well call me back! I did get a lot of calls asking for donations, until I lost my ***** and kicked off!

Its a much longer story than that, but it was horrific! They are a bloody disgrace!


----------



## hackneylass2 (14 September 2015)

It's interesting to note that one strange  thing is cropping up here... I wonder where, or to whom the 'boarding fee costs' went?...and I also wonder, was the slaughterman just a 'hired gun' so to speak, or does he utiliise carcasses?...some folks have fingers in many pies, some wildly unrelated!

The whole thing stinks.


----------



## EstherYoung (14 September 2015)

ester said:



			heron was 20
last crescendo 19
taragun 23
phaaraoh 9
nancy 22

though as the owner of a fit, functional 22 year old I'm not sure I see that as aged.
		
Click to expand...

As you say, Khoomi was 9 and also Against All Odds (a well bred eventer who had been in pro training before he was neglected) was 8 when he was put down by the rspca. So a range of ages.

The Peels are absolutely the most responsible here - let's not forget that horses died from neglect in their care too, and if they had not neglected the horses none of this would have happened. The rspca handling comes under the heading of "adding insult to injury" - the deaths of the additional horses, the lies to the interested parties. The owners, breeders and previous owners of the other horses involved in this case (not featured in the mail article) still haven't been informed of their fates, either. The very least the rspca can do now is put the other owners, breeders and previous owners out of their misery, even if that is to tell them that their horses didn't make it. Or are they about to find out what happened to their horses on the pages of a reactionist national newspaper too?


----------



## ester (14 September 2015)

Actually the would be their ages now, so you can probably take a year off most. 

I think that it is a moot point anyway from the rehoming point of view.


----------



## Equi (14 September 2015)

I too am not against pts for a lot of rescue horses who probably just don't have a great outcome, but i think they do this to get in the news no matter what. If they can't get publicity because of the condition of the animal, shoot it and get the publicity anyway. There will always be the nuts who rise to their defence and donate more that month. Any publicity and that...


----------



## DD (14 September 2015)

CAN PEOPLE PLEASE EMAIL ann.green.d@gmail.com if they loaned a horse to the Peels. see Arab Horses uk fb page for more details if required.


----------



## DD (14 September 2015)

http://www.edwardgarnier.co.uk/ also can people [everyone] email Sir Edward Garnier QC MP [ he also has a fb page]. He is going to look into the issue of the RSPCA shooting the horses.


----------



## MurphysMinder (14 September 2015)

Not horse related, but a short while ago Wirral RSPCA posted a photo of a GSD they had rescued.  This dog clearly had an ear tattoo and many GSD breeders commented that the RSPCA should contact the National Dog Tattoo register and they would be able to identify the breeder who would no doubt want to help rehome the dog.   All these comments were ignored and as far as I am aware the RSPCA have still not attempted to trace the dogs tattoo,   would go against their constant slagging off of breeders I suppose.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 September 2015)

Downton Dame said:



http://www.edwardgarnier.co.uk/ also can people [everyone] email Sir Edward Garnier QC MP [ he also has a fb page]. He is going to look into the issue of the RSPCA shooting the horses.
		
Click to expand...

Done and thank you for the prompt.

I would encourage everyone who feels strongly enough to write to Sir Edward,  and offer their support and their clear salient points.  I've said it before and will continue;  'We need an RSPCA,  now more so than ever,  but not the existing incumbents who direct a charity which appears to have no regard for either the Law,  common sense,  or those over whom they assume authority'.

Alec.


----------



## jezabell (14 September 2015)

I hate the RSPCA, prevent cruelty to animals.  Yet that is what they have done shot them is that not cruel.  It dam well is in my eyes.  I would never ever give them a penny.   All they do is put animals down which have a right to live. Those poor animals I am crying I can not believe what they have done.  That evil barbaric thing who pulled the trigger.  I HATE HIM.  How any one can work for them I will never know. The RSPCA want taking to court over this. Those poor animals.


----------



## Fenris (14 September 2015)

MurphysMinder said:



			Not horse related, but a short while ago Wirral RSPCA posted a photo of a GSD they had rescued.  This dog clearly had an ear tattoo and many GSD breeders commented that the RSPCA should contact the National Dog Tattoo register and they would be able to identify the breeder who would no doubt want to help rehome the dog.   All these comments were ignored and as far as I am aware the RSPCA have still not attempted to trace the dogs tattoo,   would go against their constant slagging off of breeders I suppose.
		
Click to expand...


The problem here is that it touches onto a quite different campaign that the RSPCA have running.  Micro-chipping.  Not going to go into the full ins and outs of the issue as it doesn't really belong in this thread, but in summary the RSPCA opposed the use of tattoos or even DNA profiling as a means of permanent ID for an animal, even though there are all sorts of issues with failure of micro-chips, migration within the body, irritation and disease, failure of authorities to scan, privacy, and of course now the increasing numbers of animals where someone, be it a thief or an owner who doesn't want to be traced, has cut or attempted to cut the chip out of the animal.  Had the GSD in question had a mircro-chip then it would have been wall to wall publicity to show how everyone should micro-chip.  The real issue of chips for the RSPCA is that they want a full register of everyone who owns any animal and where they can find them.  But as I say, another issue for another thread.


----------



## Fenris (14 September 2015)

Several people have raised the issue of culpability of owners for horses on loan.  The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is very clear.  An owner remains responsible for everything that is done to or happens to their animal when in the care of another.  The owner should monitor, ensure that the person providing a service is competent and trustworthy, and do whatever else is reasonable to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their animal.

See S.4(2) of the AWA below.  The problem is with (c), deciding what is reasonable in all the circumstances.  Would you fancy your chances arguing against the pernickety RSPCA?  Every case I have dealt with has either had the owner in court as a (sometimes reluctant) prosecution witness, the owner has signed the animals in question over (in circumstances some would describe as 'duress') or the owner has been proscuted too.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45

4Unnecessary suffering

(2)A person commits an offence if

(a)he is responsible for an animal,

(b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,

(c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.


----------



## Fenris (14 September 2015)

EstherYoung said:



			Fenris, if anything the RSPCA's inadequacies here have meant that the prosecution was not as strong as it could have been.... No-one is doubting that there was a serious issue with neglect at the farm, that much has been proven in a court of law. Horses died from neglect before the RSPCA got their mitts on them. The heartbreaking thing, here, is that the horses that survived, and for which keen and willing homes were available, were put down by their 'rescuers'.
		
Click to expand...


It is far more complex that that.  There are many reasons why this came about and you are right that the bottom line is that these horses were failed when they arrived in the care of an organisation that should have provided a place of safety.  Now please everyone, ask yourselves why that failure happened.

It happened because the RSPCA has been allowed to trample over people's civil and legal rights for far too long.  They have been able to get away with doing this because every time anyone raises the issue of a wrong done by the RSPCA, whether to a human or an animal, their supporters leap in to protect them, often with the claim that it doesn't matter if the rights of animal abusers are breached.  The result of course is that everyone's rights are at risk, including those of the animals they are supposed to protect.

It happened because there is nowhere for people to take complaints about charities except the Charities Commission whose remit excludes the subject matter of most complaints.  The SHG has long campaigned for the creation of a Charities Ombudsman who could deal with that wide range of complaints and bring recalcitrant charities to heel.  Until there is proper supervision and control of the charity sector charities can effectively do whatever they want because individuals simply can not afford to enforce their rights in the very expensive civil courts.  Don't even think of entering the minefield of bringing a private prosecution as an individual with no legal help.

It happened because those public authorities who actually have powers in animal welfare cases, the police and local authorities, have shirked those responsibilites and have been quite happy to allow animal welfare to be dealt with on the cheap by an organisation that parliament chose not to empower.  And of course, the CPS has failed time and again to quality control RSPCA prosecutions except in the rare  occasions that hunts were involved or the SHG helped the defendants step by step through the nightmare of asking the CPS to look at a prosecution, starting with the CPS denying they have any right to intervene in an RSPCA prosecution becuse they are a 'prosecuting authority' - Wrong!

It happened because prosecutors are effectively rewarded for breaching the regulations that govern a prosecution in the UK.  In the US if a warrant in incorrect or a seizure or raid is flawed then the case is thrown out.  This works to ensure that investigators and prosecutors are held to account.  It forces them to do things in the correct manner.  In the UK it is rare for there to be any comeback for a prosecutor or investigator.  the court will accept the wrong doing and more often than not allow the evidence that has been unlawfully obtained. The result is that dodgy prosecutors have nothing to lose and everything to gain - something they learn very quickly.

It has happened because the courts will not enforce people's right to visit and have expert inspection of animals that are in the possession of the RSPCA.  We have lost count of the number of cases in which a person about to give evidence is given the devastating news that the animal they have been fighting for has been dead for several months and no-one bothered to tell them.  A nasty psychological trick to ensure that the person is unfit to give evidence while grieving for their loss, but of course the courts don't care and the RSPCA sits there smirking.

It has happened because of the willingness of judges to accept that the RSPCA mean well and so whatever they do should be excused.  In the case we are discussing the judge believed that there had simply been an error in accounting.  And so it goes on in every case.   If the very first case the SHG had been involved in where the accounting was 'in error' had resulted in action from the courts or even strong criticism, it is possible that someone would have thought again before getting rid of these horses in this manner.

It is the failure to hold the RSPCA accountable that is putting animals like these horses at risk.  You can all condemn the people who were prosecuted, but if they had not done a lot of digging and fighting in this case none of this would be in the public domain.


----------



## madlady (14 September 2015)

Whilst I desperately wish that this had never happened lets hope that the horse owners within the UK can use this to get some real changes.

I have long believed that the RSPCA are worse than useless when it comes to horses and that another welfare organisation should be appointed as the 'go to' place for equine welfare (and other) issues.  An organisation that has it's own places to take 'rescued' horses to and that has an understanding of horses in general.  I have yet to come across an RSPCA officer who has the first clue about how to deal with a well horse, let alone one that has been neglected or mistreated.

What the RSPCA have done here is beyond belief and beyond justification.  There were owners and breeders lined up to take these horses and yet, with no communication or clear justification they were destroyed.  

I would dearly love to know why but I doubt anyone within the RSPCA would be honest enough to answer that question.

The situation is an absolute disgrace - I just hope that there is now enough evidence to show that this organisation should no longer have anything to do with horses.


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (14 September 2015)

"Fenris" you have summed the situation up exceedingly well.

Words just fail me in all this, they really do.

I would add, "it has happened because the RSPCA have got too fat and complacent through well-meaning but misplaced donations from people who are genuinely seeking to improve the lot of mistreated animals, yet that money is going into their coffers and maintaining the corporate image rather than being used for the true reason it was donated in the first place".

plus "it has happened because the RSPCA have been given far too much power, and lack the responsibility to manage that power effectively and compassionately". 

Shocking, truly shocking. Words fail me. 

It can only be hoped that the average Joe Public punter and supporter of the RSPCA may now truly see them for what they are in all of this. Please let us hope this will be the result then those poor horses have not died in vain.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (14 September 2015)

Downton Dame said:



http://www.edwardgarnier.co.uk/ also can people [everyone] email Sir Edward Garnier QC MP [ he also has a fb page]. He is going to look into the issue of the RSPCA shooting the horses.
		
Click to expand...

done.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (14 September 2015)

AdorableAlice said:



			Never happen, what would the Labour Party do without the vast funds the RSPCA donate.
		
Click to expand...

How on earth can the Labour party, who are not in Governement possibly have any real influence over what happens to the RSPCA?

The absolute worst part of this, imo, is the fraud that appears to have been perpetrated by claiming costs for caring for horses which had already been pts. 

Yes those horses which coud be proved to belong to a 3rd party should have been returned to their owners but maybe if those owners had been rather more vigilant this case would not have got to the point of involving RSPCA.  Faults all round imo.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 September 2015)

Excellent responses from Fenris,  the mad lady and the one with 'tite' jods!

There needs to be a cohesive move by those who are so well aware of how inept and on occasion blatantly dishonest the rspca are,  and force the recalcitrant directors from their lofty and self satisfying seats,  and back in to the world,  one to which those who recognise a need for their services,  will lend their support.  

Perhaps we need a SPCA,  and one which whilst not just funded by real people,  is staffed and managed by those who aren't voted in by a council who's reson-detre isn't self protection.  Are the existing rspca any better than fifa?  Not from here they aren't.

Alec.


----------



## Tiddlypom (14 September 2015)

We need a well run and healthy RSPCA more then ever. This case paints them in the most appalling light.

My dealings with them have been good. I have previously posted about fostering one of their 'worthless' cobs. A former colleague's husband left a well paid farm manager's job to become a RSPCA inspector.

I feel so sorry for the hardworking, honest foot soldiers who strive so hard for animal care under the RSPCA banner. They deserve much better.


----------



## ycbm (14 September 2015)

AdorableAlice said:



			Never happen, what would the Labour Party do without the vast funds the RSPCA donate.
		
Click to expand...


What's your source for this information, I can't find anything online about RSPCA funds being used to donate to the Labour Party?. PAL, an organisation headed by someone who is/was also an RSPCA director, yes, but that is not the same as charitable donations to the RSPCA being diverted into Labour coffers.

It's clear the RSPCA has gone badly astray. It should never have been allowed to turn itself into the animal police   And 80,000 spent on an animal war memorial, what's that about, before thinking about 16 million on a new HQ.

Is there anything anyone knows that we can do to try to get animal welfare prosecution removed from this corrupt organisation?


----------



## Alec Swan (14 September 2015)

Downton Dame said:



http://www.edwardgarnier.co.uk/ also can people [everyone] email Sir Edward Garnier QC MP [ he also has a fb page]. He is going to look into the issue of the RSPCA shooting the horses.
		
Click to expand...




ycbm said:



			..

Is there anything anyone knows that we can do to try to get animal welfare prosecution removed from this corrupt organisation?
		
Click to expand...

Yes.  Lend your support to the move by Sir Edward Garnier, which with luck,  may have the effect of change.  That and lobby the CPS and your own MP.  

Alec.


----------



## fatpiggy (14 September 2015)

jezabell said:



			I hate the RSPCA, prevent cruelty to animals.  Yet that is what they have done shot them is that not cruel.  It dam well is in my eyes.  I would never ever give them a penny.   All they do is put animals down which have a right to live. Those poor animals I am crying I can not believe what they have done.  That evil barbaric thing who pulled the trigger.  I HATE HIM.  How any one can work for them I will never know. The RSPCA want taking to court over this. Those poor animals.
		
Click to expand...

How can you pour so much venom on the slaughterman?  Its hardly his fault. He was asked to do a job and he did it.  A person I know is licenced. He keeps a small-holding in the back-end of nowhere and obtained a licence so that he didn't have to put his animals through the long and rough journey to a slaughterhouse.  A nicer, more caring person you couldn't wish to meet.  There is clearly a shortage of such people as during the last Foot and Mouth outbreak, while vets put down young/baby animals by lethal injection, much of the shooting of adult stock was done by Army butchers. I saw one of the slaughtermen crying his eyes out at what he had to do.

WHere were the owners of these animals which were apparently on loan?  I can't believe that word didn't leak out about the conditions on the farm.  Did they not go and do regular checks for themselves, however good the name of the breeders was. Plenty of so-called caring people have been caught out in the last few years being nothing of the sort.  We had a chap prosecuted locally a few years back, a pillar of local horse world, Master of Hunt,  breeder, high-flying show judge -  prosecuted for neglect of animals on his property and banned from keeping. A year or so later I heard he was still keeping horses, but claimed they were his son's animals.

I'm no lover of the RSPCA having seen them in (in)action 40 years ago and more recently when they were called to two ponies where I kept my horse at the time.  But I'm quite sure that there are some very caring and hard-working people amongst them. No doubt they get beaten down by those above them though.


----------



## Rollin (14 September 2015)

ester said:



			heron was 20
last crescendo 19
taragun 23
phaaraoh 9
nancy 22

though as the owner of a fit, functional 22 year old I'm not sure I see that as aged.
		
Click to expand...

I had my first horse, a much loved old darling pts a month ago.  He was 36 years old.  I have pics of him aged 35 doing ride and lead with my 4 year old Shagya filly, he filled her with confidence and she hacked alone within two weeks of backing.  I purchased another old horse as a companion, aged 20 years, he lived and worked till 27 years of age.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 September 2015)

ycbm said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Is there anything anyone knows that we can do to try to get animal welfare prosecution removed from this corrupt organisation?
		
Click to expand...

Isn't there the facility of an e/petition which feeds directly in to Downing Street (supposedly),  and upon which our Government assures us that they will give consideration,  should it have sufficient support?

Alec.


----------



## minesadouble (14 September 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			Not sure what g-g centre is, but to have horses with a stables run by a horse slaughterman, must be pretty dubious thinking, there must be other places. 
Perhaps no others want to have the  RSPCA "cast offs"?
If the RSPCA have this problem, they need to have a suitable facility, WHICH IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, not a place where people can't see what is going on.
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea if this has any relevance, however I am not convinced the 'slaughterman' in question is licenced?? He shot a livery at our yard and as I had never heard of him I googled him and couldn't come up with anything regarding licenced slaughter. I stand to be corrected as I do not know this for a fact just could not find any evidence to support him being licenced.

This story does not surprise me at all unfortunately, I have no idea what the agenda of the RSPCA is, however, as an organisation I feel animal welfare is very much secondary to them.


----------



## Fenris (14 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Isn't there the facility of an e/petition which feeds directly in to Downing Street (supposedly),  and upon which our Government assures us that they will give consideration,  should it have sufficient support?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


We have run petitions for a public inquiry into the activities of the RSPCA and for a charities ombudsman.  it is very difficult to get sufficient signatures to trigger a government debate (100,000) or even for a government response (10,000).

But please, please, start a new petition as it can only add to the pressure on the RSPCA.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 September 2015)

The only need for a licence is when an animal is euthanised,  and is when the person carrying out the act is doing so for 'profit',  i.e. being paid.

To support fatpiggy's post,  shooting the messenger makes for little sense.

Alec.


----------



## ester (14 September 2015)

Re conditions at the yard and the fact there were dead horses, no I don't think anything did leak out or anybody suspect anything as they were still posting on forums etc at the time. They were very knowledgeable and charming by all counts. The issues with the horses were reported by walkers.

he is licenced I iirc 
this is his history
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-dump-body-owner-s-garden-unpaid-bill-30.html
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...s_legal_action_over_shooting_pregnant_horses/


----------



## dymented (14 September 2015)

How many more animals must suffer at the hands of this despicable charity ,They lie , fabricate evidence ,Bribe , threaten and intimidate people all the time ,They kill far more animals than any other charity they wast countless donations on failed prosecution ,Would it not have been far more charitable of the rspca to help the woman out with the horses rather than intimidating her to signing them over killing the animals then prosecuting her Its the animals that suffer when the rspca get involved they take a few photos for publicity then often destroy the animals saying they was suffering and the public believe them


----------



## minesadouble (14 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			The only need for a licence is when an animal is euthanised,  and is when the person carrying out the act is doing so for 'profit',  i.e. being paid.

To support fatpiggy's post,  shooting the messenger makes for little sense.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Well he was definitley paid when he came to our place, he advertises himself as an animal communicator and comes out with some VERY bizarre statements! That is by the bye I suppose, though I would imagine he is paid in his capacity as a slaughterer by the RSPCA and I would have thought is should be important to them to use a licenced slaughterman(working on the assumption here that he is not).

I'm not in any way blaming him for his role in this incidentally but just think it a little odd that the RSPCA use him in this capacity.

If there is a current petition running to investigate the activites of the RSPCA I will happily sign it. The are, quite literally, a law unto themselves.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (14 September 2015)

ester said:



			Re conditions at the yard and the fact there were dead horses, no I don't think anything did leak out or anybody suspect anything as they were still posting on forums etc at the time. They were very knowledgeable and charming by all counts. The issues with the horses were reported by walkers.

he is licenced I iirc 
this is his history
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-dump-body-owner-s-garden-unpaid-bill-30.html
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...s_legal_action_over_shooting_pregnant_horses/

Click to expand...

the daughter was still competing-it seems as though horses that were still 'useful' to the Peel's were kept well, the others, including (the Peel's) family ponies were left to rot (Mouse). I do think the owners of the loaned horses have some responsibility of course, but that doesn't excuse the lies from the RSPCA or the PTS of relatively healthy animals when they are saving far poorer animals and wasting money on prosecutions and war memorials. 

Also people need to ask themselves before loaning a horse-how are these people affording 30+ horses, breeding, eventing, dogs and livestock and how do they do well it without any staff? There were clues about these people but generally I think people trust animal people, especially knowledgable ones, to do the right thing ie ask owners to take back horses when they began to struggle.

I'm surprised people on here don't have any more info as to this slaughterman/communicator/horse rehabber. We need slaughtermen so wouldnt want him victimised for doing his job. He does seem to have been involved in a few shootings of loan horses-is there no prerogative for slaughtermen to check who's giving the order in a non-emergency situation?

How much does the RSPCA pay to keep rescue horses at private yards? What do they pay to get them rehabbed by say Wilson? Doesn't the GG centre take in RSPCA cases too?  What a shame the FOI act doesnt apply to charities.


----------



## Tiddlypom (14 September 2015)

MotherOfChickens said:



			How much does the RSPCA pay to keep rescue horses at private yards? What do they pay to get them rehabbed by say Wilson? Doesn't the GG centre take in RSPCA cases too?  What a shame the FOI act doesnt apply to charities.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know the figures, but certainly the RSPCA puts some rescue horses into 'private boarding'. My foster filly had spent at least some of her rehab (from starvation) in such a facility.

The trouble is, the RSPCA are full to bursting, they cannot take in every animal. Most of their employees and volunteers are doing their best with the resources available to them.


----------



## dymented (14 September 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			I don't know the figures, but certainly the RSPCA puts some rescue horses into 'private boarding'. My foster filly had spent at least some of her rehab (from starvation) in such a facility.

The trouble is, the RSPCA are full to bursting, they cannot take in every animal. Most of their employees and volunteers are doing their best with the resources available to them.
		
Click to expand...

I am quite sure they could spend some of there £140,000,000 they have looking after a few more animals rather than killing them all they are far from bursting point as you claim they often tell the public there full up to generate more revenue nothing more they seem to think they are above any law these days


----------



## ester (14 September 2015)

MotherOfChickens said:



			the daughter was still competing-it seems as though horses that were still 'useful' to the Peel's were kept well, the others, including (the Peel's) family ponies were left to rot (Mouse). I do think the owners of the loaned horses have some responsibility of course, but that doesn't excuse the lies from the RSPCA or the PTS of relatively healthy animals when they are saving far poorer animals and wasting money on prosecutions and war memorials. 

Also people need to ask themselves before loaning a horse-how are these people affording 30+ horses, breeding, eventing, dogs and livestock and how do they do well it without any staff? There were clues about these people but generally I think people trust animal people, especially knowledgable ones, to do the right thing ie ask owners to take back horses when they began to struggle.

I'm surprised people on here don't have any more info as to this slaughterman/communicator/horse rehabber. We need slaughtermen so wouldnt want him victimised for doing his job. He does seem to have been involved in a few shootings of loan horses-is there no prerogative for slaughtermen to check who's giving the order in a non-emergency situation?
.
		
Click to expand...

I think he seems to do it by his own order.


----------



## Tiddlypom (14 September 2015)

dymented said:



			I am quite sure they could spend some of there £140,000,000 they have looking after a few more animals rather than killing them all they are far from bursting point as you claim they often tell the public there full up to generate more revenue nothing more they seem to think they are above any law these days
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure that there are many valid criticisms of how the RSPCA as a whole operates. I'm just pointing out that many people working for them at the sharp end are doing their best. They are not all corrupt and useless.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (14 September 2015)

The only loan where you really can actively safeguard your horse, is one from your property or the livery yard that you use.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 September 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			I'm sure that there are many valid criticisms of how the RSPCA as a whole operates. I'm just pointing out that many people working for them at the sharp end are doing their best. They are not all corrupt and useless.
		
Click to expand...

Generally,  I'd say that your right,  with the odd exception which would include the Inspector (foot soldier to you and I),  who apparently lied to the Court and to one of the owners,  offering assurances that the horses were all fine and being cared for,  when the reality was that they were already dead.

So,  it seems to me,  and I'm only going from what I've read and am assuming the facts to be correct;

Dead and presumably decomposing horse carcasses were found on a property.  This is in direct contravention of the Law and is the responsibility of Trading Standards (failing to dispose of specified risk materials, etc.)

Despite the fact that there were those horses alive which were not the property of the person being investigated,  they were 'gifted' to the rspca,  presumably in an attempt to avoid prosecution.  I'm not sure how they could be gifted when they weren't the property of the giver.  The rspca would have been very well aware of this fact.  Further,  the rspca being aware that the horses which they acquired were the property of others failed to make any apparent attempts to contact the rightful owners,  and if the reports are truthful,  actually impeded the rightful owners in their enquiries.

Were there no claims being made to ownership,  and were these animals simply abandoned,  then putting down healthy horses is sadly,  acceptable.  The question has to be asked,  just who it was who gave the instruction to kill the animals,  and did they make any attempts to contact the owners?  It would seem not.

It now seems,  just to compound this shameful debacle,  that the rspca have been found wanting in that claims were put in or made which would reveal that there have been major financial irregularities.  The Court accepted that they were 'in error' which would have us wonder if you or I were to appear in Court for what most would consider to be fraud,  and were we to put in a claim of "Sorry M'Lord,  it was an error",  would that elicit the response of "That's ok,  try not to let it happen again".  Unlikely! 

I wonder if it's not time for the rspca to appear in front of a Parliamentary Select Committee,  or if there shouldn't be a fast tracked Public Enquiry.  The rspca are a publicly funded body,  they appear to have a total disregard for the Law and those who provide them with an income,  and I have direct evidence of their 'tactics' bringing our legal system in to disrepute.

For how much longer will this shameful conduct be permitted?  I'll email them and invite them to refute any of the claims made on here and elsewhere.  It would be unlikely that a reply will be forthcoming.  There's total silence on here from those who are directly employed by the rspca,  and are forum members.  Silence implies culpability,  in my view.  

Alec.


----------



## WelshD (14 September 2015)

fatpiggy said:



			WHere were the owners of these animals which were apparently on loan?  I can't believe that word didn't leak out about the conditions on the farm.  Did they not go and do regular checks for themselves, however good the name of the breeders was. Plenty of so-called caring people have been caught out in the last few years being nothing of the sort.  We had a chap prosecuted locally a few years back, a pillar of local horse world, Master of Hunt,  breeder, high-flying show judge -  prosecuted for neglect of animals on his property and banned from keeping. A year or so later I heard he was still keeping horses, but claimed they were his son's animals.
		
Click to expand...

This. 
I am finding it hard to get my head around the fact that at least some of these horses were on loan to the Peels yet in a close knit Arab horse community not one owner raised the alarm, are we to assume that none of these horses was checked on at any point during their decline by any owner? surely not? (absolutely genuine question)

the Dartmoor pony case is equally interesting, there are people begging to take on ponies to preserve the historic breeding lines but the RSPCA don't seem to be listening. Like the Arabs these are ponies and bloodlines worth preserving


----------



## Meowy Catkin (14 September 2015)

Apparently someone did try to alert others of their suspicions that all was not well at Templars via a post on arabianlines and the Peels had the post taken down. It involved threats of legal action from the Peels and the person who tried to alert others ended up selling a horse to someone in Sweden to keep it from the Peels.

ETA from AL




			I will be contacting the Swedish horse registry as it was a gentleman there who I wrote to after I was ordered by the court to hand my mare's daughter over to them. The Peel creature rang the AHS as soon as she found out that the horse had left the country and blocked the paperwork so that the new owners were unable to register her in their name and the AHS could not send the paperwork to them. The Swedish gentleman (must look up his name) was great and although he could do nothing about the registration of the mare he allowed the new owners to register her foals so they were happy with that. She has bred some lovely foals for them and they are super people; she has a wonderful home. I knew that if she went to the Peel's she would not be looked after as by then I had heard some rumours but nothing that I could use in court as I had no proof. Had she gone there I am sure she, along with her lovely mother, would be dead.

If you are all interested I am happy to start a thread telling you all exactly what happened when I had the misfortune to meet the Peel creature.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ester (14 September 2015)

I got a bit confused about the sweden situation.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (14 September 2015)

I am too, but hopefully they will start a thread that explains everything.


----------



## Evie91 (14 September 2015)

I agree with fatpiggy and WelshD. A lot of these ponies were on loan. Surely the owners must take some responsibility in this for not checking.
I know nothing of the 'Arab community' but if it is as close knit as we are led to believe, surely it would have just meant one owner raised a concern then all would,have been checking up on their ponies. This obviously didn't happen - not one owner has come forward to say they were concerned, removed their pony,alerted others.
The rspca do not become involved lightly so things were bad. Neglect does not happen overnight.
Peel neglected these ponies to the point the RSPCA removed them. The owners must bear some responsibility in this - no good to be saying what you were prepared to do after the fact, why did no one act at the time?
Maybe RSPCA believed owners were compliant with the ponies treatment, maybe this is why they did not go to great efforts to trace them.
I certainly do not condone RSPCA actions (as others have said, I would have thought these ponies would have been more desirable to re home than ten a penny coloured cobs that seem to populate rescue centres) but it grates that RSPCA seem to be getting the rap. Either way they put an end to the ponies suffering - not what I would have wanted but at least they took some action - whilst others stood by and did nothing but criticise those that did!
Aargh!


----------



## Meowy Catkin (14 September 2015)

They didn't loan their horses to an unknown stranger though, who replied to an ad from a random website, they loaned to who they thought was their friend, who ran a very well known and respected stud.

It shows that you cannot trust anyone, however plausible they are. You have to see things with your own eyes regularly and if you live a long way away from where your horse is going, so can't check in person very often - don't loan.


----------



## Evie91 (14 September 2015)

Think you have made a good point there Faracat - if you can't check don't loan.

The fact they were all friends and ran a stud actually raises more questions for me than it answers -surely you visit friends, would have more 'traffic' through a stud (customers, feed merchants, vet, farrier etc etc)....


----------



## MotherOfChickens (14 September 2015)

Evie91 said:



			Think you have made a good point there Faracat - if you can't check don't loan.

The fact they were all friends and ran a stud actually raises more questions for me than it answers -surely you visit friends, would have more 'traffic' through a stud (customers, feed merchants, vet, farrier etc etc)....
		
Click to expand...

you can still show people only what you want them to see. IME farriers tend to not gossip, they just won't go somewhere they aren't paid. 
The Peel's rented their farm, there were issues over the rent (we found out recently) and the horses being shown/competed were well looked after-it was all the others that were hid in a barn and back paddocks. The Peels also own a few small parcels of land separate but local to where they were living. He was done for non-disposal of sheep back in 2007 but that wouldn't have been nationally reported, but shows there was a history of not coping with the stock they had (always with an excuse about family illness). Its very sad all round, I am sure the owners are beating themselves up.


----------



## be positive (14 September 2015)

Evie91 said:



			Think you have made a good point there Faracat - if you can't check don't loan.

The fact they were all friends and ran a stud actually raises more questions for me than it answers -surely you visit friends, would have more 'traffic' through a stud (customers, feed merchants, vet, farrier etc etc)....
		
Click to expand...

I think most of the problems happened over the winter so probably very few visitors, also when you have plenty of land it must be easy enough to put the poor looking ones away out of sight, a feed merchant will not be doing any more than delivering feed, the same with farrier and vet they will only attend the horses they are asked to they will not be strolling about looking for neglected horses and probably had no reason to suspect there was an issue. 
The more horses you have the easier it is to hide them, also the faster things go downhill, when things do go wrong it can happen very quickly even if you are a good caring owner in the middle of winter the work can overwhelm you, not excusing the Peels in anyway but I would think the loan horses were well cared for initially then just got swept along with the ongoing neglect, the owners may have visited regularly and had no reason to be concerned so slacked off visits in the winter.


----------



## Evie91 (14 September 2015)

Yes, sorry. I have re-read my post and it sounds rather harsh. My point is there were lots of failings along the way. I always find these things really upsetting, it's so hard to understand why,so many unanswered questions, so many opportunities missed.
Just feel so sorry for those horses left to suffer, just no need.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (14 September 2015)

its hard to know what makes this happen with experienced horsey folk. I spent my 16th summer in the 80s at a small riding school/livery yard working for rides. Had a ball, lots of horses and ponies that worked hard but were well cared for. Family were lovely. 18 months later they were done for neglect and I don't know how/why it happened (I moved across country). I look back at the photos and see no evidence of things going awry. Leslie Skipper was another one who knew better.


----------



## SO1 (14 September 2015)

I expect with a lot of these breeders/professionals it is pride which stops them asking for help when things start to go wrong and they can't afford to look after the horses properly or have more horses than they can cope with and can't afford to employ people to help them.

Maybe the breeds societies don't come across to the members as being friendly and approachable which is why breeders having difficulty in looking after their stock don't ask for help if they get in trouble financially and don't have the resources to look after the horses properly. Or maybe they would rather take a risk with horses health hoping for a return to better times than sell to a competitor. 





MotherOfChickens said:



			its hard to know what makes this happen with experienced horsey folk. I spent my 16th summer in the 80s at a small riding school/livery yard working for rides. Had a ball, lots of horses and ponies that worked hard but were well cared for. Family were lovely. 18 months later they were done for neglect and I don't know how/why it happened (I moved across country). I look back at the photos and see no evidence of things going awry. Leslie Skipper was another one who knew better.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## whiteroom (14 September 2015)

Picking up on the loaned horse aspect, as a private individual who has loaned, is there any way to identify loaned horses or a register which could be checked?


----------



## stencilface (14 September 2015)

ester said:



			I think he seems to do it by his own order.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. He PTS a friends elderly horse, apparently the horse communicated it was ready to go, I mean WTF?!


----------



## hackneylass2 (15 September 2015)

I would certainly question why someone who seems to have such a trigger-happy attitude has a rescue /livery type business, and is an animal communicator/trainer.  
Is there a publicly available lookup site for licenced slaughtermen/women and Reiki Masters?

Whatever the real situation it does not look good in the publics' eye for the RSPCA to have a horse slaughterer looking after rescue horses! Fox looking after chickens IMO.


----------



## EstherYoung (15 September 2015)

Official statement from the Arab Horse Society:



			The Arab Horse Society made considerable efforts to communicate with the RSPCA when the Peel horses were taken into the charitys care but no information was forthcoming. The AHS had offers from AHS members, breeders and former owners of Peel horses, anxious to re-home them, but the RSPCA would not enter into any discussion with the Society regarding the horses.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (15 September 2015)

This does not supprise me - the attitude of the RSPCA, they have been in the limelight a lot in recent years.  All negative comments from the public, jamie gray for example.

I for one am not in favour of this charity and have had a few negative incounters with them.


I will never support them financially or anything else, there was no need to shoot these poor ponies.


----------



## DD (15 September 2015)

A lesson to learn from all this is that the OWNER of a horse is also responsible for its welfare if it is loaned out to someone else. They must regularly check on the horses circumstances even if that means daily inspection. This has huge implications for the horse world and its present custom and practices.


----------



## ester (15 September 2015)

And if you cannot do daily inspection you'd sell them then these horses wouldn't be any better off?


----------



## DD (15 September 2015)

ester said:



			And if you cannot do daily inspection you'd sell them then these horses wouldn't be any better off?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think people will be reluctant to loan , selling means the new owner is responsible for the horses welfare.


----------



## Fenris (15 September 2015)

Downton Dame said:



			A lesson to learn from all this is that the OWNER of a horse is also responsible for its welfare if it is loaned out to someone else. They must regularly check on the horses circumstances even if that means daily inspection. This has huge implications for the horse world and its present custom and practices.
		
Click to expand...

Equally important is a proper contract which details what is to be done in every eventuality you can think of.  Signed by all involved.  Every move of an animal should be accompanied by a paper trail created by the owner in case of an ownership dispute.  See also    https://theshg.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/how-do-i-prove-ownership-of-my-animal/


----------



## Alec Swan (15 September 2015)

Official statement from the Arab Horse Society:

The Arab Horse Society made considerable efforts to communicate with the RSPCA when the Peel horses were taken into the charity&#8217;s care but no information was forthcoming. The AHS had offers from AHS members, breeders and former owners of Peel horses, anxious to re-home them, but the RSPCA would not enter into any discussion with the Society regarding the horses.

Thanks for that EstherYoung.

If Canute saw the futility of ignoring the obvious,  why can't the rspca?  Were the rspca to be maintaining the moral high-ground by their silence and in the face of criticism,  that would be one thing,  but their apparent blanket refusal to enter in to any discussion,  is no more than supreme arrogance.  Arrogance and Pride are both precursors to a fall.

Alec.


----------



## fatpiggy (15 September 2015)

MotherOfChickens said:



			its hard to know what makes this happen with experienced horsey folk. I spent my 16th summer in the 80s at a small riding school/livery yard working for rides. Had a ball, lots of horses and ponies that worked hard but were well cared for. Family were lovely. 18 months later they were done for neglect and I don't know how/why it happened (I moved across country). I look back at the photos and see no evidence of things going awry. Leslie Skipper was another one who knew better.
		
Click to expand...

I used to ride a pony on a farm, the daughter and I went to school together.  The farm was very well-kept, and her dad treated the animals extremely well. He often got the best price of the day at market for the bull calves and the dairy cows were in lovely condition (many had their own names).  Land maintenance was excellent - all in all a very good farmer. Two decades on and my mum sent me a news clipping that he had been prosecuted for neglect and animals found dead on the farm (a different property).  I did hear that there had been marital problems and I think they could have split up.  No-one was more surprised or shocked than me though because I would never have believed it of him.


----------



## DD (15 September 2015)

a begging letter from the RSPCA has just arrived in my post box. it  contains a stamped addressed envelope. I have written a short letter asking why the refused help from the ASH re rehoming the horses in the Peel case and stated there was no need to shoot them when help was available. I will be posting it shortly. I urge others to do the same.
and/or ring them up and tie up their phone lines their phone number is in my signature below.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (15 September 2015)

I have the list of the 28 horses that were removed from the Peels. I was sent it on the 29th April 2015 (so during the court case) by one of the ladies that attended the court case. She clearly states that it was said that three of the horses had been PTS, but that it wasn't said in court which three. On the list the horses are all called by their stable names, not their passport names and there are a few notes trying to work out who the horses really are. One is a Welton daughter (but no passport name) and it is stated that there were two shetlands, two Cleveland Bay crosses and of course the appy x arab that is related to my grey. 

Of course at that point I was very hopeful that the appy x was still alive. I've met his sire and dam and they both had top notch temperaments, in fact every member of the family that I have met has been utterly wonderful and very trainable. If he had any temperament issue, it was caused by being shut in a barn and mistreated and surely with kind handling he would have recovered fully? He was a young horse and like all the others, didn't deserve what happened to him.


----------



## DD (15 September 2015)

Faracat, do you know what happened to Oakthwaite Shamtar?


----------



## Meowy Catkin (15 September 2015)

Do you know his stable name?


----------



## AmieeT (15 September 2015)

I have been reading these comments in horror, and last night asked on the RSPCA FB page for them to justify their actions- this morning there is no sign of my request, they've obviously deleted it, along with another comment I'd liked of someone else's.

I would love for them to face justice for their actions.


----------



## madlady (15 September 2015)

I just wanted to add that I emailed the MP who is getting involved in this yesterday stating how upset and angry I was and offering support if needed.

I've had a reply asking for my full address and have been told I will hear further.  I did say that I thought that the RSPCA needed to be fully investigated and also not be the responsible charity for Equine welfare.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (15 September 2015)

AmieeT said:



			I have been reading these comments in horror, and last night asked on the RSPCA FB page for them to justify their actions- this morning there is no sign of my request, they've obviously deleted it, along with another comment I'd liked of someone else's.

I would love for them to face justice for their actions.
		
Click to expand...

there are lots of comments on the page about this but you need to scroll down a bit.


----------



## AmieeT (15 September 2015)

MotherOfChickens said:



			there are lots of comments on the page about this but you need to scroll down a bit.
		
Click to expand...

I did, mine is completely disappeared- I'd had notifications that someone had liked it, and that's gone too, bit odd. 

http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/0615_2 This is what a friend of mine posted (she works for the RSPCA)- I sent her a link to the that Arabian Lines forum to read through. Haven't had a reply yet though.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (15 September 2015)

Basically it seems that for whatever reason, the RSPCA were not willing to reply to the AHS's plea to work with them, so the horses were shot as 'unhomable'. If they had had one tiny jot of willingness to work with the AHS, all could have been rehomed and it is absolutely gutting that the AHS had homes lined up ready to take the horses.


----------



## ester (15 September 2015)

'others were euthanised because there was no realistic prospect of them being rehomed in the prevailing circumstances at that time.'

And this is the bit that is wrong in this instance. 

I'm actually all for the PTS or more of the rescue horses that some charities take in particularly those youngsters with shocking confo and lamenesses that means that they will never be a ridden horse when there are only so many companion homes. This was not the case here and I hope they understand the difference.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 September 2015)

I've just googled 'rspca Complaints Procedure'.  All that I could find was a list of those bodies who regulate them,  see below;

REGULATORY AUTHORITIES:
British Veterinary Association; Charity Commission; Defra;

There didn't,  with the exception of lodging a complaint regarding their fund raising,  seem to be a system in place whereby they would address any complaints regarding their conduct.  Convenient!  Time,  I believe for the regulatory bodies to start taking a degree of responsibility,  I'd say.

Alec.

Ets,  and thinking about it,  which of the bodies mentioned above would have any control over the charter of the rspca?  None,  I suspect.  Is a self imposed charter of any worth when it is routinely ignored?  No is the answer.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (15 September 2015)

ester said:



			'others were euthanised because there was no realistic prospect of them being rehomed in the prevailing circumstances at that time.'

And this is the bit that is wrong in this instance. 

I'm actually all for the PTS or more of the rescue horses that some charities take in particularly those youngsters with shocking confo and lamenesses that means that they will never be a ridden horse when there are only so many companion homes. This was not the case here and I hope they understand the difference.
		
Click to expand...

absolutely. they will argue that they cannot discuss horses that are involved in current cases with anyone though, that will be their excuse. It seems to me that these were shot just way to quickly and they've been covering up ever since. Seems odd that HAPPA managed to rehab and rehome the two (?) they took on.

eta I am writing to complain to the RSPCA this week. Won't do any good but the more that do it the better. The DM are going to try and follow this up this sunday-they apparently did not know that the owners/breeders were unaware of the horses' fate.


----------



## ester (15 September 2015)

I don't know if that argument should stand if they weren't seized, though I imagine they will say so.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 September 2015)

Just heard a piece on the radio 2 11am news. Spokesperson from RSPCA talking about the large number of abandoned horses, which means they are having to pts healthy horses.

Yes, true, but these arabs were not genuinely abandoned, were they. They mostly had owners and anyway the breed society was actively trying to help. Why the radio piece today? RSPCA bigwigs trying to wriggle out of a monumental c0ck up?


----------



## Pinkvboots (15 September 2015)

ester said:



			'others were euthanised because there was no realistic prospect of them being rehomed in the prevailing circumstances at that time.'

And this is the bit that is wrong in this instance. 

I'm actually all for the PTS or more of the rescue horses that some charities take in particularly those youngsters with shocking confo and lamenesses that means that they will never be a ridden horse when there are only so many companion homes. This was not the case here and I hope they understand the difference.
		
Click to expand...

I think the problem is most rspca officers don't know one end a horse from another so would have no idea about what a good or bad horse looks like in this instance, but I totally agree with the fact they should have a procedure in place where each horse is assessed by someone who is qualified to know the difference.

I have just heard a report on radio 2 where they did a brief interview from someone at the rspca it started with, " the horse welfare situation in England and Wales has reached crisis point which has now resulted in having healthy horses pts, this has obviously been aired due to this case to obviously try and justify what they have done.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (15 September 2015)

Pinkvboots said:



			I think the problem is most rspca officers don't know one end a horse from another so would have no idea about what a good or bad horse looks like in this instance, but I totally agree with the fact they should have a procedure in place where each horse is assessed by someone who is qualified to know the difference.
		
Click to expand...

well, apparently the slaughterman told them that some of them at least were suitable. He's the director of a rehab/rehoming centre, Cooper Wilson Equine Support, so he should know?


----------



## AmieeT (15 September 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			Just heard a piece on the radio 2 11am news. Spokesperson from RSPCA talking I about the large number of abandoned horses, which means they are having to pts healthy horses.

Yes, true, but these arabs were not genuinely abandoned, were they. They mostly had owners and anyway the breed society was actively trying to help. Why the radio piece today? RSPCA bigwigs trying to wriggle out of a monumental c0ck up?
		
Click to expand...

I heard this and thought the same. They were neither abandoned nor unwanted as the early link I posted implies.


----------



## DD (15 September 2015)

Faracat said:



			Do you know his stable name?
		
Click to expand...

no sorry I dont. She was/is a black arabian by Al Sood.


----------



## honetpot (15 September 2015)

I am a cynic where the RSPCA are concerned, they tend of to prosecute people they know have assents, ie their home is not rented, so they can recoup any costs through the courts if they win the case. I think the euthanizing of these animals was more to do with reducing the costs of keeping them whilst remaining in control. Most look just poor and a bit of Dr Green and worming would have probably got them  in good condition, but that wouldn't make a good story. It would also give the defence the chance to say the neglect was a one off.
  If I was and owner of any of these animals I would take the RSPCA to the small claims court for the value of the animal, how ever much that is and ring the local newspaper. Let them prove in court what attempts to find the owners. I am sure if they had posted on the breed FB page people would have known who they where, I knew I had sold 12 years ago from a FB picture.
  I feel the owners have been abused twice, by the loaner that betrayed their trust, and the RSPCA who did not do right by their animals and them.


----------



## alibali (15 September 2015)

I know this linked has been posted previously but in case anyone missed it here is the RSPCAs official response to the criticism it has received over the euthanasia of these horses.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/0615_2

It clearly states that they were slaughtered as there was no realistic chance of rehoming them. It makes no mention of the fact that many of the horses already had owners desperate to reclaim them or the fact that a breed society had made offer of assistance in dealing with and rehoming these horses. Neither does it mention that the majority were extremely valuable well bred animals, sports horses as well as Arabs, and that many people who have given their eye teeth to have had the opportunity of owning them not 'just' as rescues but for their own sake and I imagine several would have had competitive careers in front of them in the eventing world.

A swift look at the RSPCAs rehoming pages for horses shows page after page after page of small/medium coloured cob types mostly for rehoming as companions. It appears the RSPCA believes that these type of equines have a better chance of being rehomed than 'blood' horses. It is clear to me that whoever had overall responsibility for the Peel horses has very little understanding of horses in general or the equine industry or indeed the root cause of the 'current over population crisis' they are spouting about which is the indiscriminate breeding of (primarily but not exclusively) small/medium coloured cob types. Which certainly calls into question the RSPCAs competency to deal with the welfare/cruelty towards horses.

Just to add I think cobs (coloured or otherwise) are fantastic and equally deserving of good homes my point is that unfortunately for coloured cobs they appear to have been particularly subject to indiscriminate breeding and this part of the market appears flooded and likely hard to rehome particular animals due to sheer volume. Further those people looking to rehome an Arab/part bred sports horse are unlikely to rehome a coloured cob instead and vice versa.

I am truly shocked at the RSPCAs actions and lack of professionalism in this instance. How they managed to win a court case when it appears they had not even managed to successfully identify the animals involved and trace true ownership (despite I believe being in possession of the passports) beats me. I am disgusted at the RSPCAs complete refusal to work with partner organisations (Arab Horse Society) who had the knowledge and wherewithal to assist. Finally I am saddened beyond belief that the horses which had suffered once at the hands of the Peels were given no opportunity of a second chance and never even offered for re-homing.

I will be copying a large part of this post and using it as template to write to the RSPCA, the MP who is calling for an enquiry, my own MP, the Charities Commission, HM The Queen and anyone else I can think of who might listen to me.


----------



## alibali (15 September 2015)

I know this linked has been posted previously but in case anyone missed it here is the RSPCAs official response to the criticism it has received over the euthanasia of these horses.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/0615_2

It clearly states that they were slaughtered as there was no realistic chance of rehoming them. It makes no mention of the fact that many of the horses already had owners desperate to reclaim them or the fact that a breed society had made offer of assistance in dealing with and rehoming these horses. Neither does it mention that the majority were extremely valuable well bred animals, sports horses as well as Arabs, and that many people would have given their eye teeth to have had the opportunity of owning them not 'just' as rescues but for their own sake and I imagine several would have had competitive careers in front of them in the eventing world.

A swift look at the RSPCAs rehoming pages for horses shows page after page after page of small/medium coloured cob types mostly for rehoming as companions. It appears the RSPCA believes that these type of equines have a better chance of being rehomed than 'blood' horses. It is clear to me that whoever had overall responsibility for the Peel horses has very little understanding of horses in general or the equine industry or indeed the root cause of the 'current over population crisis' they are spouting about which is the indiscriminate breeding of (primarily but not exclusively) small/medium coloured cob types. Which certainly calls into question the RSPCAs competency to deal with the welfare/cruelty towards horses.

Just to add I think cobs (coloured or otherwise) are fantastic and equally deserving of good homes my point is that unfortunately for coloured cobs they appear to have been particularly subject to indiscriminate breeding and this part of the market appears flooded and likely hard to rehome particular animals due to sheer volume. Further those people looking to rehome an Arab/part bred sports horse are unlikely to rehome a coloured cob instead and vice versa.

I am truly shocked at the RSPCAs actions and lack of professionalism in this instance. How they managed to win a court case when it appears they had not even managed to successfully identify the animals involved and trace true ownership (despite I believe being in possession of the passports) beats me. I am disgusted at the RSPCAs complete refusal to work with partner organisations (Arab Horse Society) who had the knowledge and wherewithal to assist. Finally I am saddened beyond belief that the horses which had suffered once at the hands of the Peels were given no opportunity of a second chance and never even offered for re-homing.

I will be copying a large part of this post and using it as template to write to the RSPCA, the MP who is calling for an enquiry, my own MP, the Charities Commission, HM The Queen and anyone else I can think of who might listen to me.


----------



## HashRouge (15 September 2015)

I'm still suspicious about how a well traveled horse like "Taz" (Taragun) came to break her leg in transit. I doubt we will ever get an explanation of that though, it seems to have been accepted as "just one of those things"


----------



## Beausmate (15 September 2015)

This sorry story reminds me of that ugly business with the GSDs.  Do the RSPCA not bother to employ people who know what they are doing?  

They seem to have a very similar attitude with regard to obtaining outside assistance to  the very people they prosecute. Is it down to arrogance?  The 'we know best, so we don't need anyone else's help' way of thinking?

How many owners of competition/racehorses regularly visit their horses?  Many people would assume that a well-respected professional would be trustworthy and look after the animals in their care, so wouldn't feel the need to check up on them.

You really can't trust anyone.


----------



## Rollin (15 September 2015)

HashRouge said:



			I'm still suspicious about how a well traveled horse like "Taz" (Taragun) came to break her leg in transit. I doubt we will ever get an explanation of that though, it seems to have been accepted as "just one of those things" 

Click to expand...

Might be a similar case to the one I have quoted.  A friend's lame foal, already seen and treated by a vet, the RSPCA were told this when they telephoned friend who was on a train to a business meeting.  The mare and foal were taken by the RSPCA, after being chased around the field for an hour, witnesses and police camera.  Foal transported un sedated, which friend knew was illegal, pts the following morning without owner's consent on the basis it had a fracture.  How could you chase a foal with a fractured fetlock round a field for an hour?  While friend was away for 48 hours mare and foal were being cared for by a relative who knew them well and was panic stricken, when he found field gate open, and the two missing later the same day and thought they had been stolen or escaped.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (15 September 2015)

Downton Dame said:



			no sorry I dont. She was/is a black arabian by Al Sood.
		
Click to expand...

I have PM'd you.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (15 September 2015)

On AL someone has copied and pasted part of the RSPCA's SIR (summary information return) to the Charity Commission and in this they explain their activities and goals.

In it is this statement about their strategy -* 'collaboration with other organisations is seen as key to addressing some of these problems.'*

So why didn't they reply to the AHS? The RSPCA state that their goal is - *'To end the euthansia of any rehomeable animal.' *

They just seem to have been willfully uncooperative (or worse) in this case.


----------



## EQUIDAE (15 September 2015)

Rollin said:



			How could you chase a foal with a fractured fetlock round a field for an hour?  .
		
Click to expand...

My 5 month old foal fractured his fetlock and is now a strapping 5 year old. He has xrayed on site and was splinted and box rested with his dam. The bill came to £75 - for a horse with a broken leg. Euthenasia was unnecessary...


----------



## JoannaC (15 September 2015)

Whilst I would normally agree that when you put your horse on loan you need to check regularly but it's hard to explain how Rachelle was so plausible, I would have trusted her with my horse and I only ever spoke to her online through Arabian Lines.   I thing everyone was completely gobsmacked when they heard what had happened.  It wasn't obvious either at the number of horses they actually had.   You see people at shows etc and the horses they have with them look completely fine so it really wouldn't cross your mind that they could have starving, neglected horses at home.   She was constantly posting about how well they were doing and never was there the slightest indication that anything was wrong.    She fooled a lot of people so I have nothing for sympathy for the people who trusted her with their beloved horses whether selling or loaning.    We only really hear about the bad loan homes but most loans work perfectly well and the horses don't end up neglected or ill treated.      The RSPCA are a disgrace and I am also not against PTS for horses that genuinely are unlikely to be rehomed but this simply wasn't the case in this instance.   A lot of the horses were still young and even the oldies like Sparky could have taught a young rider.


----------



## HashRouge (15 September 2015)

She WAS very plausible, I agree. I never had any direct contact with her but I do remember her posting about her Arabs and her daughter, Evie, and I was very impressed with the work they'd done to produce Arabs that would actually DO something, rather than just look pretty. Add to that the fact that they won the very prestigious WAHO trophy with Taragun...they just seemed so legitimate! I know from working in the show jumping world than owners often go months without visiting their horses when they are with reputable riders, and I suppose this is the same.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (15 September 2015)

all the posts about this on the RSPCA page are now deleted-it was under a money appeal post. none of the posts I saw were rude, just questioning what happened.


----------



## Indy (15 September 2015)

Wasn't Cooper Wilson involved in the GG Centre incident where a horse was shot and then dumped in a woman's garden for not paying her livery


----------



## ester (15 September 2015)

Yes, and another incident with another owner and some pregnant mares that he shot.


----------



## YasandCrystal (15 September 2015)

Well  I just hope no horse lover will ever give the RSPCA another penny again. I haven't for years. They are a waste of space as far as I am concerned. They remind me of social services, poking their nose where they should/need not and Ignoring genuine welfare cases.


----------



## christine0810 (15 September 2015)

I sat in court  for quite a lot of that trial for the Peels case, and I  never wish to hear the horror stories I heard there again.  Peel was plausible knowledgeable, and very very convincing.   If anyone  ever wanted to see their horses they were either told where they would be competing next or that they were so busy at the farm they couldn't possibly entertain visitors, always some excuse building work foaling training etc.  The Mail on Sunday are responsible seasoned journalists with a proven track record in  reporting honestly and truthfully.  I have met one of them in the past few days and   I can report they  hope to run a follow up to the original article in the next week.  The RSPCA had those horses for almost a year before any one knew where they were, at that point Peel was still posting about how well they all were even tot he point of telling one owner that their horse had just enjoyed his Christmas Day feed when he was already dead!  Another person was told that their horse had just  had its first gallop in the fields  and that was also dead............that's how callous and uncaring she was!  Oh by they way Rachelle if you are on here in your 'Tannis' disguise maybe you would like to come on here and tell the world what you did with little Alileo the colt you had  from a friend of mine whose dam you sent back with rainscald? Bet you couldn't explain that but then you wouldn't  because you sat there in court while the most revolting video of conditions at your place was played in front of you and you sat there smirking and thinking it was all very good fun............well it wasn't  how people did not vomit I have no idea  I came close a couple of times but those pictures will be burned into my brain forever!   Her daughter was riding a stallion at a stallion parade just a few days before the farm was raided.  I asked begged and pleaded with the RSPCA Inspector to tell me which horses they had in their care but she wouldn't  and why because she knew before that case was heard they were all dead!  It was only when the Mail on Sunday broke the story anyone realised what had happened to their horses,  the reporter I spoke to and met with  thought that people knew what had happened and when I informed  him to the contrary he was shocked, he couldn't apologise enough for the distress the story caused.  So please don't defend the Peels RSPCA  to me because they are undefendable in my eyes


----------



## Archangel (15 September 2015)

I'm another one completely taken in by the Peels.  I stood at the ringside at the Nationals as the beautiful brave Taragun collected her award.  I thought what a lovely family, mum, dad and daughter.  But even as that award was being presented that 'lovely dad' was on trial for leaving  67 sheep dead in the field.   Talk about a double life.   Rachelle Peel was such a regular on Arablianlines and we all followed the progress of her daughter and the stud.  The stallion paraded at Burghley, the daughter went to Hartpury to further her eventing career etc etc etc.  

The daughter's childhood pony Vlacq Tinwe, the incredible Taragun, the eventer Heron de la Forge and all the others - what a dream come true.  But the dream is over and the horses were shot by the RSPCA - how could you live with that?  Well by getting married and having a baby it seems.  That is one hell of a bounce back.


----------



## ester (15 September 2015)

Christine, I think you are on AL too? In which case I want to thank you for coming over here to say what you know having obviously been very involved. I only caught up with this quite late on so I for one was not sure on the timelines/what they were posting when with regards to when the horses were taken and how people found out.


----------



## Penny Less (15 September 2015)

A thumbs up for the Mail for once !


----------



## Meowy Catkin (15 September 2015)

I want to thank Christine and Catherine for attending the court case and for talking to the journalists.

Here is the list of horses that were removed from the Peels. They are all listed with their stable names, not passport names.




			William 
Mouse 
Delilah 
Harley 
Jules 
George 
Millie 
Neville 
Sydney (could have another name grey Arab x Appaloosa) 
Legs 
Taz (possibly Taragun) 
Eve 
Nancy (Twist Hoeves Nancy) 
Molly 
Midge 
Shady 
Khoomi 
Cresh 
Rita 
Bumble (I know that one its a Welton bred daughter) 
Winston (Shetland) 
Freddie (Shetland) 
Breeze 
Coco (Cleveland Bay x) 
Frodo (Cleveland Bay x) 
Pip 
Anna 
Heron (Heron de la F
		
Click to expand...


----------



## christine0810 (15 September 2015)

Ester its actually my cousin Catherine who has done most of the posting on AL  but I have taken over for the time being as she is dealing with family matters.


----------



## christine0810 (15 September 2015)

William 
 Mouse 
 Delilah 
 Harley 
 Jules 
 George 
 Millie 
 Neville 
 Sydney (could have another name grey Arab x Appaloosa) 
 Legs 
 Taz (possibly Taragun) 
 Eve 
 Nancy (Twist Hoeves Nancy) 
 Molly 
 Midge 
 Shady 
 Khoomi 
 Cresh 
 Rita 
 Bumble (I know that one its a Welton bred daughter) 
 Winston (Shetland) 
 Freddie (Shetland) 
 Breeze 
 Coco (Cleveland Bay x) 
 Frodo (Cleveland Bay x) 
 Pip 
 Anna 
 Heron (Heron de la Forge)   


Bumble was Bubblegum and I know she is safe and rehomed   she is Welton Apollo daughter out of Broomhill Lady   I know where she was bred and by  whom and cannot for the life of me  comprehend how they sold her to the Peel family.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (15 September 2015)

Christine, do you know what happened to Sydney?


----------



## Pinkvboots (15 September 2015)

And what happened to Harley because he was at the parade shortly before and looked healthy and well? 

Rachelle did speak to me once through Arabianlines as she had a half sibling related to my warmblood mare he was the image of her but I can't remember his name, all I know was he was dark bay about 16 hands I just hope he was sold on before all this happened


----------



## cobgoblin (15 September 2015)

MotherOfChickens said:



			all the posts about this on the RSPCA page are now deleted-it was under a money appeal post. none of the posts I saw were rude, just questioning what happened.
		
Click to expand...

The posts on Facebook are still there, I've just looked at them.


----------



## southerncomfort (15 September 2015)

I've had a few non-horsey aquaintances ask me about this story today.  All were absolutely shocked and sickened by the story. 

Truly don't understand their actions, it it beyond comprehension.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (15 September 2015)

cobgoblin said:



			The posts on Facebook are still there, I've just looked at them.
		
Click to expand...

yes, I've just re-found them thanks. They are sticking by the line that noone contacted them and that all horses seized were legally the Peel's.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 September 2015)

Four top class horses featured on a post from 2010, by Tannis aka Rachelle Peel. Taragun, Harley, Nancy and Heron. All seized by the RSPCA.

What superb horses. I believe that all are now dead? 



Tannis said:



			I'll try and post some - hope it works!!


The Pure Breds

The Talented and Beautiful Taragun (Shogun x Taretta) a 14.2 liver chestnut mare who had been a field ornament for over ten years before turning her hoof to eventing.  Here she is partnered with (then) 12 year old daughter.  Taragun was awarded World Horse Organisation Horse of the Year and received her award from the Hon Finn Guinness (owner of the incomparable Tamarillo)







Receiving the award







Having fun























And our pure bred stallion, Harley, Templars Orchestral Pearl (Last Crescendo x Templars Magic Pearl) who started this year.  He's had a lot of set backs (long story that I won't bore you with) but suffice to say that due to mistreatment by a producer, he almost lost his life, had had a fractured pedal bone and a complete nervous breakdown.  He has now recovered well enough (physically but more importanly, emotionally, to partner our now 15 year old daughter.  Home bred on home bred, there is no better feeling in the whole wide world!!!!

























The Part bred

Our little 14.2 part bred pony, Twist Hoeves Nancy (Kooihuster Folkert x Brukels Marabella).  Nancy is now in foal to thHarley's sire so hoping for a little baby, high percentage sport pony next year 









The Anglo


The most wonderful horse ever (if he was human, I'd marry him).  The 16.3 French Anglo Arabe, Heron de la Forge (Prince Ig'Or x Isis).  Again partnered by 15 year old Evie and competing JRN.


I love this photo - I call it "the look of love".  They were placed at Milton Keynes Unaffiliated Event in the Open class with Evie being the youngest rider by many years.  We honestly didn't think they'd made it into the placings and we were all thrilled to bits.  But none of us quite as much as daughter 








And here they are in action:

















4 very different horses/ponies but all with a minimum 40% Arab blood  


Flying the Flag for Arabian bloodlines    

Click to expand...


----------



## Rollin (15 September 2015)

I assume the RSPCA will return passports to the PIO's as they are bound to do under Passport Legislation.  Will Trading Standards be asked to investigate ownership? because if the Peels had not paid required fees to the PIO and registered as new owners, this too is an offence.  Although a passport is not 'proof' of ownership they should have a signature from the previous owners if they were passed to the Peels.


----------



## AmieeT (15 September 2015)

RSPCA have said that the passports they have all got Peel named as Owner.

Think they'd argue the sky is green judging by my twitter replies.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 September 2015)

AmieeT said:



			RSPCA have said that the passports they have all got Peel named as Owner.

Think they'd argue the sky is green judging by my twitter replies.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting,  can you supply irrefutable evidence of their quote?

Alec.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (15 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Interesting,  can you supply irrefutable evidence of their quote?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec-it also states it here

http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/0615_2


----------



## AmieeT (15 September 2015)

No Alec, I can't. Can't accuse them of lying either because perhaps they never had passports for them. Should probably clarify that's not the point I'm arguing with them.

MoC, that's the link they keep referring me to. Doesn't answer any of my questions, but they keep giving me the link. Same one that my friend who works for them sent over facebook to me when I shared the Daily Fail (or not, in the case!) article.


----------



## EstherYoung (15 September 2015)

The Arab horse society stamp the passports if the change of ownership is done properly. There will also be an accompanying registration certificate which will be signed and stamped by the ahs.


----------



## HashRouge (15 September 2015)

What beautiful, talented horse. I can't believe it ended like this!


----------



## Flame_ (15 September 2015)

The younger horses would still have been many £££s worth of horse, besides the fact all the horses had people who wanted them. Whoever authorised this is at least a bloody fool or quite possibly a fool and a criminal if they've only done it to swindle some livery fees for all this will cost the charity in terms of reputation and income. What a waste of lovely, quality horses, and so much unnecessary sadness caused to their connections.

They really can't get away with blocking attempts from the breed society to offer the horses experienced arab homes. That's indefensible. Plenty of the horses were still alive at that point, weren't they?


----------



## DD (16 September 2015)

Rollin said:



			I assume the RSPCA will return passports to the PIO's as they are bound to do under Passport Legislation.  Will Trading Standards be asked to investigate ownership? because if the Peels had not paid required fees to the PIO and registered as new owners, this too is an offence.  Although a passport is not 'proof' of ownership they should have a signature from the previous owners if they were passed to the Peels.
		
Click to expand...

^^^
this
Trading Standards need to be involved.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 September 2015)

AmieeT said:



			No Alec, I can't. Can't accuse them of lying either because perhaps they never had passports for them. Should probably clarify that's not the point I'm arguing with them.

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

I understand that AmieeT.  My point is that however the ethics employed by the rspca must be open to questioning (considering the requests for information by,  and the offers of help from,  the AHS),  if the rspca are to be compelled to conform,  then it needs to be done on the basis of Law.  There seems to be a considerable level of confusion over what's factual and what's hearsay.  

The question of Law hinges around the 'ownership' of the horses concerned.  It seems to me,  gleaning what I can from this interesting thread,  that whilst the 'claimed' owners-loaners of the horses had some level of responsibility,  with the AHS offering homes to those horses,  so ownership couldn't be transferred to those who offered help,  any more than it could to those who confiscated the horses.  

Others on this thread are well aware of the 'facts',  so is it 'known',  whether those horses which were in the care of the Peels,  had been 'loaned' or 'gifted'?  If they were loaned then they weren't the property of the Peels and so not theirs to give away,  and similarly,  it wasn't the place of those who appeared to confiscate them,  to assume ownership and so to put them down.

If the horses at the centre of this were the property of the Peels,  then apart from criticism of the rspca,  then nothing can be done.  If the horses were on loan to the Peels then at no time did the Peels or the rspca have any rights of ownership.  It would appear,  from the rspca quote below and offered by M_O_C, that the horses were the property of the Peels,  and so the rspca refute the suggestion that they had no right of acceptance.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/0615_2

The simple question for those who are more aware than the rest is;  Were any of the horses taken by the rspca out on 'loan' to the Peels,  or were they the 'property' of the Peels,  and so theirs to dispose of as they pleased?  The question of 'ownership' remains,  and it also remains that when the question of ownership is established,  then the question of culpability regarding the rspca will also be answered.

Alec.


----------



## DD (16 September 2015)

The Arab Horse Society phone number is 01672 521411
I suggest ringing them asking for registrations and seeing if the passports have been returned.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 September 2015)

Downton Dame said:



			&#8230;
&#8230;.
Trading Standards need to be involved.
		
Click to expand...

TS should have been heading the enquiry at the outset,  a point which I've already raised.  The initial complaint was of dead horses being left to rot,  and failing to dispose of fallen stock is a criminal offence and it would (and always is),  the responsibility of TS to deal with,  not a charity which would purport to protect animals from cruelty.  It's quite possible that the dead horse(s) found didn't die of either neglect or cruelty.  A failure to collect and dispose of fallen stock is a criminal offence and irrefutably is the responsibility of Trading Standards,  so why did they not act?

The CPS and now TS seem to be passing over their responsibilities to a charity which has no legal jurisdiction,  and it's wrong that they do so.  The State supplies unbiased and controlled administrators,  and it's their duty to deal with those who break the Laws.  The CPS and TS have an obligation,  when prosecuting,  to provide evidence which is clear of bias,  which mostly they do.  It seems that the rspca don't operate under such constraints.

Alec.


----------



## Archangel (16 September 2015)

In this family's  previous cruelty case the 67 sheep left in the field to rot TSs were involved.  The current case also involved sheep again and cattle I believe so yes they should be involved.


----------



## honetpot (16 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			TS should have been heading the enquiry at the outset,  a point which I've already raised.  The initial complaint was of dead horses being left to rot,  and failing to dispose of fallen stock is a criminal offence and it would (and always is),  the responsibility of TS to deal with,  not a charity which would purport to protect animals from cruelty.  It's quite possible that the dead horse(s) found didn't die of either neglect or cruelty.  A failure to collect and dispose of fallen stock is a criminal offence and irrefutably is the responsibility of Trading Standards,  so why did they not act?

The CPS and now TS seem to be passing over their responsibilities to a charity which has no legal jurisdiction,  and it's wrong that they do so.  The State supplies unbiased and controlled administrators,  and it's their duty to deal with those who break the Laws.  The CPS and TS have an obligation,  when prosecuting,  to provide evidence which is clear of bias,  which mostly they do.  It seems that the rspca don't operate under such constraints.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec is right. Anything to do with the keeping of farm animals, ie sheep and cattle is covered by Trading Standards as it is assumed they will end up in the food chain and they can inspect you at any time and ask to look at your feed, medications records and your housing. Its far tougher than the laws that cover horses, I know someone who was fined £5000 for one pig less than his records as he had no proof of how he had disposed of it.


----------



## Fenris (16 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			TS should have been heading the enquiry at the outset,  a point which I've already raised.  The initial complaint was of dead horses being left to rot,  and failing to dispose of fallen stock is a criminal offence and it would (and always is),  the responsibility of TS to deal with,  not a charity which would purport to protect animals from cruelty.  It's quite possible that the dead horse(s) found didn't die of either neglect or cruelty.  A failure to collect and dispose of fallen stock is a criminal offence and irrefutably is the responsibility of Trading Standards,  so why did they not act?

The CPS and now TS seem to be passing over their responsibilities to a charity which has no legal jurisdiction,  and it's wrong that they do so.  The State supplies unbiased and controlled administrators,  and it's their duty to deal with those who break the Laws.  The CPS and TS have an obligation,  when prosecuting,  to provide evidence which is clear of bias,  which mostly they do.  It seems that the rspca don't operate under such constraints.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

To some extent TS and local authorities are bound by the LACORS agreement (voluntarily entered into by LAs and the RSPCA etc) which details who is responsible for which aspect of any animal welfare case.
http://www.ihsti.com/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=20974

Yes, yet another agreement involving an empowered authority effectively hiving off its responibilites to the RSPCA.  Remember the issues with ACPO and the Fire and Rescue Service?  https://theshg.wordpress.com/2015/0...en-the-fire-and-rescue-service-and-the-rspca/

Note that the LACORS link is outdated in that if a local authority has appointed an 'inspector' under the powers of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it most certainly does have responsibilites in terms of pet animals.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (16 September 2015)

Flame_ said:



			. Plenty of the horses were still alive at that point, weren't they?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think they were alive, looking at the DM story and the timeline of when others knew of the horses being seized it would seem like the horses were long gone by that point?


----------



## ester (16 September 2015)

EstherYoung said:



			The Arab horse society stamp the passports if the change of ownership is done properly. There will also be an accompanying registration certificate which will be signed and stamped by the ahs.
		
Click to expand...

It would be interesting if the AHS could confirm who they had as registered owners on their books....


----------



## Meowy Catkin (16 September 2015)

From what I have read and hopefully understood, Khoomi was on loan to the Peels and was shot by the RSPCA. They (Khoomi's owners) still believed that he was alive until they read the article in the Mail. 

From AL.



			The point is that the Mail on Sunday reporters genuinely believed that previous owners/breeders had been contacted as to the fate of the horses, they thought everyone knew about it long ago, they were shocked when they found out this was not the case. Why did the RSPCA spend money on treating horses and then have them shot months down the line? Why was no one told about the horses being dead before the court case started? Why was everyone led to believe ALL those horses had been rehomed except for the three we suspected had to be euthanized because of accident and poor condition..........there are questions the RSPCA has to answer and they have to be seen answering them with honestly and transparency.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## madlady (16 September 2015)

Is there no way that the AHS can bring a case against the RSPCA or at least go to the national press themselves with regard to the lies told by the RSPCA?

The RSPCA statement says that the horses were shot because there was no chance of rehoming them - blatant lie.

The RSPCA say that they work with breed societies to do everything they can to rehome animals - blatant lie.

Surely that is enough to at least get this out in a more public domain? I appreciate that there may be legalities involved but I really do feel that this needs to be out there in the news for everyone in the country to see.  If enough of a public outcry is made and it starts hitting the RSPCA where it hurts (financially) then it might help drive some changes and finally some small good may come out of this truly tragic situation.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 September 2015)

Archangel said:



			In this family's  previous cruelty case the 67 sheep left in the field to rot TSs were involved.  The current case also involved sheep again and cattle I believe so yes they should be involved.
		
Click to expand...

The Rules and Responsibilities for the correct disposal of horses,  is just the same as it is for other and accepted,  farm livestock.  Failure to 'Collect' and 'Dispose of' dead horses is as punishable as it would be for sheep or cattle.

Fenris,  thank you for your LACORS offering.  It makes for interesting reading.  The accusation of 'hiving-off' responsibility is pertinent.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 September 2015)

madlady said:



			Is there no way that the AHS can bring a case against the RSPCA or at least go to the national press themselves with regard to the lies told by the RSPCA?

The RSPCA statement says that the horses were shot because there was no chance of rehoming them - blatant lie.

The RSPCA say that they work with breed societies to do everything they can to rehome animals - blatant lie.

Surely that is enough to at least get this out in a more public domain? I appreciate that there may be legalities involved but I really do feel that this needs to be out there in the news for everyone in the country to see.  If enough of a public outcry is made and it starts hitting the RSPCA where it hurts (financially) then it might help drive some changes and finally some small good may come out of this truly tragic situation.
		
Click to expand...

The ethical and so moral stance of the rspca will be their choice.  However,  'IF' the horses concerned were the 'property' of the Peels,  then they had the right to dispose of them as they saw fit,  and the same,  by transfer of ownership,  applies to the rspca.  The question remains,  are the rspca right in their claim that the Peels were the owners of 'all' the horses concerned?

If there were no passports with the horses,  a fact which would astound most,  then with their (the rspca's) abilities,  were they not able or willing to research who the factual owners were?  If I were to buy a previously registered livestock trailer,  for instance,  and the manufacturers ID plate had been removed,  and were I not to check with the authorities,  then should I subsequently be found to be in possession of stolen goods,  I'd be liable to prosecution.  Establishing the rights to ownership is the responsibility of all those who buy or 'take in',  the rspca included.

Alec.


----------



## Fenris (16 September 2015)

Hope you downloaded the two agreements for the detail how they agreed to work together.


----------



## blueboy day (16 September 2015)

Lets hope this case puts a light on the dreadful activities of the RSPCA, and their money grabbing antics. This case looks very suspiciously like some of the cases linked to cases they have been involved in related to the repossession of peoples farms for some banks, and this clearly has the same smell about it. It is hoped the papers will be looking at these further actions by several charities but mostly the RSPCA


----------



## DD (16 September 2015)

Has the AHS stated its position on all this? We know it tried to help initially only to be rebuffed by the RSPCA. But what are they doing now? Are they seeking to take action against the RSPCA for not accepting help offered? Have the passports of the dead horses been returned? if not what are they doing about it?


----------



## Alec Swan (16 September 2015)

Downton Dame said:



			Has the AHS stated its position on all this? .. Are they seeking to take action against the RSPCA for not accepting help offered? ..
		
Click to expand...

'IF',  as the rspca appear to claim,  there were no passports,  and IF as they also claim,  the horses were the property of the Peels,  then there will be no action to be taken by the AHS and against the rspca for refusing assistance.  There is no criminal act in refusing assistance or advice.

Alec.


----------



## Rollin (16 September 2015)

So there were no passports?  Were the horses microchipped?

When we compete in France, at local shows and ALL endurance events horse's passports and m/chips are checked.  At all other competitions, e.g. a big SJ centre where 1700 horses competed over the weekend, the FFE randomly select passports for checking.  At one endurance event only 2 Shagya Arabs competed, mine, both passports were randomly selected!!

If some of these horses were competing, it appears yet again that, Britain has a very sloppy process in place for making sure people comply with the legislation.


----------



## madlady (16 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			'IF',  as the rspca appear to claim,  there were no passports,  and IF as they also claim,  the horses were the property of the Peels,  then there will be no action to be taken by the AHS and against the rspca for refusing assistance.  There is no criminal act in refusing assistance or advice.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

There are some large 'IF's' there.  Here's hoping that there is enough evidence for the AHS to take this further.  It really is about time that the RSPCA got taken to task over how it operates.


----------



## DD (16 September 2015)

the arab horses would have been microchipped, its been a requirement for years. were they not scanned? Did the RSPCA not check who owned what with the AHS if scanning was done?


----------



## Alec Swan (16 September 2015)

For those with an interest,  if you go to the rspca Facebook Page (England and Wales),  and then scroll down to the pic of an inspector,  face to face with a dog (a GSD),  you'll see blind faith extolled by some which defies credulity.  Were it not so serious,  it would be funny.

Alec.


----------



## madlady (16 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			For those with an interest,  if you go to the rspca Facebook Page (England and Wales),  and then scroll down to the pic of an inspector,  face to face with a dog (a GSD),  you'll see blind faith extolled by some which defies credulity.  Were it not so serious,  it would be funny.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Wow - just reading through some of the comments - why on earth would anyone phone the RSPCA for an injured lamb!  Absolutely beyond belief that people can spout this sort of nonsense.  I'm going to have to stop looking because I'm tempted to comment (and not nicely) on far too many of those 'stories'.


----------



## Flame_ (16 September 2015)

I don't think they would necessarily have been chipped. I may be totally wrong but IIRC chipping only became compulsory round about 2006.


----------



## shadeofshyness (16 September 2015)

I cannot get my head around this. I read about it this morning on the Arab horse Facebook group with my jaw dropped - and not just because it's the first thing the Mail has ever reported on properly. My heart goes out to all the breeders and owners who could have had them back. An utterly absurd scenario and I hope everyone affected is coordinating to take legal action? Good luck x


----------



## DD (16 September 2015)

Flame_ said:



			I don't think they would necessarily have been chipped. I may be totally wrong but IIRC chipping only became compulsory round about 2006.
		
Click to expand...

TheAHS made chipping compulary for their registered horses long before this date, I think it was 1999.


----------



## HashRouge (16 September 2015)

Downton Dame said:



			TheAHS made chipping compulary for their registered horses long before this date, I think it was 1999.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that can be right. We didn't buy my purebred until 2001 and she definitely wasn't chipped until 2004 at the earliest. Or do you mean that horses had to be chipped at the time of registering from this date? In which case, that wouldn't affect a lot of the horses in this case as they would have been registered before that date.


----------



## Pinkvboots (16 September 2015)

It can't be 1999 I have two pure breds one born 2004 and one 2005 neither are chipped but both registered I have a feeling it was around 2006 hence why they missed it.


----------



## Pinkvboots (16 September 2015)

HashRouge said:



			I don't think that can be right. We didn't buy my purebred until 2001 and she definitely wasn't chipped until 2004 at the earliest. Or do you mean that horses had to be chipped at the time of registering from this date? In which case, that wouldn't affect a lot of the horses in this case as they would have been registered before that date.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it was changed that if you wanted to register a foal it had to be chipped but it's a relatively new thing as neither of mine were at registering.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (16 September 2015)

This is important from AL, RE emailing MP's about this case. 




			all the people that are emailing Sir Edward Garnier also need to email their own MPs unless they are in his constituency as parliamentary protocol prevents him from acting on their behalf, I got this info from my own MP. It would be such a shame for all our efforts amount to nothing simply because we haven't contacted the right people.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## catkin (16 September 2015)

IIRC the PIOs were charged with checking that their passport data was up-to-date in the changes to passport rules following the horsemeat scandal. Certainly some breed societies have been writing to 'last known owner' particularly of older animals to check that the information is up to date.


----------



## ester (16 September 2015)

I think some passports do not have the section that say not for human consumption and replacements been issues, I know Frank's 1993 WPCS passport doesn't but I haven't been contacted by them.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			For those with an interest,  if you go to the rspca Facebook Page (England and Wales),  and then scroll down to the pic of an inspector,  face to face with a dog (a GSD),  you'll see blind faith extolled by some which defies credulity.  Were it not so serious,  it would be funny.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Should you fancy joining in with the rspca f/b page,  do be careful;  I've only been on there about 10 minutes,  and I've been banned already!!  It seems that negative thoughts offend those who are a touch 'precious'.  I've yet to understand how there are those who despite what's as obvious as a sixpence on a sweep's arse,  still defend the indefensible.  I console myself with the fact that casting pearls, &#8230;. and all that! 

Alec.


----------



## cobgoblin (16 September 2015)

F



Alec Swan said:



			Should you fancy joining in with the rspca f/b page,  do be careful;  I've only been on there about 10 minutes,  and I've been banned already!!  It seems that negative thoughts offend those who are a touch 'precious'.  I've yet to understand how there are those who despite what's as obvious as a sixpence on a sweep's arse,  still defend the indefensible.  I console myself with the fact that casting pearls, &#8230;. and all that! :

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Wow Alec, that's pretty impressive. Was it the sanity post?


----------



## MotherOfChickens (16 September 2015)

apparently they've also sent moorland ponies to auctions. nice home checking there!


----------



## Alec Swan (16 September 2015)

cobgoblin said:



			F

Wow Alec, that's pretty impressive. Was it the sanity post?
		
Click to expand...

Erm,  probably!  The action that they took was because I'd been 'repeatedly' rude.  I thought that I was really quite contained.  It's the rspca,  what did I expect?  My chum was slung off (another HHOer),  but was allowed back on.  Crawler! 

There's always the NetShade route,  but I really cba.

Alec.


----------



## Penny Less (16 September 2015)

a sixpence on a sweeps arse ! love it


----------



## sprytzer (16 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Should you fancy joining in with the rspca f/b page,  do be careful;  I've only been on there about 10 minutes,  and I've been banned already!!  It seems that negative thoughts offend those who are a touch 'precious'.  I've yet to understand how there are those who despite what's as obvious as a sixpence on a sweep's arse,  still defend the indefensible.  I console myself with the fact that casting pearls, . and all that! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

me to Alec, along with my comments!!! nothing to hide...yeah, right!!


----------



## Alec Swan (16 September 2015)

Why I should be so surprised by the fact that I've looked at a fair few sites,  and the only one where I find entrenched support,  is there own,  shouldn't really come as a mystery! 

I have an abiding dislike of injustice and it's bedfellow,  corruption,  both of which are qualities on display.

Alec.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (17 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			'IF',  as the rspca appear to claim,  there were no passports,  and IF as they also claim,  the horses were the property of the Peels,  then there will be no action to be taken by the AHS and against the rspca for refusing assistance.  There is no criminal act in refusing assistance or advice.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed there isn't.  However it is a criminal act to claim livery costs for horses which you no longer own.  This would be the best route to take for any-one who wants to take on the RSPCA, imo.  Al Capone was finally imprisoned because of his tax irregularities not becasue of his other wrong-doings, which many thought were worse but not so easy to prove.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 September 2015)

A concerted campaign to do what ............ is it to prosecute the charity for their shortcomings, in which case the senior CEO needs to face criminal charges.

Then a new CEO takes over and either sweeps things under the carpet or opens the doors and clears out the former management structure and replaces with those who have integrity AND an understanding of animal welfare.

For either of these options to work the CEO has to be forced out and discredited.
Normally when the heat gets too much they resign, taking their pension with them etc etc.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 September 2015)

Pearlsasinger said:



			Indeed there isn't.  However it is a criminal act to claim livery costs for horses which you no longer own.  This would be the best route to take for any-one who wants to take on the RSPCA, imo. &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Indeed,  and that was the point which I failed to make clear.



Bonkers2 said:



			A concerted campaign to do what ............ is it to prosecute the charity for their shortcomings, in which case the senior CEO needs to face criminal charges.

Then a new CEO takes over and either sweeps things under the carpet or opens the doors and clears out the former management structure and replaces with those who have integrity AND an understanding of animal welfare.

For either of these options to work the CEO has to be forced out and discredited.
Normally when the heat gets too much they resign, taking their pension with them etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

As with all organisations,  responsibility starts and stops with those who direct.  The ethos which appears to be the rational which steers the rspca is such that with what could almost be nepotism,  so those of a kindred spirit will only support those other directors who join them and who are like minded.  The only way that direction can be forced upon them is by those who control the CPS and the Charities Commission,  supporting their own charters and by removing the power of prosecution and by being insistent that the other controlling bodies Trading Standards and the Police,  are not quite so gullible as to accept that the rspca are on occasion,  almost rabid in their approach.  In short,  there needs to be a change of leadership,  brought about by those who ultimately have the power to insist upon change.

Alec.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (17 September 2015)

Public opinion can also prosecute, in the non legal sense


----------



## Fenris (17 September 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			A concerted campaign to do what ............ is it to prosecute the charity for their shortcomings, in which case the senior CEO needs to face criminal charges.

Then a new CEO takes over and either sweeps things under the carpet or opens the doors and clears out the former management structure and replaces with those who have integrity AND an understanding of animal welfare.

For either of these options to work the CEO has to be forced out and discredited.
Normally when the heat gets too much they resign, taking their pension with them etc etc.
		
Click to expand...


The CEO is not responsible for the actions of the RSPCA.  The Trustees (Council members) are responsible.  See the SHG submission to the Wooler Inquiry 

http://the-shg.org/Notes for Independent Review of RSPCA Prosecutions.pdf

which included:





			The effect of the departure of Gavin Grant

Gavin Grant was not personally responsible for the actions of the RSPCA as a whole. Each individual
within that organisation is responsible for what he or she does.

The people with ultimate responsibility for the actions of the RSPCA are the members of the ruling
council. It is they who decided to hire Mr. Grant, knowing full well what his policies and character were.

The ruling council could, at any time had they disapproved of Mr. Grant's actions, have ordered him to
stop, to change direction, or even fired him

Add to that the fact that the SHG has been in existence for over 20 years, for most of which Gavin Grant
had no input into or influence over the RSPCA.

Responsibility lies firmly with the Ruling Council.

Portraying Gavin Grant as the sole cause and effect of all that is wrong in the RSPCA will allow the ruling
council to walk away from their responsibilities.

Please see the SHG article discussing the issues raised in the leaked memo at

http://theshg.wordpress.com/2013/09...hey-realise-that-theirbrand-has-become-toxic/

Click to expand...

, 
Incidentally,  I understand from internal RSPCA gossip that the RSPCA has attempted to head hunt 4 potential CEOs and each has turned them down.  It will be interesting to see if it turns out to be correct.  It has been an incredibly long time for the RSPCA to be without a CEO.


----------



## Doormouse (17 September 2015)

What I find the most interesting right now is that all the HHO forum members on here who are associated with the RSPCA are staying completely quiet which is most unlike them.


----------



## spottybotty (17 September 2015)

fatpiggy said:



			How can you pour so much venom on the slaughterman?  Its hardly his fault. He was asked to do a job and he did it.  A person I know is licenced. He keeps a small-holding in the back-end of nowhere and obtained a licence so that he didn't have to put his animals through the long and rough journey to a slaughterhouse.  A nicer, more caring person you couldn't wish to meet.  There is clearly a shortage of such people as during the last Foot and Mouth outbreak, while vets put down young/baby animals by lethal injection, much of the shooting of adult stock was done by Army butchers. I saw one of the slaughtermen crying his eyes out at what he had to do.

WHere were the owners of these animals which were apparently on loan?  I can't believe that word didn't leak out about the conditions on the farm.  Did they not go and do regular checks for themselves, however good the name of the breeders was. Plenty of so-called caring people have been caught out in the last few years being nothing of the sort.  We had a chap prosecuted locally a few years back, a pillar of local horse world, Master of Hunt,  breeder, high-flying show judge -  prosecuted for neglect of animals on his property and banned from keeping. A year or so later I heard he was still keeping horses, but claimed they were his son's animals.

I'm no lover of the RSPCA having seen them in (in)action 40 years ago and more recently when they were called to two ponies where I kept my horse at the time.  But I'm quite sure that there are some very caring and hard-working people amongst them. No doubt they get beaten down by those above them though.
		
Click to expand...

Its not that straightforwards with regards to the "slaughterman" he has a large livery stables which were partly used by the RSPCA, this man was involved in an incident this year where by he shot a liveries horse and dumped it in her front garden over an unpaid livery amount of £20! IMO he went to the press with this to try and deflect some blame from himself !


----------



## marmalade76 (17 September 2015)

alibali said:



			I know this linked has been posted previously but in case anyone missed it here is the RSPCAs official response to the criticism it has received over the euthanasia of these horses.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/0615_2

It clearly states that they were slaughtered as there was no realistic chance of rehoming them. It makes no mention of the fact that many of the horses already had owners desperate to reclaim them or the fact that a breed society had made offer of assistance in dealing with and rehoming these horses. Neither does it mention that the majority were extremely valuable well bred animals, sports horses as well as Arabs, and that many people who have given their eye teeth to have had the opportunity of owning them not 'just' as rescues but for their own sake and I imagine several would have had competitive careers in front of them in the eventing world.

A swift look at the RSPCAs rehoming pages for horses shows page after page after page of small/medium coloured cob types mostly for rehoming as companions. It appears the RSPCA believes that these type of equines have a better chance of being rehomed than 'blood' horses. It is clear to me that whoever had overall responsibility for the Peel horses has very little understanding of horses in general or the equine industry or indeed the root cause of the 'current over population crisis' they are spouting about which is the indiscriminate breeding of (primarily but not exclusively) small/medium coloured cob types. Which certainly calls into question the RSPCAs competency to deal with the welfare/cruelty towards horses.

Just to add I think cobs (coloured or otherwise) are fantastic and equally deserving of good homes my point is that unfortunately for coloured cobs they appear to have been particularly subject to indiscriminate breeding and this part of the market appears flooded and likely hard to rehome particular animals due to sheer volume. Further those people looking to rehome an Arab/part bred sports horse are unlikely to rehome a coloured cob instead and vice versa.

I am truly shocked at the RSPCAs actions and lack of professionalism in this instance. How they managed to win a court case when it appears they had not even managed to successfully identify the animals involved and trace true ownership (despite I believe being in possession of the passports) beats me. I am disgusted at the RSPCAs complete refusal to work with partner organisations (Arab Horse Society) who had the knowledge and wherewithal to assist. Finally I am saddened beyond belief that the horses which had suffered once at the hands of the Peels were given no opportunity of a second chance and never even offered for re-homing.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree! The rspca is either totally ignorant or shot them simply because they didn't want to spend money on them and whichever the case they had no business taking them on. 

Endless money appears to be spent rehabbing ten a penny worthless coloured cobs while these quality, wanted horses with valuable bloodlines were shot.

As for claiming stabling costs, I read somewhere (think it was on the Arab FB group) that these horses were signed over to the rspca, surely making them the owners and surely, as the owners, therefore responsible for the cost of their keep.


----------



## cobgoblin (17 September 2015)

marmalade76 said:



			Totally agree! The rspca is either totally ignorant or shot them simply because they didn't want to spend money on them and whichever the case they had no business taking them on. 

Endless money appears to be spent rehabbing ten a penny worthless coloured cobs while these quality, wanted horses with valuable bloodlines were shot.
		
Click to expand...

A horse is a horse, no matter it's quality. Surely the important fact is that these horses had actual owners, homes were available for them, yet lies were told. Whether they were quality bred or not is irrelevant. Frankly I feel sorry for any animal, equine or not, pedigree or not, that ends up in the hands of the RSPCA.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 September 2015)

Doormouse said:



			What I find the most interesting right now is that all the HHO forum members on here who are associated with the RSPCA are staying completely quiet which is most unlike them.
		
Click to expand...

I'd say that to answer your doubts,  defending the indefensible would be pointless.  

There can be no doubt that,  with the possible exception of those who refuse to accept criticism,  there will be those grass roots members of staff of the rspca who are very well aware of the glaring anomalies but who lack the collective 'voice' which would be needed to affect change.  When change occurs,  as it must and eventually will,  their silence should be taken in to account.  I understand that swimming against the tide makes for certain risks,  but silence is no defence.

Alec.


----------



## fatpiggy (17 September 2015)

spottybotty said:



			Its not that straightforwards with regards to the "slaughterman" he has a large livery stables which were partly used by the RSPCA, this man was involved in an incident this year where by he shot a liveries horse and dumped it in her front garden over an unpaid livery amount of £20! IMO he went to the press with this to try and deflect some blame from himself !
		
Click to expand...

I know the case you mean, but it still doesn't mean he is evil or whatever. The girl who was LOANING that horse was the one to blame ultimately.   I'm pretty sure most slaughtermen have other sources of income.  One local yard owner to me used to shoot his own and butcher them in a stable on the livery yard!!  Also alot of what we know about that and this case was what was reported in the press, who don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.  I reckon about 25% of what they report is fact and the rest is the reporter's own opinion and 2+2 assumptions.

As I'm not entirely familiar with this very sad case, exactly why were the various owners loaning their horses to the couple?  Breeding purposes,  a riding school?    They seemed to have a lot of animals there, but why?

Lastly, I remember a case from a year or four back where the RSPCA removed some horses  to a yard approved by themselves for rescue purposes and a while later the horses were found to be in an even more deplorable condition and removed from there too.  Tragically, I think there are plenty or well-meaning yards/rescue places out there who then take on way too many for the land/facilities they have.  That is why we shouldn't be just "rescuing" every horse or pony that needs it.  The sick, elderly and basically useless (conformation etc) should be humanely removed from the equation and the second chances given to those who it will work for.  Breeding needs to be looked at very hard. Many of these coloured animals are bred by people who are no different from puppy-farmers.


----------



## ester (17 September 2015)

That is not the only case of him shooting other people's horses, it had happened before with some pregnant mares on grass livery - I can't find the story right now though. 

Horses were loaned to them for breeding or competing - the daughter was competing several arabs and part breds and they were very pro showing that arabs could be functional and people were happy for them to have their horses contribute to that.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 September 2015)

I wonder if anyone has what it takes to form a new RSPCA aka the Real Society for the Protection of Animals.  There'd be no need for Royal support,  just that of the populous.  

It also occurs to me that with Royal support I wonder if Her Majesty remains as supportive as the society concerned would have us believe.  With the rspca's resistance to game shooting,  I wonder how they square that with the fact that their Royal Patrons maintain vast areas of land,  and for that very purpose.  Tricky,  I'd say!

Alec.


----------



## Rollin (17 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			I wonder if anyone has what it takes to form a new RSPCA aka the Real Society for the Protection of Animals.  There'd be no need for Royal support,  just that of the populous.  

It also occurs to me that with Royal support I wonder if Her Majesty remains as supportive as the society concerned would have us believe.  With the rspca's resistance to game shooting,  I wonder how they square that with the fact that their Royal Patrons maintain vast areas of land,  and for that very purpose.  Tricky,  I'd say!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I had a look at the RSPCA FB sight.  Not an equine of any description.  You would have to convince the dog walkies and cat lovers (I am one) that this is not an organisation that cares for animals.  If 11 cats or dogs were pts would there be an outcry?  Who would notice?

Perhaps the way forward would be for the RSPCA to be the society for the protection of cats and dogs and the Real Society look after the hoofed, cloven or not?


----------



## EstherYoung (17 September 2015)

From a purely mercenary point of view some of the horses were quite valuable, had the rspca allowed them a few weeks of good grub to recover: for example an experienced schoolmaster affiliated eventer, a purebred stallion with rare and sought after bloodlines, a young well bred sports horse who was registered with BE and had been in training with a pro. Even taking everything else out of the equation, can the rspca afford to throw away several thousand pounds worth of horseflesh? That money in itself could have saved other animals. 

Also from a purely mercenary point of view, which of these two scenarios do you think would bring the RSPCA in more money in donations:

1)*** We found this amazing mare, who had been recognised by the World Arabian Horse Organisation as one of the best Arabians in the world, living in appalling conditions. We nursed her back to health and now look at her

2)*** We found this amazing mare, who had been recognised by the World Arabian Horse Organisation as one of the best Arabians in the world, living in appalling conditions. However, rather than bother to find out who she was, we bundled her off in a crowded truck which meant she broke her leg and we shot her

The fact was they had no idea what they had in their possession and had no intention of finding out.


----------



## cobgoblin (17 September 2015)

The rspca have announced that they have had a constructive meeting with The Arab Horse Society. No details given.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 September 2015)

I've just had an e/mail contact from the rspca,  and via Facebook.  Odd that,  as they've banned me!  

This is it;

RSPCA (England & Wales) also commented on their link.



RSPCA (England & Wales)
September 17 at 12:19pm

Hi all, today the RSPCA have had a constructive meeting with the Arab Horse Society, and have mutually agreed ways of progressing on this issue. If you would like to contact us about this or other matters, please get in touch here: http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/contactus




View on Facebook
******************

Ever one to look for the good in everyone,  I went to the 'get in touch' section,  and it immediately sent me to a Q&A window.  One of the points raised was 'I've found a swan stuck in ice'.  Excellent I thought,  that's me!  Wrong.  I asked just how I was to engage with them and all that I received by return was a further questionnaire wishing to know if the answers given were helpful.  They weren't.

There are many,  and I'm amongst them,  who would have the rspca back on track and fulfilling the purpose of their charter.  The cynic in me would have me wondering just how genuine were their wishes to actually 'listen'.  I remain ever hopeful because by negotiation rather than legislation,  is the better path for all of us,  the rspca included.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 September 2015)

cobgoblin said:



			The rspca have announced that they have had a constructive meeting with The Arab Horse Society. No details given.
		
Click to expand...

Presumably the AHS have a contact system which the rspca have made availavble to them.  Does anyone know how to engage with the rspca,  rather than the debacle in my last post on here?

Alec.


----------



## madlady (17 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Should you fancy joining in with the rspca f/b page,  do be careful;  I've only been on there about 10 minutes,  and I've been banned already!!  It seems that negative thoughts offend those who are a touch 'precious'.  I've yet to understand how there are those who despite what's as obvious as a sixpence on a sweep's arse,  still defend the indefensible.  I console myself with the fact that casting pearls, &#8230;. and all that! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...




Alec Swan said:



			Presumably the AHS have a contact system which the rspca have made availavble to them.  Does anyone know how to engage with the rspca,  rather than the debacle in my last post on here?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Funnily enough Alec I did this last night and posted comments on 2 of the rescue threads which I immediately received argumentative responses on.  I asked where the thread was to deal with the issue I had questions about and I was issued with a 'warning'  they did send me a link though which I haven't had chance to try yet but it does allow you to send an email.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/contactus

I have registered today on there and will be sending an email later.  I'm not even expecting to get a reply but if I do I will share.


----------



## sprytzer (17 September 2015)

Jane Summerfield is a vile piece of work !!
She is now making vile comments about CRUK....what a tool 
So how is it we get banned from commenting yet the RSPCA allow her to continue making her vile comments!!


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 September 2015)

Posted this evening on the Arab Horse Society FB page.

_I have this morning had a rewarding meeting with the Head of Public Affairs and Staff Officer, Inspectorate Department at the RSPCA head office. We had a good meeting and now have set up a communication system which I'm sure will be of benefit both to the Arab Horse Society and the RSPCA. The RSPCA are going to do their utmost to identify the horses which were only known by stable names and not registered names. Please be patient as this will take sometime, but I am confident that this will come to a satisfactory conclusion._


----------



## Alec Swan (17 September 2015)

Bull****.  Not you,  the rspca!  Rather than placating those who have an inbuilt power,  the AHS amongst them,  they would do well to attend to their responsibilities to private individuals,  those who lack clout.  Have they made any efforts to appease or rectify the wrongs done to those who they've treated in a shameful manner?  Have they ****.

Alec.


----------



## be positive (17 September 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			Posted this evening on the Arab Horse Society FB page.

_I have this morning had a rewarding meeting with the Head of Public Affairs and Staff Officer, Inspectorate Department at the RSPCA head office. We had a good meeting and now have set up a communication system which I'm sure will be of benefit both to the Arab Horse Society and the RSPCA. The RSPCA are going to do their utmost to identify the horses which were only known by stable names and not registered names. Please be patient as this will take sometime, but I am confident that this will come to a satisfactory conclusion._

Click to expand...

If this is true, that they only identified them by their stable names, then in my view it makes their actions worse, it means they did not check the passports properly against the individual before treatment by the vets, or before the decision to destroy them, have the survivors got their passports or is the rspca once again making their own laws and getting new ones done, illegal if the animal already has a passport to get a new one, at least it is for the rest of us.

Also this was a relatively small and varied group of horses, not all were pure bred, they were a range of sizes, type and colour not the mention different ages, I would hope anyone with a reasonable amount of experience would be able to check 20 or so against the passports and easily get most correct, a couple of similar greys may prove tricky to positively identify but most others from the photos we have seen, descriptions given would be a few minutes work for most professionals. Many of the stable names are taken from the registered name just to make matters even easier.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 September 2015)

^^^ Agree, be positive. 

The RSPCA admitting that they only knew the horses by their stable names makes it clear that they hadn't matched them to their passports. What a fiasco.


----------



## millikins (17 September 2015)

Being very cynical here but is it possible the horses were shot because they weren't in fact in poor enough condition to get a conviction for neglect if they remained alive? Otherwise might be hard to prove what the ones found dead in the field actually died from so conviction could only be failure to remove fallen stock? Not very newsworthy/fundraising potential at all?


----------



## paul_exe (17 September 2015)

I believe there is a saying.... The show aint over until the fat lady sings....  Rachelle Peel, you obviously did not starve yourself like you did your horses....  Here is your opportunity hunny to come in here and defend yourself, together with the fruit of your loin, who claims she knew nothing of what was happening to the horses....  My arse she didn't....   I don't give a damn if I get banned for saying this:   You are SCUM.  Hang your head in shame, for you do not deserve to look anyone in the eye.  Deluded and a total waste of oxygen!


----------



## hackneylass2 (18 September 2015)

'I know the case you mean, but it still doesn't mean he is evil or whatever. The girl who was LOANING that horse was the one to blame ultimately. I'm pretty sure most slaughtermen have other sources of income. One local yard owner to me used to shoot his own and butcher them in a stable on the livery yard!! Also alot of what we know about that and this case was what was reported in the press, who don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. I reckon about 25% of what they report is fact and the rest is the reporter's own opinion and 2+2 assumptions.'


Fatpiggy,
To add to the let's say 'strangeness' of this case, it has also been alleged that the slaughterman involved, who now has a yard that takes in rescue cases,  has, on more than one occasion, told clients that their horses 'want' to be shot. Apparently, this individual did this in his capacity as a Reiki Master and animal communicator.  To me, there is a weird conflict of interests/ possible serious mental issue going on there.  These links peturb me if they are indeed true, as leopards don't change their spots and money has to be involved somewhere.

As an aside, the yard owner you knew who shot and butchered his own (equines?) on his livery yard also seems to me to be very weird...I would remove my horse immediately from such an environment, and I'm sure all the other forum members would agree with me on this! What some people find permissible is beyond me sometimes.


----------



## madlady (18 September 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			Posted this evening on the Arab Horse Society FB page.

_I have this morning had a rewarding meeting with the Head of Public Affairs and Staff Officer, Inspectorate Department at the RSPCA head office. We had a good meeting and now have set up a communication system which I'm sure will be of benefit both to the Arab Horse Society and the RSPCA. The RSPCA are going to do their utmost to identify the horses which were only known by stable names and not registered names. Please be patient as this will take sometime, but I am confident that this will come to a satisfactory conclusion._

Click to expand...

I hope the satisfactory conclusion is a full investigation of the RSPCA, full statements to the public (including apologies), compensation to the owners (where the horses were only on loan) and some major changes so that the RSPCA no longer have anything to do with equine welfare.


----------



## ycbm (18 September 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			Posted this evening on the Arab Horse Society FB page.

_I have this morning had a rewarding meeting with the Head of Public Affairs and Staff Officer, Inspectorate Department at the RSPCA head office. We had a good meeting and now have set up a communication system which I'm sure will be of benefit both to the Arab Horse Society and the RSPCA. The RSPCA are going to do their utmost to identify the horses which were only known by stable names and not registered names. Please be patient as this will take sometime, but I am confident that this will come to a satisfactory conclusion._

Click to expand...

What mealy mouthed tosh.

A channel of communication is a smartphone with email, voice and text. They've always had that but it needs someone on the other end to listen.

A satisfactory conclusion?  How?  Are we going to call Jonathon Strange and Mr Norrell to resurrect the dead horses?


----------



## Alec Swan (18 September 2015)

madlady said:



			I hope the satisfactory conclusion is a full investigation of the RSPCA, full statements to the public (including apologies), compensation to the owners (where the horses were only on loan) and some major changes so that the RSPCA no longer have anything to do with equine welfare.
		
Click to expand...

That would be the ideal but we won't hold our collective breath!  With the authority invested in the AHS,  so the rspca have been forced to respond.  What of the individuals who have been treated so shamefully and with no thought to Justice,  in any form?

Alec.


----------



## madlady (18 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			That would be the ideal but we won't hold our collective breath!  With the authority invested in the AHS,  so the rspca have been forced to respond.  What of the individuals who have been treated so shamefully and with no thought to Justice,  in any form?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Quite.  And what a surprise I've had no response from the RSPCA to my own enquiry.


----------



## ester (18 September 2015)

has horse and hound actually picked this up at all?


----------



## EstherYoung (18 September 2015)

I believe they're putting something together, Ester. If anyone has any information that may help with an article I'm sure they'd be glad to have it.


----------



## DD (18 September 2015)

yes they are going to publish an article next weeks magazine I believe.


----------



## ester (18 September 2015)

Ah, I was just surprised not to get anything on their 'news' email today, given that the story broke 4 days ago.


----------



## EstherYoung (18 September 2015)

I think they've had a lot of people to talk to..... Plus they'll need to make sure what they publish won't get them into hot water legally.


----------



## Alec Swan (18 September 2015)

EstherYoung said:



			I believe they're putting something together, Ester. If anyone has any information that may help with an article I'm sure they'd be glad to have it.
		
Click to expand...

The salient points which underline right and wrong are here on this very thread.  Will the H&H take a clear and unequivocal stance?  I very much doubt it.  Taking a line which leaves no room for doubt will imply criticism and will mean that a boat or two will be rocked.  

When Government acts,  as they will be bound to do in the future,  I wonder what the response from those who've been reluctant to speak up now,  will be.

Alec.


----------



## ester (18 September 2015)

No, I guess I was expecting a report of the court case and perhaps a comment or 'alleged' misconduct reported elsewhere but being investigate further sort of thing rather than no mention at all- they have included another neglect case from Monday.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (18 September 2015)

From what I've read, the RSPCA will have their say in the H&H article. They will no doubt just repeat their line that the horses all belonged to the Peels, that the horses had no hope of being rehomed and that due to the equine crisis, healthy horses are having to be PTS. 

If they actually tackle issues such as why the horses were not even correctly identified with the registered names, why they assumed that they knew the true ownership without correctly identifying each horse, why one mare broke her leg in RSPCA care, why they decided that they were 'unhomable', why they didn't accept the AHS' offer of help rehoming them etc... I'll be really quite taken aback.

ETA - not forgetting the 'admin error' of course.

Ester, is that the case where the woman was 'banned for life after foal dies'. It does make you wonder if the RSPCA could have made a much stronger case against the Peels too, as there was far more neglect and more dead animals there than just a single foal.


----------



## ester (18 September 2015)

If they do I hope H+H corrects it!


----------



## Tiddlypom (18 September 2015)

For general info re the RSPCA and equines (not specific to the Peel horses).

This 'infographic' re equines appears on the main RSPCA website.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/HomesForHorses.jpg

To summarise, in 2014 the RSPCA received 82,886 calls about horses, of which 75,610 were reported as neglected and 1,425 were reported as abandoned. There were 367 convictions related to horses. 4,500 horses are 'at risk'.

Additionally, it takes an equine an average of 211 days from arrival to being ready to rehome, and then a further 282 days to actually being rehomed.

There are three RSPCA equine centres in England, in Surrey, Co.Durham and Shropshire. Only 24% of equines are being cared for at these centres, the remaining 76% are in 'private boarding'.

I fostered a gyspy cob filly from RSPCA Gonsal Farm in Shropshire, from 2012 to 2013. I was favourably impressed with the whole set up, and would readily foster from them again. However, the centre can only take in 50 equines. There are many good 'foot soldiers' doing a great job in these centres. I have no idea, though, who assesses which equines will be taken on for eventual rehoming and which will be pts.


----------



## Alec Swan (18 September 2015)

If we have a horse with rain-scald,  do we treat the one and obvious pustular nodule,  or do we treat the condition in its entirety?  The case which is under discussion is a nodule.  The condition is the rspca,  and it's a condition which won't clear itself up,  that will only happen by direct action,  rather as it does with rain-scald.

Alec.


----------



## Sadika (18 September 2015)

Just how many RSPCA Inspectators are knowledgeable about horses??? I believe the number qualified in equine matters is quite a small percentage of the total???


----------



## Alec Swan (18 September 2015)

Sadika said:



			Just how many RSPCA Inspectators are knowledgeable about horses??? I believe the number qualified in equine matters is quite a small percentage of the total???
		
Click to expand...

Those inspectors who lack the required knowledge,  and they are in the majority,  have access to those who should be able to speak with experience.  The front line representatives are not in them selves to blame.  The blame lays with the senior management and the council of the rspca.

Alec.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (18 September 2015)

Faracat said:



			From what I've read, the RSPCA will have their say in the H&H article. They will no doubt just repeat their line that the horses all belonged to the Peels, that the horses had no hope of being rehomed and that due to the equine crisis, healthy horses are having to be PTS. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I've no doubt they will bleat on about over breeding and people contributing towards over breeding (indirectly people who loan out horses for breeding loans) when actually, what we were talking about here were useful horses. They'll be no mention yet again, of the types that are churning out coloured cobs because it's nothing will stop that anyway or those of course, choosing to try and breed the likes of Exmoor/Clydesdale crosses.


----------



## christine0810 (18 September 2015)

Sadika said:



			Just how many RSPCA Inspectators are knowledgeable about horses??? I believe the number qualified in equine matters is quite a small percentage of the total???
		
Click to expand...


Out of the some 1500 Inspectors countrywide only 10  yes that's right 10 of those Inspectors have any in depth equine knowledge  that is the figure I got quoted!


----------



## Meowy Catkin (18 September 2015)

It is of course true that there is an equine crisis and yes, healthy horses will be PTS. I don't want anyone to think that I'm in denial or against that. But as you point out MOC, these were wanted and useful horses and not the same as yet another coloured cob with dodgy conformation.

I do wonder if the AHS has carefully landed the RSPCA in it with their statement about the RSPCA helping to identify the horses now. Surely that means that the RSPCA must have decided that they were 'unhomable' without identifying what they actually had? It also shows that they hadn't checked the ownership. It's all a bit late really to co-operate with the AHS now, but just maybe the RSPCA will learn that if they have something purebred in, or a high quality cross, that they should make efforts to work with the relevant breed society?


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (18 September 2015)

Sadika said:



			Just how many RSPCA Inspectators are knowledgeable about horses??? I believe the number qualified in equine matters is quite a small percentage of the total???
		
Click to expand...

Not many 

Where I am (a prolific horse area, inc lots of traveller sites too) there are 4 officers, only 1 had a pretty good equine knowledge, 2 have such scanty knowledge that they are positively dangerous on call-outs, the 4th is around PC C test level & thats being polite. Bedside manner of the latter 3 is pretty non-existent too, more sergeant major-i-know-everything so do as I tell you, rather than trying to work out a solutin to alleviate more prblems 

The nearest local WHW officer is a very well meaning lady, but very taken up with her penchant for leaving notes about ragwort and feather mites rather than body scoring, skin conditions, lice etc.

I spend a lot of my time in total disbelief, usually calling the decent rspca offer for assistance and trying to keep the others at bay, or from causing more distress


----------



## Meowy Catkin (18 September 2015)

So is it possible that the RSPCA thought 'OMG arabs and arab crosses, we can't cope with them' and had them shot for that reason?


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (18 September 2015)

To add, if its pointed out that a pick-up or call out may be a registered pony with a breed society, they are just not interested in following it up.
1st hand experience of this, despite chips or brands etc, its SO annoying when I KNOW the breed societies concerned would bend over backwards to assist, contacting breeders etc or people willing to have them, but thats not what RSPCA like at all.
IMHO, they prefer to just use the stable name, palm off animal as a foster or re-home it and its out of the system; another animal which is lost from studbooks etc and untraceable (except by chip) in the future as they usually get re-passported if they are not PTS.
Either that or its not 'in the best interests' to let breed society know, as case is 'pending'. By the time its come to court, they wont bother to contact breed society as 'equine now well settled' where it is, makes my blood boil


----------



## Alec Swan (18 September 2015)

Faracat said:



			So is it possible that the RSPCA thought 'OMG arabs and arab crosses, we can't cope with them' and had them shot for that reason?
		
Click to expand...

No.  It isn't that simple.  Horses frighten the life out of 90% of rspca inspectors.  The fact is that the 'rspca' didn't 'think',  it really is that simple,  and the reason is that for too long they've had such a sense of omnipotence and whilst being in receipt of graciously bestowed royal patronage,  so they've become ever more convinced of their own 'self'.

With genuine respect Faracat,  you continue to focus it seems to me,  upon what's immediately in front of you,  and I suspect that you may be failing to see the larger picture.  The horses under discussion are already dead,  and the question must be;  'Are we to be placated by the response 'Lessons have to be learned'?'  

The rspca with their own colossal sense of self worth will only learn one thing from this appalling episode,  and that will be how to better manage criticism.  Currently they ignore it,  but for how much longer?  Do you know?  Because I don't.

Alec.


----------



## Pigeon (18 September 2015)

I know this sounds heartless, but I always wonder why desirable horses like these (that may actually be useful) are put down, and yet the RSPCA retains literally hundreds of unbroken ponies.

These ponies aren't sought after because they are so small they can only be ridden by children, but due to lack of handling or mistreatment aren't quiet enough for kids. They are also not the easiest companions to ridden horses, as they require very restricted grazing and consistent exercise to prevent laminitis. 

  I know that is a cold approach, but with limited space and funds, surely horses that can be rehomed quickly need to be prioritised, so that another can fill their space. Is it just that under 13hhs are more likely to be abandoned/neglected? Or are these just easier to handle? It sounds like a lot of the people dealing with equine rescue within the RSPCA may be knowledgeable about animals in general, but not experienced horsemen. In which case anything above 13hh probably IS difficult to handle... And I'm sorry but how the hell did they manage to break that poor mare's leg in transit? I don't believe that they even realise the depth of knowledge needed to handle equines safely. Like Fuzzy said, they are C-test level, and they think that this is enough. They need staff that are experienced and fearless when handling difficult horses. You can find them for minimum wage on most eventing yards....

I have sympathy for the society in that they are fighting an uphill battle, but making stupid decisions like these (the destruction of animals without their owners knowledge, not to mention the shifty expenses claim)  will turn the public against them, which will not help their cause.


----------



## ester (18 September 2015)

If they didn't have the passports matched up... so didn't know their true names, presumably they didn't know true ages either? I know that some were older but a couple weren't.


----------



## Sadika (18 September 2015)

ester said:



			If they didn't have the passports matched up... so didn't know their true names, presumably they didn't know true ages either? I know that some were older but a couple weren't.
		
Click to expand...

The Peels had a web site ... it would not have been rocket science to identify quite a lot from there ... because RP posted regularly on forums many people knew their horses ... there are tons of people who could have helped if they had known ... the likes of Taz, Harley etc ... and the stable names were known such as Cresh - that's easy to match upto Last Crescendo ... and blow me he's an Arab stallion ... oh and methinks he will be known to ... the ARAB HORSE SOCIETY ... let's give them a ring??? BINGO! Simples???!!! So what went so wrong?????


----------



## ester (18 September 2015)

I know for most of them it wasn't rocket science at all, for the others check markings and they'd know? We weren't talking a hundred horses!


----------



## MotherOfChickens (18 September 2015)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			To add, if its pointed out that a pick-up or call out may be a registered pony with a breed society, they are just not interested in following it up.
1st hand experience of this, despite chips or brands etc, its SO annoying when I KNOW the breed societies concerned would bend over backwards to assist, contacting breeders etc or people willing to have them, but thats not what RSPCA like at all.
IMHO, they prefer to just use the stable name, palm off animal as a foster or re-home it and its out of the system; another animal which is lost from studbooks etc and untraceable (except by chip) in the future as they usually get re-passported if they are not PTS.
Either that or its not 'in the best interests' to let breed society know, as case is 'pending'. By the time its come to court, they wont bother to contact breed society as 'equine now well settled' where it is, makes my blood boil 

Click to expand...

this is disgusting, absolutely shocking imo and a completely bullheaded approach to a world they obviously know nothing about and seemingly prejudiced against. tbh before when I read complaints about the RSPCA I took it with a large pinch of salt but this has me very concerned.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (18 September 2015)

Don't worry Alec, you've not upset me. I do understand that there is a bigger picture. I guess I hope that this is the case that brings a lot of things to the public's attention and possibly starts a change for the better. Plus I really would like to know what happened to my grey's half brother who was one of the Peel's horses.


----------



## Saddlesore62 (18 September 2015)

JillA said:



			I'd like to know the Daily Fail's source - we all know they can be economical with the truth. I'm no fan of RSPCA but it seems to me if this is true it is a massive own goal for the charity, which could have a major impact on their income when it was made public
		
Click to expand...

You only have to read the RSPCA's statement to see that the story in the Mail on Sunday is completely true - it is not being disputed at all.


----------



## ester (18 September 2015)

For those not reading AL as well a post of a post remarks that the numbers have never added up, there were 7 dead, the RSPCA removed 31 horses, they sent 14 to one livery yard, one destroyed on arrival having broken a leg during transport, and a further 11 of them, all certified by the vet as Bright, Alert and Responsive, ie capable of rehabilitation, were shot. A further (lucky!) 6 went to HAPPA, leaving 11 unaccounted for from an original statement that 31 horses and ponies were removed.

So far, nobody has discovered what has happened to these 11.


----------



## Sadika (18 September 2015)

ester said:



			For those not reading AL as well a post of a post remarks that the numbers have never added up, there were 7 dead, the RSPCA removed 31 horses, they sent 14 to one livery yard, one destroyed on arrival having broken a leg during transport, and a further 11 of them, all certified by the vet as Bright, Alert and Responsive, ie capable of rehabilitation, were shot. A further (lucky!) 6 went to HAPPA, leaving 11 unaccounted for from an original statement that 31 horses and ponies were removed.

So far, nobody has discovered what has happened to these 11.
		
Click to expand...

I know that point has been bugging me ... actually the report I read said there were 31 LIVING horses - then 14 taken by RSPCA and 6 by HAPPA leaving 11 unaccounted for???


----------



## Pinkvboots (18 September 2015)

Sadika said:



			I know that point has been bugging me ... actually the report I read said there were 31 LIVING horses - then 14 taken by RSPCA and 6 by HAPPA leaving 11 unaccounted for???
		
Click to expand...

So I wonder who the other 11 are? And what 6 went to happa does anyone know? Someone did put a link to a grey gelding up for re homing on this thread I saw it a few days ago I wonder if he came from there.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (18 September 2015)

Did Bransby take any of the eleven? I remember being forwarded an ad about an arab that they had.

Found it - http://www.bransbyhorses.co.uk/re-homing/re-homing animals-Raff.html

It says he was taken as part of a 'multi organisational effort to reduce numbers from a breeder', so perhaps not.


----------



## marmalade76 (18 September 2015)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			To add, if its pointed out that a pick-up or call out may be a registered pony with a breed society, they are just not interested in following it up.
1st hand experience of this, despite chips or brands etc, its SO annoying when I KNOW the breed societies concerned would bend over backwards to assist, contacting breeders etc or people willing to have them, but thats not what RSPCA like at all.
IMHO, they prefer to just use the stable name, palm off animal as a foster or re-home it and its out of the system; another animal which is lost from studbooks etc and untraceable (except by chip) in the future as they usually get re-passported if they are not PTS.
Either that or its not 'in the best interests' to let breed society know, as case is 'pending'. By the time its come to court, they wont bother to contact breed society as 'equine now well settled' where it is, makes my blood boil 

Click to expand...

That does seem to be the case, but why? Is it so they can blame indiscriminate breeding in all horses, not just coloured cobs and feral ponies?


----------



## Equi (18 September 2015)

I think it is time the equine community forced the RSPCA to admit they have no knowledge of horses and to stop them being allowed to have anything to do with them. WHW or similar needs more power to help out the RSPCA needs kicked off the case (and needs to drop that royal!!)


----------



## marmalade76 (18 September 2015)

Pigeon said:



			I know this sounds heartless, but I always wonder why desirable horses like these (that may actually be useful) are put down, and yet the RSPCA retains literally hundreds of unbroken ponies.

These ponies aren't sought after because they are so small they can only be ridden by children, but due to lack of handling or mistreatment aren't quiet enough for kids. They are also not the easiest companions to ridden horses, as they require very restricted grazing and consistent exercise to prevent laminitis. 

  I know that is a cold approach, but with limited space and funds, surely horses that can be rehomed quickly need to be prioritised, so that another can fill their space. Is it just that under 13hhs are more likely to be abandoned/neglected? Or are these just easier to handle? It sounds like a lot of the people dealing with equine rescue within the RSPCA may be knowledgeable about animals in general, but not experienced horsemen. In which case anything above 13hh probably IS difficult to handle... And I'm sorry but how the hell did they manage to break that poor mare's leg in transit? I don't believe that they even realise the depth of knowledge needed to handle equines safely. Like Fuzzy said, they are C-test level, and they think that this is enough. They need staff that are experienced and fearless when handling difficult horses. You can find them for minimum wage on most eventing yards....

I have sympathy for the society in that they are fighting an uphill battle, but making stupid decisions like these (the destruction of animals without their owners knowledge, not to mention the shifty expenses claim)  will turn the public against them, which will not help their cause.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.


----------



## ribbons (18 September 2015)

The RSPCA is the only animal welfare organisation that I can find that after rehoming a horse, they keep control for a mere 6 months. After that the new owner can do whatever they like with it.
 All other rescue groups retain ownership for life, the horse can never be sold or passed on. 
Wonder how many times they get the same horse back again due to sloppy rehoming policies.
Do they do the same thing with dogs?


----------



## catkin (18 September 2015)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			To add, if its pointed out that a pick-up or call out may be a registered pony with a breed society, they are just not interested in following it up.
1st hand experience of this, despite chips or brands etc, its SO annoying when I KNOW the breed societies concerned would bend over backwards to assist, contacting breeders etc or people willing to have them, but thats not what RSPCA like at all.
IMHO, they prefer to just use the stable name, palm off animal as a foster or re-home it and its out of the system; another animal which is lost from studbooks etc and untraceable (except by chip) in the future as they usually get re-passported if they are not PTS.
Either that or its not 'in the best interests' to let breed society know, as case is 'pending'. By the time its come to court, they wont bother to contact breed society as 'equine now well settled' where it is, makes my blood boil 

Click to expand...

I may be a cynic here - I suppose that now multiple-passporting is more difficult tis easier to let the horses 'disappear' as they can't be re-passported.

It makes my blood boil too for pure-breds to lose their heritage. It's not just a matter of taking them out of the breeding pool (though thats tragic enough with old and rare bloodlines) they are also loved and cherished for who and what they are.


----------



## MurphysMinder (18 September 2015)

ribbons said:



			The RSPCA is the only animal welfare organisation that I can find that after rehoming a horse, they keep control for a mere 6 months. After that the new owner can do whatever they like with it.
 All other rescue groups retain ownership for life, the horse can never be sold or passed on. 
Wonder how many times they get the same horse back again due to sloppy rehoming policies.
Do they do the same thing with dogs?
		
Click to expand...


There is someone near me who has rehomed a horse from Rspca and as you say assumed ownership after 6 months.  Whereas I cannot say it is neglected or ill treated in the true sense of the word, it is not visited daily, is in a field with awful fencing (stock fencing lying on the ground) and certainly does not have what I would consider a good home.


----------



## Equi (19 September 2015)

Huh, i never knew that. Interesting!


----------



## SO1 (19 September 2015)

I expect that most of the rescued horses are difficult to re-home whatever the breed as there are more horses than there are people who can look after them.

The RSCPA are a multi-animal charity and like others have mentioned the RSPCA officers have to deal with a large number of calls for all different animals, and they may not have the training to be experts on all of them.

Who made the decision on if the horses were suitable for re-homing was it a vet or was it an RSPCA officer? If it was an RSCPA officer did they have knowledge of horses and are there an internal guideline that the decision makers are given which indicates what sort of horses are difficult to re-home or be kept at the sanctuaries. I expect older stallions are on the list of horses that are difficult to re-home as well as perhaps anything highly strung, or possibly expensive to keep. 

Arabs unfortunately like TB's have a reputation for being highly strung and poor doers who need a decent amount of food to keep them going so possibly expensive to keep and not suitable to be handled by novices and more high maintenance to keep than a cob. Cobs have a reputation for being easy to handle and cheap to keep as they tend to be good doers who can winter out on poor grazing and don't need much food. Whilst these are of course stereotypes a person who does not have a great deal of experience with horses may use stereotypical information to decide what is suitable to be re-homed or kept at the sanctuary or they may have used previous data if they have had Arabs before come in as rescues who have been hard to re-home or difficult/expensive to keep at the Sanctuary.

I expect the RSPCA probably have a similar stance with regard to dogs with some breeds such as Staffies being put down due to their reputation as a breed rather than assessing the individual concerned and its condition.  

Is the RSPCA loosing trust in the breed societies after they have these sort of cases? With regard to the Arab Horse society if this Peel woman was an upstanding well respected trusted member of this society and did this to the horses and people were taken in by her, how do they decide who at the Arab horse society is going to be trustworthy. There has also been some negative publicity {even on this forum} about the some Arabs are shown and how the AHS won't step in to prevent what is seen by some as a welfare issue. 

I do wonder if the composition of the breed societies in general is changing with the desire to breed HOYS winners and competition horses is becoming more important to some people than preserving bloodlines and type and in some cases the welfare of the horses.

Sadly I think that the RCPSA have so many calls out and cases now they just do not have the resources to deal with them all properly and I think this contributes to the mistakes being made. Yes they do have a large number of donations but the cost of running the organisation and the care of the animals must be considerable and a lot of the funding maybe restricted so they can't use it on core running costs. Legacies or large donations often come with restrictions on what they can be spent on. I work for a charity myself and charitable funding is complicated. If the charity goes under then the trustees can loose their assets, this means that a lot of trustees will be very cautious when it comes to spending decisions and many charities have
large reserves of money {often at least a years running costs} because of this.


Pigeon said:



			I know this sounds heartless, but I always wonder why desirable horses like these (that may actually be useful) are put down, and yet the RSPCA retains literally hundreds of unbroken ponies.

These ponies aren't sought after because they are so small they can only be ridden by children, but due to lack of handling or mistreatment aren't quiet enough for kids. They are also not the easiest companions to ridden horses, as they require very restricted grazing and consistent exercise to prevent laminitis. 

  I know that is a cold approach, but with limited space and funds, surely horses that can be rehomed quickly need to be prioritised, so that another can fill their space. Is it just that under 13hhs are more likely to be abandoned/neglected? Or are these just easier to handle? It sounds like a lot of the people dealing with equine rescue within the RSPCA may be knowledgeable about animals in general, but not experienced horsemen. In which case anything above 13hh probably IS difficult to handle... And I'm sorry but how the hell did they manage to break that poor mare's leg in transit? I don't believe that they even realise the depth of knowledge needed to handle equines safely. Like Fuzzy said, they are C-test level, and they think that this is enough. They need staff that are experienced and fearless when handling difficult horses. You can find them for minimum wage on most eventing yards....

I have sympathy for the society in that they are fighting an uphill battle, but making stupid decisions like these (the destruction of animals without their owners knowledge, not to mention the shifty expenses claim)  will turn the public against them, which will not help their cause.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ester (19 September 2015)

My concern is that Cooper Wilson made the decision - or at least advised the RSPCA what he, as a horse expert, thought.... 

I don't think the RSPCA has any funding issues, if they do they could stop bringing some ridiculous prosecutions often against the most vulnerable - A friend is a magistrate and rolls his eyes if you mention them and many of the prosecutions they bring.

I guess the difference with staffies is that they get a lot of them, it could be argued they actually know about them whereas the same could not be said about arabs. 

The AHS is certainly far from perfect but given the minimal care the RSPCA give rehomed horses anyway I suspect that worrying that they might end up with another Peel was not part of the decision.


----------



## Alec Swan (19 September 2015)

SO1 said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Is the RSPCA loosing trust in the breed societies after they have these sort of cases? With regard to the Arab Horse society if this Peel woman was an upstanding well respected trusted member of this society and did this to the horses and people were taken in by her, how do they decide who at the Arab horse society is going to be trustworthy. 

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Whilst all those Societies,  made up of those who would group together for the promotion and interest of any type or breed of animal will be made up of an eclectic mix of people,  to suggest that the reason for the rspca's obvious disregard of the opinions of breed society members is because of the minority who stand at either end of the extremes,  cannot be accepted.  The simple fact is that the rspca have a total disregard for anyone who would criticise them or their current stance on animal welfare,  or even their easily viewed,  obvious and displayed inabilities.

Accepting that the rspca,  by and large,  are not equipped to deal with equines isn't a good enough excuse for their refusal to accept advice or help,  and if as you suggest they're so mistrustful,  that doesn't excuse their stonewalling of the offers of the well intentioned and experienced.  Similarly,  the current ethos which drives the rspca council cannot be excused because of a distorted view of humanity,  or their treatment of either animal or human.  Were they right in their views,  then we wouldn't see such a constant stream of appalling events,  and there wouldn't be the clear evidence provided by the SHG/rspca.

If I understand your post correctly,  it's an attempt at providing a balanced argument,  and whilst accepting that there will,  amongst breed societies be those who are other than as the main streams,  to offer any justification for the behaviour of the rspca in this and many other matters,  isn't acceptable.

I along with many other private individuals have attempted to engage the rspca in meaningful dialogue and in a purposeful and positive manner.  I have never yet had even a reply to my letters or attempts at communication.  There is no excuse for the behaviour of the rspca,  in any form.

Alec.


----------



## Fenris (19 September 2015)

This thread has become famous.

https://cdanews.com/2015/09/eleven-healthy-horses-killed-by-rspca-animal-charity/

See last paragraph


----------



## Alec Swan (19 September 2015)

Fenris said:



			This thread has become famous.

https://cdanews.com/2015/09/eleven-healthy-horses-killed-by-rspca-animal-charity/

See last paragraph
		
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure that the H&H Magazine has actually launched in to a scathing attack.  Many on here have,  clearly,  but this forum isn't the Magazine,  unless I've missed something!  Does anyone have access to any official H&H comments?

Alec.


----------



## Leo Walker (19 September 2015)

ester said:



			My concern is that Cooper Wilson made the decision - or at least advised the RSPCA what he, as a horse expert, thought....
		
Click to expand...

I read in one article that he had strongly advised against PTS and hadnt wanted to do it. Typically, I now cant find that again! If I find it I'll post the link.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 September 2015)

FrankieCob said:



			I read in one article that he had strongly advised against PTS and hadnt wanted to do it. Typically, I now cant find that again! If I find it I'll post the link.
		
Click to expand...

It's in the original MoS article. He said that he could rehome 4 of them but he wasn't allowed to.

ETA

'Even the man who shot the horses for the RSPCA told the MoS: 'Some of those horses could have been rehomed, but I was told I wasn't allowed to. I could have rehomed four of them.' Last night the RSPCA insisted the horses had 'no realistic prospect of being rehomed' at the time, yet the MoS saw ample evidence that horse-lovers were desperate to give the animals a loving home.

The RSPCA said there was a 'difference of opinion' with Mr Wilson about the suitability for rehoming of the horses he didn't want to shoot.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-stable-fees-months-deaths.html#ixzz3mAxcfZKe 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## MotherOfChickens (19 September 2015)

slight tangent but I've not met an arab yet that was a poor doer, the ones I've met live off fresh air much like most Iberians and many are as tough as old boots. Given that your average cob seems to suffer with mites, mud fever and obesity i know which one I'd rather manage.

I think plainly the RSPCA are anti breeding, anti breed societies and wrt that have their own agenda.


----------



## cobgoblin (19 September 2015)

Can I ask a daft question?
How come two of the horses were rehomed? Did these end up at a different charity?


----------



## marmalade76 (19 September 2015)

MotherOfChickens said:



			slight tangent but I've not met an arab yet that was a poor doer, the ones I've met live off fresh air much like most Iberians and many are as tough as old boots. Given that your average cob seems to suffer with mites, mud fever and obesity i know which one I'd rather manage.

I think plainly the RSPCA are anti breeding, anti breed societies and wrt that have their own agenda.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree, tough, sound, good doers who live long lives.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 September 2015)

cobgoblin said:



			Can I ask a daft question?
How come two of the horses were rehomed? Did these end up at a different charity?
		
Click to expand...

HAPPA was the first rescue charity on the scene. They called in the RSPCA for reinforcements as there were too many equines for HAPPA to cope with. HAPPA did take in some animals, and some of these were PTS but that was on veterinary advice.


----------



## PonyIAmNotFood (19 September 2015)

Anyone know what happened to Harley? I'm sure I saw him when I went visiting a horse I adopted from the RSPCA in Yorkshire. He was very poor if it was him and we were warned not to go near his stable as he would lunge and bite. 

I can also say that Cooper was lovely when we met him, very much seemed in it for the horses and was very good with the ones we saw him handle. He was honest with me about the one I was having and was talking about how he was rehabing another that came in at the same time as mine but wasn't doing so well. He seemed to genuinely care.


----------



## SO1 (19 September 2015)

I think you may have misunderstood my point regarding the funding - charities can often appear to be wealthy but a lot of the funds will be restricted to spending in certain areas. It is really hard to get money for for core services a lot of high net worth individuals who donate their like their money to be spend in a certain way. Most charities are not funded by people slipping then £10 here or there but by wealthy people giving them a lot of money or big legacies. I have worked in the charity sector for over 30 years and during that time always charities have struggled to get money for core funding but usually ok for projects.  We were once given a huge sum of money in a legacy but it had restrictions on it which meant it could only be used for improving the website.

I don't know who the main backers of the RSPCA are but there may be people who choose to donate because the RSPCA prosecute people or because of their stance on hunting and they only want their donations to be used in this area of work or they only want to support certain types of animals such as cats for example.

I think the RSPCA do need to have more field officers who have received a greater depth of training, they probably also need more places to take in and rehab rescues for all animals. They receive well over a million calls a year but have less than 300 inspectors. If over 80,000 of these calls are related to horses and they only have 10 inspectors with a special interest in horses that is a case load of 8000 per person if the equine specialists attend or are involved in each call about a horse. 

I would not want to be an RSPCA inspector having to make difficult decisions every day about the best welfare for an animal having to take in to consideration costs in terms of treatment and re-homing. I expect they are now getting to the stage where they are getting more cases than they can manage properly and therefore sadly in some cases the easy option may be to PTS. 

With regard to complaints about their services that also uses up staff time and complaints about their service is probably fairly low on their list of priorities unless of cause you are a major donor.



ester said:



			My concern is that Cooper Wilson made the decision - or at least advised the RSPCA what he, as a horse expert, thought.... 

I don't think the RSPCA has any funding issues, if they do they could stop bringing some ridiculous prosecutions often against the most vulnerable - A friend is a magistrate and rolls his eyes if you mention them and many of the prosecutions they bring.

/QUOTE]
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (19 September 2015)

SO1 said:



			I think you may have misunderstood my point regarding the funding - charities can often appear to be wealthy but a lot of the funds will be restricted to spending in certain areas. It is really hard to get money for for core services a lot of high net worth individuals who donate their like their money to be spend in a certain way. Most charities are not funded by people slipping then £10 here or there but by wealthy people giving them a lot of money or big legacies. I have worked in the charity sector for over 30 years and during that time always charities have struggled to get money for core funding but usually ok for projects.  We were once given a huge sum of money in a legacy but it had restrictions on it which meant it could only be used for improving the website.

&#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

Do any of your,  possibly accurate,  observations excuse or explain-away the manner in which the rspca conducts itself?

Alec.


----------



## Rollin (19 September 2015)

Can anyone in the know, tell me more about the CBx mentioned, Coco and Frodo?

I know there was a well bred PURE Cleveland Bay colt called Frodo, I looked at him when I purchased our stallion.  I contacted the breeder who thinks the horse called Frodo who was destroyed was actually a Shire Cross.  Can anyone help and WHERE are all these passports?


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 September 2015)

PonyIAmNotFood said:



			Anyone know what happened to Harley? I'm sure I saw him when I went visiting a horse I adopted from the RSPCA in Yorkshire.
		
Click to expand...

When did you see Harley? I don't think he has been listed as confirmed pts. Hope he made it.


----------



## Alec Swan (19 September 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			..

The RSPCA said there was a 'difference of opinion' with Mr Wilson about the suitability for rehoming of the horses he didn't want to shoot.'

..
		
Click to expand...

I now wonder if the rspca,  with that wonderful facility,  'hindsight',  may not have been better to have listened.  Would that be how they'd view the situation?  I'd me most surprised if they did!  The rspca has no ears,  or eyes either,  from what will be obvious to most.

Alec.


----------



## Wella (19 September 2015)

I read on another site that Evie still has Harley and four others. So it continues.......


----------



## PonyIAmNotFood (19 September 2015)

Tiddlypom said:



			When did you see Harley? I don't think he has been listed as confirmed pts. Hope he made it.
		
Click to expand...

It will have been about mid July last year, is that about right? Beautiful horse with distinct markings on his face, like the pics of Harley. They had a black stallion in at the same time, about 15 yo with screwed up legs. Can't remember much more about that one, don't know if he was related to this case as well. Both were poor.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 September 2015)

PonyIAmNotFood said:



			It will have been about mid July last year, is that about right? Beautiful horse with distinct markings on his face, like the pics of Harley. They had a black stallion in at the same time, about 15 yo with screwed up legs.
		
Click to expand...

The Peel horses were seized in March 2013, so if Harley was still alive in July 2014, then that's great. But how come he was still thin more than a year after his rescue?



Wella said:



			I read on another site that Evie still has Harley and four others. So it continues.......
		
Click to expand...

And then this . Oh no. I so hope that he, or any other survivors, are not back in the care of that family..


----------



## PonyIAmNotFood (19 September 2015)

It may not have been him then. I don't know much about the case, only what I've read on here. Would seem unusual for them to have two arab stallions of a similar colour in at different times maybe? I don't know, I didn't ask much about him, he was just in at the same time as mine.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 September 2015)

I would think it was the same Harley, as you say, how many other similarly marked Arab stallions would the RSPCA and Cooper have had in their care? Very interesting. Let's hope that some of the other so far unaccounted for Peel horses made it, and have not been returned to the daughter.


----------



## be positive (19 September 2015)

Wella said:



			I read on another site that Evie still has Harley and four others. So it continues.......
		
Click to expand...

Has she got Harley the arab, no idea what his proper name is, or is it Harlequin the event horse she took to Hartbury, they may share the same stable name.


----------



## Wella (19 September 2015)

be positive said:



			Has she got Harley the arab, no idea what his proper name is, or is it Harlequin the event horse she took to Hartbury, they may share the same stable name.
		
Click to expand...

Ah not sure you could be right. I will see if I can find out.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 September 2015)

Harley is Templars Orchestral Pearl (according to a 2010 post by Rachelle Peel).

Evie has a BE record in 2013/14 for Oso Harlequin, which is maybe the horse bp & Wella refer to. She even competed him/her twice in March 2013, the month that the other horses were seized..

I would hope that the RSPCA finally managed a positive official id of Harley via his passport, if they had been caring for him for over 12 months..


----------



## Sadika (19 September 2015)

Harley and 3 others have apparently been returned to Evie as she is the registered owner. Harley should not have been in poor condition at any point as I have seen a photograph of him taken just a few weeks before the March date when HAPPA and RSPCA went in ... Harley was being ridden at a stallion parade in Lancashire and looked very well ...


----------



## PonyIAmNotFood (19 September 2015)

Sadika said:



			Harley and 3 others have apparently been returned to Evie as she is the registered owner. Harley should not have been in poor condition at any point as I have seen a photograph of him taken just a few weeks before the March date when HAPPA and RSPCA went in ... Harley was being ridden at a stallion parade in Lancashire and looked very well ...
		
Click to expand...

I have just doubted myself and checked with my friend who came with me and took much more interest in him than I did (wanted to take him home in fact, but doesn't have the facilities)...and apparently he wasn't in poor condition at all. I may have seen a rib or two and exaggerated it in my head. Sorry for the misinformation!


----------



## ribbons (19 September 2015)

It wouldn't be the first time an animal in RSPCA care gets into worse condition than when they were seized.


----------



## PonyIAmNotFood (19 September 2015)

ribbons said:



			It wouldn't be the first time an animal in RSPCA care gets into worse condition than when they were seized.
		
Click to expand...

That was misinformation on my part, friend is certain he wasn't poor. Apologies again, causing more scandal where it really isn't necessary! 

Out of interest, was there a dark coloured stallion seized at the same time that was around 15 yo? Friend is fairly sure he was also an arab, in at the same time as the other.


----------



## christine0810 (19 September 2015)

Harley was indeed in great condition when  he was seized  by the RSPCA  as he had been out at a stallion parade not many weeks before.  However Harley, Legs, Neville and Joules were returned to Evie's 'care'  not long after they were seized as she was the registered owner and the RSPCA had no choice but to  return them to her........oh and if Evie Peel or whatever her name is now she is allegedly  married  would like to come on here and explain  her  and her parents actions then I'm sure she would be given a fair platform to let us know that at least these 4 horses are not suffering and will not be subjected to the fate that Taragun was


----------



## Sadika (19 September 2015)

My info is they haven't been back with her long ... but who really knows? Anyway I was wondering who would foot the livery bill for them when they were in RSPCA care? Apparently that's £13.20 per day per horse ...??!
As the start of the ban isn't too far away now will the RSPCA be out checking before it starts or the day it starts that RP has no contact with these horses???


----------



## Fenris (20 September 2015)

We told RSPCA we'd take in 11 rescue horses - but they killed them anyway: New fury as volunteers say charity ignored them, held secret cull and lied that animals were still alive 

Volunteers claim RSPCA ignored their pleas to rehome 11 rescued horses
The horses were shot by the charity despite being deemed as healthy
The animal-lovers accused RSPCA of lying over the fate of the horses

By NIGEL BUNYAN and NICK CRAVEN FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 01:02 GMT, 20 September 2015 | UPDATED: 01:18 GMT, 20 September 2015



Animal-lovers have accused the RSPCA of lying to them over the fate of 11 healthy horses, which The Mail on Sunday revealed were shot by the charity after being rescued from a neglectful owner.
They claim the charity made no attempt to rehome many of the animals, and that requests for information were ignored.
The accusations came as the charity launched its own investigation into the case and admitted it needed to improve communications with other rescue organisations.
Scroll down for video 

[...]


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ored-held-secret-cull-lied-animals-alive.html


----------



## Archangel (20 September 2015)

Sadika said:



			Harley and 3 others have apparently been returned to Evie as she is the registered owner. Harley should not have been in poor condition at any point as I have seen a photograph of him taken just a few weeks before the March date when HAPPA and RSPCA went in ... Harley was being ridden at a stallion parade in Lancashire and looked very well ...
		
Click to expand...

So to get it absolutely clear. This daughter that 'knew nothing and was not to blame in any way' took the stallion to a parade.  The stallion was I believe kept at home.  The home we are referring to is described in court as 

" Later that day they went into a field at the farm and found the carcass of a horse.

There were a number of living horses feeding from a large bale of hay which was next to the carcass.

Shortly afterwards, the officials went into the farmhouse where there were a number of dogs.

The police officer said the house smelled so strongly of urine that his eyes were watering, and there were dog faeces all over the floor.

There were dogs tethered outside which the prosecution say were in a poor condition.

The party was joined by an RSPCA inspector. The police officer spoke to a farmer in a nearby field and as a result they went to the Knott Lane site which comprised a field and a large barn which was locked. The officer went to Brookhouse Green Farm and returned with a key.

There were two living horses in the field and what appeared to be the remains of at least two more horses.

Inside the barn there were three horses which were living among the remains of four dead and decomposed horses.

&#8220;One of the dead horses was in the same pen as the living animals,&#8221; said Mr O&#8217;Donnell. 

-------------

Everybody is working so hard to identify the lost horses.  3 people know all about those horses.  Rachelle Peel, Stephen Peel and Evie Peel.


----------



## DD (20 September 2015)

MurphysMinder said:



			There is someone near me who has rehomed a horse from Rspca and as you say assumed ownership after 6 months.  Whereas I cannot say it is neglected or ill treated in the true sense of the word, it is not visited daily, is in a field with awful fencing (stock fencing lying on the ground) and certainly does not have what I would consider a good home.
		
Click to expand...

Murphysminder, I too live in Shropshire. A local person has 4  cobs which she boasts are from the RSPCA at Dorrington. They cost her around £50 each already gelded. they live out in a chicken_pen arrangement surrounded by pallets, bits of sting and wire. they each have about the size of a loose box. the ground underfoot is utterly disguising. this spring they came out of winter very ribby and poor. sometimes they receive no food as she has run out of money or her car is broken down and she cant get to wherever she buys hay from. their feet are overgrown but not too bad at the moment. Her family have moved onto the small acreage she rents with various vehicles and caravans. she also has sheep geese hens and pigs. The site is a disgrace.  
numerous villagers are always complaining and some phone the RSPCA. However , the horse are occasionally rugged receive water and sometimes food.  They were signed over to her after 6 months of being with her and until things deteriorate worse the RSPCA will do nothing. Terrible situation.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (20 September 2015)

Good to see the Daily Mail has caught up with this story and has published a further article containing much of the info on here.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 September 2015)

Downton Dame said:



			Murphysminder, I too live in Shropshire. A local person has 4  cobs which she boasts are from the RSPCA at Dorrington. They cost her around £50 each already gelded. they live out in a chicken_pen arrangement surrounded by pallets, bits of sting and wire. they each have about the size of a loose box. the ground underfoot is utterly disguising. this spring they came out of winter very ribby and poor. sometimes they receive no food as she has run out of money or her car is broken down and she cant get to wherever she buys hay from. their feet are overgrown but not too bad at the moment. Her family have moved onto the small acreage she rents with various vehicles and caravans. she also has sheep geese hens and pigs. The site is a disgrace.  
numerous villagers are always complaining and some phone the RSPCA. However , the horse are occasionally rugged receive water and sometimes food.  They were signed over to her after 6 months of being with her and until things deteriorate worse the RSPCA will do nothing. Terrible situation.
		
Click to expand...

Would not the better answer to have been for those horses that you mention,  and for others to be dealt with at the time of seizure by putting them down?  Is it not time for owners,  all owners to face their responsibilities and rather than pass-on the problem,  but to face it and deal with it?

This Spring we had 2 two year olds,  well bred but both with problems.  With a collapsed market and with no realistic hope for a future,  I shot them both,  though there were plenty who would have taken them for nothing.

Alec.


----------



## Fenris (20 September 2015)

Archangel said:



			So to get it absolutely clear. This daughter that 'knew nothing and was not to blame in any way' took the stallion to a parade.  The stallion was I believe kept at home.  The home we are referring to is described in court as 

" Later that day they went into a field at the farm and found the carcass of a horse.

There were a number of living horses feeding from a large bale of hay which was next to the carcass.

Shortly afterwards, the officials went into the farmhouse where there were a number of dogs.

The police officer said the house smelled so strongly of urine that his eyes were watering, and there were dog faeces all over the floor.

There were dogs tethered outside which the prosecution say were in a poor condition.

The party was joined by an RSPCA inspector. The police officer spoke to a farmer in a nearby field and as a result they went to the Knott Lane site which comprised a field and a large barn which was locked. The officer went to Brookhouse Green Farm and returned with a key.

There were two living horses in the field and what appeared to be the remains of at least two more horses.

Inside the barn there were three horses which were living among the remains of four dead and decomposed horses.

&#8220;One of the dead horses was in the same pen as the living animals,&#8221; said Mr O&#8217;Donnell. 

-------------

Everybody is working so hard to identify the lost horses.  3 people know all about those horses.  Rachelle Peel, Stephen Peel and Evie Peel.
		
Click to expand...

And yet at the end of the day, despite all of those claims, 




			She was found guilty on two counts of neglect and fined £2,200 with £8,000 costs, and also banned from keeping horses for two years.
		
Click to expand...

Do you think that the court had some concerns about the quality of the RSPCA 'evidence', bearing in mind it had heard how the RSPCA had tried to claim costs for boarding dead horses?  Or that it had failed to tell anyone that the horses were dead, including the real owners?

Whatever the answer, bottom line is only guilty on two counts, and a very short ban which means that the court was not convinced that anything as bad as has been described happened,  If it did indeed happen then the blame for what is essentially a failed prosecution for those issues lies firmly in the lap of the RSPCA.


----------



## Pinkvboots (20 September 2015)

Funny how the rspca could work out 4 of the horses belonged to evie as the documents were in her name, so they obviously had access to all the horses papers how did they not notice that several other documents would have also been in other people's names as the horses were only loaned to them?


----------



## DD (20 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Would not the better answer to have been for those horses that you mention,  and for others to be dealt with at the time of seizure by putting them down?  Is it not time for owners,  all owners to face their responsibilities and rather than pass-on the problem,  but to face it and deal with it?

This Spring we had 2 two year olds,  well bred but both with problems.  With a collapsed market and with no realistic hope for a future,  I shot them both,  though there were plenty who would have taken them for nothing.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I too have had horses PTS rather than pass them on. I have been shot down in verbal flames on this forum for doing so too. However it was the right thing to do, better off dead than off loaded to an uncertain future.


----------



## Archangel (20 September 2015)

I agree Fenris - in fact you got me thinking about a previous cruelty case involving the Skippers and wondering how their case compared with the Peels.  That too had a wiff of 'bungle' about it.  

I've put links to the full stories but it seems if you sign your horses over to the RSPCA they bump them off.  

From H&H article
"The two mares were signed over to the RSPCA, but later put to sleep. The part-bred Arab stallion, which was not signed over by the couple, is currently in RSPCA care and has received six months of remedial farriery"

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/prolific-equestrian-author-lesley-skipper-convicted-314117

This is a key paragraph from Lesley Skipper's side of the story

From BlackTent blog
"With regard to the remaining two horses who were euthanized, they were taken away by the RSPCA on 14th June, but were not put to sleep until 2nd August. After a great deal of effort on our part, on the 6th July 2011 we were allowed to visit the establishment to which the horses were taken. No mention whatsoever was made at that time of the possibility of their being euthanized; on the contrary, we were assured (and we have a witness to this conversation) that the old mare (Roxzella) was due to go to a retirement home for horses, and that the other mare, Imzadi (who had been sound for years, right up to and including 14th June last year), was being assessed with a view to rehoming her. Therefore, we were lied to about that. (This was not brought out in Court, for the reasons given in paragraph 3 above). We only found out that these two horses had been euthanized when we received the bundle of evidence documents from the RSPCA in October 2011."

Full story here...
http://black-tent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/lesley-skipper-and-rspca-truth.html


----------



## Fenris (20 September 2015)

Several people have said that they would like to see a different organisation taking over monitoring horse welfare.  What say you to this from Remus?

http://www.remussanctuary.org/page/welfare-watch




			Welfare Watch

We are setting up our countrywide Welfare Watch to deliver assistance to horses in crisis in and around Essex and neighbouring counties. As the welfare crisis in the UK continues to escalate, Remus is looking to the public to help support our efforts in individual or area-specific cases. The problem is vast and we just cannot physically be everywhere we are needed.

In order to do this, we will be looking for volunteers in those areas to help monitor specific areas on our behalf
		
Click to expand...

Surely this could grow and bring in more of the specialist horse rescues?  All it needs is support and volunteers.


----------



## Penny Less (20 September 2015)

Glad to see that posters have something positive to say about the Daily Mail for once. This paper does a lot of very good investigative work which has resulted in action being taken for the better


----------



## Alec Swan (20 September 2015)

Downton Dame said:



			I too have had horses PTS rather than pass them on. I have been shot down in verbal flames on this forum for doing so too. However it was the right thing to do, better off dead than off loaded to an uncertain future.
		
Click to expand...

Back in the late 60s and through the 70s there was a remarkable woman called Mrs. Gingell and she hunted the Cambridgeshire Harriers.  She bought in Hunt Horses as they were needed and on the very rare occasion when she made a mistake,  no horse was ever sold on or gifted.  They were shot and fed to Hounds.  

No criticism of you for assuring a peaceful end to a horse was justified.  Your horse and so it was your choice.  Could you,  by PM head me towards the thread concerned?  I feel certain that there must have been others on here who would have offered support.  The responsible owner has every right to walk with their head upright! 

Alec.


----------



## WelshD (20 September 2015)

I'm still really interested in the supposedly loaned horses

You would think it would be absolute media gold that some of the horses had other legal owners...

So we have loaned horses that were not visited (it seems) by several owners plus passports in other names that were apparently not picked up by the RSPCA and when it becomes public knowledge is not picked up by the media. Were these horses perhaps gifted rather than loaned? if loaned how are the owners not kicking up a stink publicly waving their loan agreements and asking for answers?


----------



## DD (20 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Back in the late 60s and through the 70s there was a remarkable woman called Mrs. Gingell and she hunted the Cambridgeshire Harriers.  She bought in Hunt Horses as they were needed and on the very rare occasion when she made a mistake,  no horse was ever sold on or gifted.  They were shot and fed to Hounds.  

No criticism of you for assuring a peaceful end to a horse was justified.  Your horse and so it was your choice.  Could you,  by PM head me towards the thread concerned?  I feel certain that there must have been others on here who would have offered support.  The responsible owner has every right to walk with their head upright! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you Alec for your sensible comment. It was some 6 years ago now that my horse was  shot by the hunt. I knew at the time that I was doing the right thing. I dont feel any need to rake up the thread. But Thank You once again, I have always thought that you are a voice of reason on this forum


----------



## honetpot (20 September 2015)

I have loaned ponies out on numerous occasions, to people that I think are knowledgeable and sensible. No I do not visit every month, I may follow them though FB, PC, and never have this happen to anything that I have loaned. I have a BHS agreement and they get a grilling. I do not loan them out because they are a problem I do not want, the problems I keep.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ored-held-secret-cull-lied-animals-alive.html
  I am astounded at these pictures, worse have gone through the sale at Leominster, and the RSPCA did nothing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv7GNiIaFzc&feature=related
Apparently they were fit to be sold.
http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/Ar...-still-recovering-today-as-owner-is-sentenced

If any where mine I would be off to the Small Claims Court, with a Twitter agent.


----------



## ester (20 September 2015)

WelshD said:



			I'm still really interested in the supposedly loaned horses

You would think it would be absolute media gold that some of the horses had other legal owners...

So we have loaned horses that were not visited (it seems) by several owners plus passports in other names that were apparently not picked up by the RSPCA and when it becomes public knowledge is not picked up by the media. Were these horses perhaps gifted rather than loaned? if loaned how are the owners not kicking up a stink publicly waving their loan agreements and asking for answers?
		
Click to expand...

I think we are only talking about khoomi with regards to being on loan.


----------



## be positive (20 September 2015)

ester said:



			I think we are only talking about khoomi with regards to being on loan.
		
Click to expand...

Her owners did post a comment on the DM site but I suspect they will need to keep quiet for now if they are going to take action against everyone involved, which I sincerely hope they do, if they start kicking up too much fuss it may affect their chances of court action being taken seriously.


----------



## madlady (21 September 2015)

I'm another who is glad that there has been a follow up article in the mail.  This needs to be kept in the public domain as much as possible.

The other point to note on all of this is that the RSPCA have stated that all the documents showed the horses registered to the Peels - this implies that they had the passports.  Why then have they not followed passport regulations and informed the PIO (and indeed returned the passports as should be done) that the horses are deceased?  AFAIK this still hasn't been done.

I did actually receive a reply to my 'questions' to the RSPCA which, as you can all imagine, didn't actually answer any of the questions but funnily enough brought up points that I hadn't mentioned.  Funny that!

I'll put up what they sent to me later.


----------



## Sadika (21 September 2015)

It is an offence not to return passports to PIO within 30 days ... so where are they 2 1/2 or so years later????


----------



## madlady (21 September 2015)

Sadika said:



			It is an offence not to return passports to PIO within 30 days ... so where are they 2 1/2 or so years later????
		
Click to expand...

Quite!  I can understand them needing to keep the physical passports for the court case but they hadn't even informed the PIO that the horses had been destroyed.  Also it doesn't stack up with the RSPCA only knowing the stable names.  They have told me, in writing, that the paperwork that they had showed all the horses as belonging to the Peels - I'm assuming that is registration certificates and passports.  If they had that documentation then why haven't they told the PIO that the horses were destroyed and why can they only give a list of stable names if they have the paperwork?


----------



## DD (21 September 2015)

madlady said:



			Quite!  I can understand them needing to keep the physical passports for the court case but they hadn't even informed the PIO that the horses had been destroyed.  Also it doesn't stack up with the RSPCA only knowing the stable names.  They have told me, in writing, that the paperwork that they had showed all the horses as belonging to the Peels - I'm assuming that is registration certificates and passports.  If they had that documentation then why haven't they told the PIO that the horses were destroyed and why can they only give a list of stable names if they have the paperwork?
		
Click to expand...

very good point


----------



## Alec Swan (21 September 2015)

madlady said:



			Quite!  I can understand them needing to keep the physical passports for the court case but they hadn't even informed the PIO that the horses had been destroyed.  Also it doesn't stack up with the RSPCA only knowing the stable names.  They have told me, in writing, that the paperwork that they had showed all the horses as belonging to the Peels - I'm assuming that is registration certificates and passports.  If they had that documentation then why haven't they told the PIO that the horses were destroyed and why can they only give a list of stable names if they have the paperwork?
		
Click to expand...

More to the point I'd suggest;  Has the rspca ever produced the evidence of ownership by the Peels and to any who are in a position to validate their claim?  Have we all simply assumed that the claims which the rspca have made are factual,  and so,  truthful?  The Courts and apparently,  parties who have entitlement,  have been lied too,  haven't they?

Alec.


----------



## madlady (21 September 2015)

Just thought I'd share this.

It's the 'complaint' I sent to the RSPCA last week (after being warned on their FB page) together with the response I received from them.

What I sent

I am writing in regard to the recent reports that you (RSPCA) shot 11 horses in the Peel case. 

I have some concerns about this and I have some questions which I am hoping someone can answer. 

Firstly why were they shot? The statement on the main website says that they were shot because it would have been impossible to re-home them - I do not believe that to be the case as there is evidence to show that the AHS could have re-homed all of those horses within days and that they indeed contacted you to that effect. So again, why were those horses shot? 

Also, again on your main website, it states that you work closely with other societies and breeders to do everything possible to re-home animals and trace owners and breeders. Every single one of those horses had an AHS passport yet the AHS state (on their website) that you refused contact with them and the only updates they have had were to say that the horses had been rehomed. Why was this lie told and why does your website give such misleading information. 

I have to say I am beyond appalled at what has happened. I have long since thought that the RSPCA should no longer be involved in any case involving equines as your officers just do not have the requisite experience - this case seems to support this even more. What will be done to bring training up to speed to ensure that this travesty is never repeated. 

I wait your comments. 

The response from the RSPCA

Dear Tracey



Thank you for your enquiry about the horses in the Peel case. You raise two issues on this matter. 



Firstly our contacts with the Arab Horse Society. The RSPCA has never refused to have have contact with the AHS but we do need to have closer cooperation and yesterday we had a positive and constructive meeting with the Society. As part of this we have agreed to establish firm points of contact in each organisation for us to liaise on issues such as rehoming and investigations. The RSPCA does not get many Arab horses in its care but where we do we agree it is best to work closely with the AHS on rehoming them so that we get the best outcome we can for the horses in our care, which is after all always our underlying aim. 



Secondly on ownership of the horses. The horses signed over to us were all legally owned by the defendant. We have not been contacted at any time by anyone claiming ownership of them, or by anyone claiming that their horse was 'on loan' to the defendant. Additionally, of the passports we have, none have other people named as the owners. Many of these horses had veterinary, health and behavioural issues and so were euthanised under veterinary advice. Two of the 14 horses were assessed and found to be suitable for rehoming, and were found loving new homes by the RSPCA.



The other horses were assessed by our equine rehoming experts in the days after being signed over to us and were considered unsuitable for rehoming. Putting an animal to sleep is never taken lightly, but where these difficult decisions must be made it is better for the animal&#8217;s welfare if they are made quickly.

We had hundreds of horses in our care at the time, which had been assessed as suitable for rehoming, which we were struggling to find homes for.

 Thank you again for contacting us.

 Kind regards
 RSPCA Advice Team


----------



## madlady (21 September 2015)

Funny how they have mentioned loan horses in their reply but I didn't mention it in my contact to them.

ETA - AHS passports (to my knowledge) do not hold any owner details, the owner details are on the ownership papers which are separate to (but should be kept with) the passport.  Is it just me that see's the implication in the above response that the RSPCA don't even know what paperwork they have!


----------



## Archangel (21 September 2015)

Someone has posted some notes made by a person present during the hearing over on Arabianlines. 
Very distressing reading.  
http://www.arabianlines.com/forum1/topic_new.asp?TOPIC_ID=55606&whichpage=15

I know it won't bring them back but those unknown horses who were just left to rot where they fell deserve some justice.

What makes it even worse, if that were possible, is that horses like Harley were kept up together so he could go out an parade and all around him the others were starving, neglected and dead.


----------



## madlady (21 September 2015)

Fenris said:



			Several people have said that they would like to see a different organisation taking over monitoring horse welfare.  What say you to this from Remus?

http://www.remussanctuary.org/page/welfare-watch



Surely this could grow and bring in more of the specialist horse rescues?  All it needs is support and volunteers.
		
Click to expand...

I personally feel that the BHS should be the logical choice.  They are already the UK's biggest equine charity, already have very strong links to the 'horsey' community at a national level and already have (on the most part) knowledgeable welfare officers regionally.

For me it would not be a massive change for the BHS to appoint more welfare officers (and make them full time positions) if some of the funding currently going to the RSPCA went to them instead.  They (IMO) would do far more with it.


----------



## Equi (21 September 2015)

madlady said:



			Just thought I'd share this.

It's the 'complaint' I sent to the RSPCA last week (after being warned on their FB page) together with the response I received from them.

What I sent

I am writing in regard to the recent reports that you (RSPCA) shot 11 horses in the Peel case. 

I have some concerns about this and I have some questions which I am hoping someone can answer. 

Firstly why were they shot? The statement on the main website says that they were shot because it would have been impossible to re-home them - I do not believe that to be the case as there is evidence to show that the AHS could have re-homed all of those horses within days and that they indeed contacted you to that effect. So again, why were those horses shot? 

Also, again on your main website, it states that you work closely with other societies and breeders to do everything possible to re-home animals and trace owners and breeders. Every single one of those horses had an AHS passport yet the AHS state (on their website) that you refused contact with them and the only updates they have had were to say that the horses had been rehomed. Why was this lie told and why does your website give such misleading information. 

I have to say I am beyond appalled at what has happened. I have long since thought that the RSPCA should no longer be involved in any case involving equines as your officers just do not have the requisite experience - this case seems to support this even more. What will be done to bring training up to speed to ensure that this travesty is never repeated. 

I wait your comments. 

The response from the RSPCA

Dear Tracey



Thank you for your enquiry about the horses in the Peel case. You raise two issues on this matter. 



Firstly our contacts with the Arab Horse Society. The RSPCA has never refused to have have contact with the AHS but we do need to have closer cooperation and yesterday we had a positive and constructive meeting with the Society. As part of this we have agreed to establish firm points of contact in each organisation for us to liaise on issues such as rehoming and investigations. The RSPCA does not get many Arab horses in its care but where we do we agree it is best to work closely with the AHS on rehoming them so that we get the best outcome we can for the horses in our care, which is after all always our underlying aim. 



Secondly on ownership of the horses. The horses signed over to us were all legally owned by the defendant. We have not been contacted at any time by anyone claiming ownership of them, or by anyone claiming that their horse was 'on loan' to the defendant. Additionally, of the passports we have, none have other people named as the owners. Many of these horses had veterinary, health and behavioural issues and so were euthanised under veterinary advice. Two of the 14 horses were assessed and found to be suitable for rehoming, and were found loving new homes by the RSPCA.



The other horses were assessed by our equine rehoming experts in the days after being signed over to us and were considered unsuitable for rehoming. Putting an animal to sleep is never taken lightly, but where these difficult decisions must be made it is better for the animal&#8217;s welfare if they are made quickly.

We had hundreds of horses in our care at the time, which had been assessed as suitable for rehoming, which we were struggling to find homes for.

 Thank you again for contacting us.

 Kind regards
 RSPCA Advice Team
		
Click to expand...

So they are still lying through their teeth.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 September 2015)

madlady said:



			Just thought I'd share this.

&#8230;&#8230;..

&#8230;&#8230;.. . Every single one of those horses had an AHS passport yet the AHS state (on their website) that you refused contact with them and the only updates they have had were to say that the horses had been rehomed. Why was this lie told and why does your website give such misleading information. 

&#8230;&#8230;..

The response from the RSPCA

Dear Tracey

&#8230;&#8230;..

&#8230;&#8230;.. The RSPCA has never refused to have have contact with the AHS but we do need to have closer cooperation and yesterday we had a positive and constructive meeting with the Society. As part of this we have agreed to establish firm points of contact in each organisation for us to liaise on issues such as rehoming and investigations. 

&#8230;&#8230;..

 Kind regards
 RSPCA Advice Team
		
Click to expand...

Someone isn't being that truthful,  and yet again,  I know where my money lies!  So whilst the rspca denies ignoring the advances of the AHS,  they now accept that 'we do need to have closer cooperation',  which would imply that they either did in fact have advances made which they ignored,  or that they see the previous lack of communication as being the responsibility of both parties.  

For how much longer will others tolerate the arrogance and what appears to be the duplicity of the rspca?

Alec.


----------



## Fenris (21 September 2015)

madlady said:



			I personally feel that the BHS should be the logical choice.  They are already the UK's biggest equine charity, already have very strong links to the 'horsey' community at a national level and already have (on the most part) knowledgeable welfare officers regionally.

For me it would not be a massive change for the BHS to appoint more welfare officers (and make them full time positions) if some of the funding currently going to the RSPCA went to them instead.  They (IMO) would do far more with it.
		
Click to expand...

Logical choice in terms of resources yes, but what about the will to act or take this on?


----------



## Alec Swan (21 September 2015)

madlady said:



			I personally feel that the BHS should be the logical choice.  They are already the UK's biggest equine charity, already have very strong links to the 'horsey' community at a national level and already have (on the most part) knowledgeable welfare officers regionally.

For me it would not be a massive change for the BHS to appoint more welfare officers (and make them full time positions) if some of the funding currently going to the RSPCA went to them instead.  They (IMO) would do far more with it.
		
Click to expand...

No charity should be granted the right to prosecution.  The roll of all charities is to provide the relevant and ethical bodies with the necessary evidence and there's a world of difference between the two and at times,  conflicting rolls.

Alec.


----------



## madlady (21 September 2015)

Fenris said:



			Logical choice in terms of resources yes, but what about the will to act or take this on?
		
Click to expand...

I've only ever had dealings with my local BHS officers who I've always found to be really helpful.  I know our local BHS welfare officer quite well (used to be on a livery yard with her many many years ago) and she would certainly jump at the chance to do more (and have the equine part taken away from the RSPCA as she has had nothing but arguments with them) do you have different experiences of them?

I certainly feel that, if they were given UK equine welfare as a 'responsibility' for them (obviously with a higher profile to attract more donations) that they should be able to do a good job and the indications are all there that they would take it on.


----------



## Fenris (21 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			No charity should be granted the right to prosecution.  The roll of all charities is to provide the relevant and ethical bodies with the necessary evidence and there's a world of difference between the two and at times,  conflicting rolls.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Remus were not talking about prosecuting.  Here are their aims:

Objectives of Remus Welfare Watch

The aim of the groups will be to:

Monitor a local situation or area we have identified where equines are potentially in crisis
To help put pressure on local authorities and/or landowners as appropriate and raise awareness to the public in order to resolve the situation
Organise and deliver food, water, rugs etc where required

http://www.remussanctuary.org/page/welfare-watch

In other words, the first thing to do is try and help.  If that doesn't work then the correct authorities have been notified.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 September 2015)

Fenris said:



			..

In other words, the first thing to do is try and help. .. .
		
Click to expand...

That should ALWAYS and WITHOUT FAIL be the opening approach of all those who feel that their timely assistance,  intervention or even interference is necessary.  

Alec.


----------



## madlady (21 September 2015)

I agree wholeheartedly with a lot of what Remus are proposing but, IMO, it needs to be a national organisation rather than a regional/local one.

We must remember that a lot of the calls that the RSPCA get regarding horses are from members of the public who phone them because they are known.  If another national organisation were to 'take over' as it were then it would be much easier to get that message across than moving to lots of regional organisations which could just become confusing.

BHS welfare officers currently work on a basis of education where they can - working with owners to improve conditions and welfare rather than rushing in and seizing - they only involve Police for removal if all else has failed.  

Whatever happens though I think that some organisation does need to 'take over' with regard to equine welfare in the UK.  The RSPCA just are not up to the job.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (21 September 2015)

Fenris said:



			Remus were not talking about prosecuting.  Here are their aims:

Objectives of Remus Welfare Watch

The aim of the groups will be to:

Monitor a local situation or area we have identified where equines are potentially in crisis
To help put pressure on local authorities and/or landowners as appropriate and raise awareness to the public in order to resolve the situation
Organise and deliver food, water, rugs etc where required

http://www.remussanctuary.org/page/welfare-watch

In other words, the first thing to do is try and help.  If that doesn't work then the correct authorities have been notified.
		
Click to expand...


Fenris, that is exactly what the BHS welfare dept does already in 4 stages: Visit, Monitor, Advice, Report. 
These 4 points above can be moved in any order, to suits the needs of the case.

A Welfare officer has as much 'clout' (for wont of a better word) as an RSPCA officer, however, a BHS officer cannot confiscate as the BHS has no longer got premises of its own. Thats when other welfare groups are of assistance round the country.


----------



## ester (21 September 2015)

madlady said:



			Dear Tracey



Thank you for your enquiry about the horses in the Peel case. You raise two issues on this matter. 



Firstly our contacts with the Arab Horse Society. The RSPCA has never refused to have have contact with the AHS but we do need to have closer cooperation and yesterday we had a positive and constructive meeting with the Society. 
*too late to have a meeting now, if they didn't refuse why didn't they contact them, if nothing more but to send the passports back*
As part of this we have agreed to establish firm points of contact in each organisation for us to liaise on issues such as rehoming and investigations. The RSPCA does not get many Arab horses in its care but where we do we agree it is best to work closely with the AHS on rehoming them so that we get the best outcome we can for the horses in our care, which is after all always our underlying aim. 
*The AHS have  welfare officer, surely this would be the obvious contact??*


Secondly on ownership of the horses. The horses signed over to us were all legally owned by the defendant. We have not been contacted at any time by anyone claiming ownership of them, or by anyone claiming that their horse was 'on loan' to the defendant. 
*If this is the case is that because nobody knew where these horses were/who had them happa/rspca/rehomed etc?*
Additionally, of the passports we have* so they did have some passports and did not return to the POI?*, none have other people named as the owners. Many of these horses had veterinary, health and behavioural issues and so were euthanised under veterinary advice. Two of the 14 horses were assessed and found to be suitable for rehoming, and were found loving new homes by the RSPCA. *Two! Also given that on the basis of veterinary advice they did not do anything about carrot and spud I don't always rate their veterinary advice* 

The other horses were assessed by our equine rehoming experts s*orry who!?* in the days after being signed over to us and were considered unsuitable for rehoming. Putting an animal to sleep is never taken lightly, but where these difficult decisions must be made it is better for the animal&#8217;s welfare if they are made quickly. *Only if there is an acute need *

We had hundreds of horses in our care at the time, which had been assessed as suitable for rehoming, which we were struggling to find homes for.
*Well yes, and we know what sort of horse most of them are, unbroken youngsters or 'broken' field companions.*

 Thank you again for contacting us.

 Kind regards
 RSPCA Advice Team
		
Click to expand...

hmph.


----------



## Fenris (22 September 2015)

Finally!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34314004

RSPCA prosecution powers 'to be examined by MPs'
By Jim Reed
Reporter, Victoria Derbyshire programme

A group of MPs is planning to launch a formal inquiry into the powers of the RSPCA and other animal charities, the BBC has learned.
It will examine whether the RSPCA should be allowed to both investigate and prosecute cases of animal cruelty.
Neil Parish, chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, said it was important the "right cases" were taken to court.
The RSPCA says the private prosecutions it brings saves government £50m a year.
In 2014, the charity brought charges relating to animal cruelty against 1,132 people in England and Wales. It is the second biggest prosecutor in the UK, behind the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Its prosecution case managers, responsible for bringing charges, are not solicitors or barristers.

[...]


----------



## ester (22 September 2015)

I signed into post the same having had it sent to me by magistrate mate.


----------



## be positive (22 September 2015)

This is a step in the right direction, they have been abusing their power of prosecution for far too long and while it may save £50m a year it is not always prosecuting the right cases or ones that are really in the public interests, they tend to target either big cases that will make headlines or the vulnerable who do not know their rights and are easy targets.

They may be learning from their mistakes but seemingly not fast enough as they have been targeting the vulnerable for many years, this quote is taken from the link,  Regarding the RSPCA's treatment of the vulnerable, Mr Bowles said that while the charity "isn't perfect", it was learning from mistakes.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 September 2015)

The claim that the rspca 'saves' the CPS £50 million a year is complete bunkum. The correct prosecuting authorities wouldn't be swayed by political agenda and wouldn't go ahead with cases which were clearly without foundation,  or were so weak that there was no hope of success.  The rspca also and already claim most of the costs of failure from the Courts anyway,  so the costs to this country are such that we already support the rspca in its often careless approach.  It's all 'spin' supported by mistruths.

The rspca,  previously,  were an advisory body and one which presented evidence when it was requested.  They should be returned to that roll.

Considering their shameful and clearly dishonest approach to their current powers,  then the support of Royal patronage should be withdrawn.

Alec.


----------



## madlady (22 September 2015)

Finally - some progress.  Lets hope the ball is kept rolling.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 September 2015)

be positive said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. , Mr Bowles said that while the charity "isn't perfect", it was learning from mistakes.
		
Click to expand...

Had Mr. Bowles accepted that the rspca had all along been very well aware that it had been abusing its powers,  and that with a change of senior management so these short comings would be addressed,  then we may have a little respect for them,  but to now claim that they've made 'mistakes' in the face of continual and constrictive criticism,  is laughable.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 September 2015)

Fenris said:



			Finally!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34314004

RSPCA prosecution powers 'to be examined by MPs'
By Jim Reed
Reporter, Victoria Derbyshire programme

..
It will examine whether the RSPCA should be allowed to both investigate and prosecute cases of animal cruelty.
..

[...]
		
Click to expand...

The CPS,  correctly,  rely upon the investigative powers of the Police who answer to the Courts AND the CPS for any evidence offered which is found to be perjury.  To have the powers of investigation and prosecution invested in the same body is a near certain route,  as will be obvious to most and as has clearly happened,  to corruption.

Alec.


----------



## Jill Lloyd (22 September 2015)

I'd like to see the facts and figures behind the claim to saving £50 million a year.  How can they possibly say that when there is:
1.  Court time - not paid for by the RSPCA
2.  Legal Aid - most people prosecuted have applied for Legal Aid (it may not be avaialble noow) - not paid for by the RSPCA
3.  Police costs - to deal with threats and violence against "abusers" not paid by the RSPCA
4.  Benefits - when most accused and their families are forced out their homes and jobs - not paid by the RSPCA
5.  NHS costs - when the families of the accused are caught up in the whole thing, stress, heart attacks, mental health issues - not paid by the RSPCA

The decision to prosecute is made by people who are neither solicitors nor barristers.  What is the average cost of an RSPCA trial?  How much to their "expert" witnesses get paid?  How much to the Prosecution barristers get paid?

The investigations are conducted by people who have no legal or evidentiary training so when a case does get to Court there are many questions raised about the quality of the evidence.

A public enquiry is definitely needed.  

The RSPCA has become a self appointed prosecutory body without the controls and conduct requirements of the judiciary.  They are not required to meet evidentiary standards, they are not subject to judicial review, they have no powers to act, no powers of entry, no powers of seizure.  The people who seize the animals are the police not the RSPCA.  Do the various Police Forces in the country realise that they too could get caught up in this fiasco because everyone has abdicated responsibility for animal welfare to the RSPCA who are neither trained nor competent in the role of prosecutor.


----------



## be positive (22 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			The CPS,  correctly,  rely upon the investigative powers of the Police who answer to the Courts AND the CPS for any evidence offered which is found to be perjury.  To have the powers of investigation and prosecution invested in the same body is a near certain route,  as will be obvious to most,  to corruption.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

There has always been a conflict of interest with the prosecution side often taking precedence over the "prevention of cruelty" they are supposed to be there for, often in the interests of prosecuting they leave animals to suffer until they are beyond help, in big cases they normally have a few dead ones, whereas if they went in and advised, the vulnerable people often just require a prod in the right direction to get veterinary help, rather than go in all guns blazing threatening prosecution many animals and their owners would be better off but it does not make headline news to do this.


----------



## AmieeT (22 September 2015)

Rspca's powers are being discussed now on the Victoria Derbyshire segmenton the Beeb.


----------



## DD (22 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			No charity should be granted the right to prosecution.  The roll of all charities is to provide the relevant and ethical bodies with the necessary evidence and there's a world of difference between the two and at times,  conflicting rolls.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^
this


----------



## Alec Swan (22 September 2015)

Jill Lloyd said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

A public enquiry is definitely needed.  

The RSPCA has become a self appointed prosecutory body without the controls and conduct requirements of the judiciary.  They are not required to meet evidentiary standards, they are not subject to judicial review, they have no powers to act, no powers of entry, no powers of seizure.  The people who seize the animals are the police not the RSPCA.  Do the various Police Forces in the country realise that they too could get caught up in this fiasco because everyone has abdicated responsibility for animal welfare to the RSPCA who are neither trained nor competent in the role of prosecutor.
		
Click to expand...

Your very well expressed views are at the centre of concern.  The danger,  as must be obvious,  is that with the rspca's 'claimed' successes, so logically, they would be desirous of having their powers extended to allow them the same facilities that are grated to the Police and Trading Standards as they've already publicly stated.  Without any apparent requirement upon them to consider the condition of perjury,  so our justice system will go in to free-fall.

The main problem,  as I see it,  is that with our previous system so the Courts have to make decisions which are based on clear and professional evidence.  A qualified Vet representing the rspca will have their evidence countered by the evidence provided by the support of another qualified Vet and from the defence counsel.  

I was once facing the rspca over a calamitous situation when I had a large flock of sheep which were lambing and were infected by Enzootic Abortion (a highly contagious disease).  I had 132 dead lambs born in three days,  with many that were surviving which would also fail.  At no point would the visiting rspca officials accept that whilst the sheep were my responsibility the fault was not mine,  and at such an advanced stage of the lambing window,  so treatment would be ineffective.  At no point in this distressing situation was there any level of sympathy or understanding because those who visited the land concerned simply had no idea what they were talking about.  They were ignorant of the facts and had no interest in understanding.

Both my attending Vet,  and I explained to them,  in no uncertain terms that they were worsening a difficult situation.  My Vet stayed calm,  I didn't.  The rspca eventually withdrew and left me to the chaos.  Had my Vet not given me support,  and through no fault of mine,  I would most probably been bankrupted,  with no thought given to the welfare of either my sheep nor I.

Alec.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (22 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			They were ignorant of the facts and had no interest in understanding.
		
Click to expand...

This is something that sadly comes up time and again. 

I wholeheartedly support the investigation into the RSPCA and their prosecutions. It should have been done a long time ago.


----------



## cobgoblin (22 September 2015)

On the RSPCA Facebook site they are claiming a 98.9% success rate for prosecutions. Does anyone else find that alarmingly high, or even abnormal?


----------



## Equi (22 September 2015)

cobgoblin said:



			On the RSPCA Facebook site they are claiming a 98.9% success rate for prosecutions. Does anyone else find that alarmingly high, or even abnormal?
		
Click to expand...

I would say a lot of it is bully tactics.


----------



## ycbm (22 September 2015)

Jill Lloyd said:



			I'd like to see the facts and figures behind the claim to saving £50 million a year.  How can they possibly say that when there is:
1.  Court time - not paid for by the RSPCA
2.  Legal Aid - most people prosecuted have applied for Legal Aid (it may not be avaialble noow) - not paid for by the RSPCA
3.  Police costs - to deal with threats and violence against "abusers" not paid by the RSPCA
4.  Benefits - when most accused and their families are forced out their homes and jobs - not paid by the RSPCA
5.  NHS costs - when the families of the accused are caught up in the whole thing, stress, heart attacks, mental health issues - not paid by the RSPCA

The decision to prosecute is made by people who are neither solicitors nor barristers.  What is the average cost of an RSPCA trial?  How much to their "expert" witnesses get paid?  How much to the Prosecution barristers get paid?

The investigations are conducted by people who have no legal or evidentiary training so when a case does get to Court there are many questions raised about the quality of the evidence.

A public enquiry is definitely needed.  

The RSPCA has become a self appointed prosecutory body without the controls and conduct requirements of the judiciary.  They are not required to meet evidentiary standards, they are not subject to judicial review, they have no powers to act, no powers of entry, no powers of seizure.  The people who seize the animals are the police not the RSPCA.  Do the various Police Forces in the country realise that they too could get caught up in this fiasco because everyone has abdicated responsibility for animal welfare to the RSPCA who are neither trained nor competent in the role of prosecutor.
		
Click to expand...


In addition to this, the RSPCA prosecute where the Police would issue a caution or a conditional caution for a first offence. These cautions are not available to the RSPCA. 

 And the RSPCA routinely use Crown Court self employed barristers to prosecute the simplest case. Their costs are extortionate, many times that of a CPS prosecutor.


----------



## ycbm (22 September 2015)

cobgoblin said:



			On the RSPCA Facebook site they are claiming a 98.9% success rate for prosecutions. Does anyone else find that alarmingly high, or even abnormal?
		
Click to expand...

It could simply be a sign that the people they prosecute are actually guilty and that they don't prosecute unless the case is very strong.  CPS, I think, will prosecute when the chance of winning is greater than 50%

There have been two cases near me. One a starved dog who thrived in the care of my local rehoming centre with no difficult feeding needs as the owner claimed. The second the chairman of a local riding club who allowed a horse to starve to death in. a field.

Both as guilty as sin. Only a tiny proportion of RSPCA prosecutions, in my opinion, are of innocent people.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is no question whatsoever that the RSPCA should have criminal justice removed from their remit.


----------



## ycbm (22 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Your very well expressed views are at the centre of concern.  The danger,  as must be obvious,  is that with the rspca's 'claimed' successes, so logically, they would be desirous of having their powers extended to allow them the same facilities that are grated to the Police and Trading Standards as they've already publicly stated.  Without any apparent requirement upon them to consider the condition of perjury,  so our justice system will go in to free-fall.

The main problem,  as I see it,  is that with our previous system so the Courts have to make decisions which Iare based on clear and professional evidence.  A qualified Vet representing the rspca will have their evidence countered by the evidence provided by the support of another qualified Vet and from the defence counsel.  

I was once facing the rspca over a calamitous situation when I had a large flock of sheep which were lambing and were infected by Enzootic Abortion (a highly contagious disease).  I had 132 dead lambs born in three days,  with many that were surviving which would also fail.  At no point would the visiting rspca officials accept that whilst the sheep were my responsibility the fault was not mine,  and at such an advanced stage of the lambing window,  so treatment would be ineffective.  At no point in this distressing situation was there any level of sympathy or understanding because those who visited the land concerned simply had no idea what they were talking about.  They were ignorant of the facts and had no interest in understanding.

Both my attending Vet,  and I explained to them,  in no uncertain terms that they were worsening a difficult situation.  My Vet stayed calm,  I didn't.  The rspca eventually withdrew and left me to the chaos.  Had my Vet not given me support,  and through no fault of mine,  I would most probably been bankrupted,  with no thought given to the welfare of either my sheep nor I.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...



There's no doubt that they are inadequately trained. I once had a lovely young RSPCA  inspector tell me that her colleagues in another area were expressing great surprise that she was dealing with a starved horse because the yard he had come from was spotless clean and immaculately maintained.  They equated perfectly kept grass with good management and didn't question what the grass kept horses were actually getting to eat if there was no hay in the fields


----------



## ester (22 September 2015)

From those I know of through said magistrate friend it they do often have no option but to find the defendant guilty but it is often complicated by said defendents being elderly and vulnerable who had sought veterinary advice and had some issues and fell fowl of the law. As an animal lover he just says he sees a lot of people where a bit of help and advice would have resolved the situation rather than taking them to court over it. - In such instances they don't do much re. sentencing.

I don't believe that stat though and would like to see the actual numbers and what the resultant sentencing was.


----------



## ycbm (22 September 2015)

ester said:



			From those I know of through said magistrate friend it they do often have no option but to find the defendant guilty but it is often complicated by said defendents being elderly and vulnerable who had sought veterinary advice and had some issues and fell fowl of the law. As an animal lover he just says he sees a lot of people where a bit of help and advice would have resolved the situation rather than taking them to court over it. - In such instances they don't do much re. sentencing.

I don't believe that stat though and would like to see the actual numbers and what the resultant sentencing was.
		
Click to expand...


Ester those are exactly the people who should be dealt with by a gentle police caution while Sat with a cup of tea I the local Police Station. So it's on record, in case of future problems, but over and done with at minimal cost.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 September 2015)

The answer,  it seems to me is that the rspca get their house in order,  and before their current freedom is curtailed,  heavily.  Will they?  Will they ****,  the level of their supreme arrogance remains intact.

Alec.


----------



## Jill Lloyd (22 September 2015)

The 98.9% success rate is, in my opinion, reflective of the Court in which the cases are held.  Animal Welfare cases are Summary Cases meaning they are expected to be dealt with promptly at one of the lower Courts in the country - Magistrates' Court.  Often in Magistrates' Courts the presiding Magistrates are not legally trained.  "Magistrates are volunteers who hear cases in courts in their community." (source:  https://www.gov.uk/become-magistrate/what-magistrates-do).  The RSPCA is selective about which photographs it includes in its evidence and the vast majority of people when faced with photos of "abused" animals will feel outraged and it is human nature to condemn those accused of causing such a situation.  

So, untrained, vounteers look at photos of ungroomed animals, lean animals, photos taken at dusk, animals taken out of context, and they convict.

Most solicitors are not equipped to deal with the complexities and nuances of animal welfare law and the Magistrates certainly aren't.

Animal welfare should be tried on points of law not on raw emotion.

Which leads on to the use of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).  This Act refers to the conduct of the police when interviewing under caution.  The RSPCA also issue cautions but is this valid?  Firstly, one of the requirements of PACE is that the person being interviewed is entitled to free legal advice which in the case of the police is the duty solicitor.  When the RSPCA interviews under caution it does not offer free legal advice and therefore it is not compliant with PACE.  Secondly, when the police interview under caution, that caution applies for the duration of the interview and should a person need to be interviewed a second time, a futher caution is given.  The RSPCA however are operating under the illusion that a caution is indefinite and therefore having been interviewed under (albeit non compliant) caution, the RSPCA inspectors then tell the "abuser" that they are still under caution days later, when the abuser is desperately trying to find out what happened to their animals that the police removed at the say so of the RSPCA and a tame vet.

They may have a high success rate of convictions but how many are over turned at Appeal when the Crown Court is presided over by qualified and experienced judges and the issues on which judgments are made are points of law, not volume of tears.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 September 2015)

^^^^ yet another excellent post.

Alec.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (22 September 2015)

From my contact with SSPCA personnel, and after all they select their staff to represent them from minor to higher level, they are variable in quality, and are not totally on the side of the animal or in my case [pony being starved and no water] they did not give me good independant advice, I got the horse back but it was not thanks to the Society it was due to my bank balance. They never contacted me, and surely as the owner I was entitled to know what was happening? I asked the police to call them in, but as the "attending vet" had seen these animal a week before and done nothing, she was not going to incriminate either her client or herself.
The vet told the police the  my horse was in "good condition", yet the spinal processes were showing. They had no hay, no water, and no hard feed.
They don't all have equine knowledge in the same way that WHW does for example, and they have to call a vet in, which would be fine if the vet was independant of the client. This must be another issue that needs addressed.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (22 September 2015)

The current case that has raised his issue, it it possible/likely that the owners will seek financial compensation ....... we know the horses are dead, but should the Society walk away?
I am very much in favour of animal rights in a civilised society, but unfortunately "Animal Rights" is a collection of extremists who mostly react on a whim and have no understanding of animal welfare.


----------



## Equi (22 September 2015)

Jill Lloyd said:



			So, untrained, vounteers look at photos of ungroomed animals, lean animals, photos taken at dusk, animals taken out of context, and they convict.
		
Click to expand...

Every picture of every horse in winter will be good for a conviction then!


----------



## madlady (22 September 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			The current case that has raised his issue, it it possible/likely that the owners will seek financial compensation ....... we know the horses are dead, but should the Society walk away?
I am very much in favour of animal rights in a civilised society, but unfortunately "Animal Rights" is a collection of extremists who mostly react on a whim and have no understanding of animal welfare.
		
Click to expand...

No the society should not walk away - nor should they be allowed to.

This should have been sorted out ages ago, it is a total farce that the RSPCA are even allowed to bring their own prosecutions and it's an absolute crying shame that it has taken something like this for some action to be taken.

I just hope that this investigation does go all the way and that real changes are made as a result - not just the usual load of platitudes that we are normally given.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (22 September 2015)

I also think that the very serious 'error' of lying to the court RE claiming for stabling fees of dead horses should be properly investigated.


----------



## Equi (22 September 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06bc9hx/victoria-derbyshire-22092015

RSPCA on victoria derbyshire show. Of course there is a few "fox hunting" freaks claiming the whole UK politics is a big conspiracy to get it back lol


----------



## cobgoblin (22 September 2015)

RSPCA England and Wales on Facebook seems to have 'lost' about a week of it's timeline. Which posts do you think that week contained?


----------



## Meowy Catkin (24 September 2015)

Has anyone read the article in H&H magazine on this?


----------



## Alec Swan (24 September 2015)

Faracat said:



			Has anyone read the article in H&H magazine on this?
		
Click to expand...

No,  we don't take the H&H mag.  Could you post it on here?

Alec.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 September 2015)




----------



## Meowy Catkin (24 September 2015)

Thanks TP. It's a bit shorter and less in depth than I had hoped for.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 September 2015)

Faracat said:



			It's a bit shorter and less in depth than I had hoped for.
		
Click to expand...

I agree. It's ok as a news item, but I hope that there is more to come from H&H on the subject.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 September 2015)

It wouldn't surprise me to find that the person who wrote that article saved themselves the trouble of research and gleaned what they needed from this thread! 

Alec.


----------



## ester (24 September 2015)

No mention of them claiming livery for dead horses either. Not sure that was worth the weeks delay!


----------



## Equi (25 September 2015)

Posted to hho Facebook now.


----------



## madlady (28 September 2015)

I expected a bit more from H&H TBH.  Although it does show that the RSPCA having them PTS as 'unable to re-home' is a load of bull.


----------



## Fenris (29 September 2015)

madlady said:



			I expected a bit more from H&H TBH.  Although it does show that the RSPCA having them PTS as 'unable to re-home' is a load of bull.
		
Click to expand...

H&H must be very sore after sitting on the fence for so long over this one 

Here's another article on the subject

https://cdanews.com/2015/09/more-public-outrage-follows-rspcas-shooting-of-eleven-healthy-horses/




			Public outrage against the RSPCA is focused on the number of animals put down each year after they have been rescued by the charity. Many people want to know why the charity does not do more to help owners take care of their pets or to re-home neglected animals. In the case of the eleven horses that the RSPCA killed, people are angry because the act was a senseless loss of life that could have been prevented had the RSPCA reached out to the horse community, especially previous owners and breeders.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## madlady (29 September 2015)

I really really want to see the RSPCA go through a thorough investigation as I feel really strongly that they just can't carry on like this.

I'm happy to start a petition, write to people, whatever I can do really but what are people's thoughts on what would be the best thing to do to get some real action?


----------



## Equi (29 September 2015)

The only thing that can realistically be done is to remove the power of RSPCA to give the final word about an animal being PTS (i dont think this woudl ever happen) or to insist that every prosecution they bring to the courts must be independantly investigated.


----------



## Jill Lloyd (29 September 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			It wouldn't surprise me to find that the person who wrote that article saved themselves the trouble of research and gleaned what they needed from this thread! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I would say so too.  Or maybe they were contacted by the people who appear to hate both the RSPCA and the owner of the horses.

From what I've gleaned from elsewhere, the H&H article, the RSPCA statement and the AHS statement are all somewhat questionable.

Did anyone actually attend the Court hearing and listen from start to end?  That surely is the one place the facts were stated and everything else is opinion?


----------



## Meowy Catkin (29 September 2015)

Jill Lloyd said:



			Did anyone actually attend the Court hearing and listen from start to end?  That surely is the one place the facts were stated and everything else is opinion?
		
Click to expand...

Both Catherine and Christine did. They are both on AL and Christine is on here and has responded to this thread.


----------



## Jill Lloyd (29 September 2015)

Faracat said:



			Both Catherine and Christine did. They are both on AL and Christine is on here and has responded to this thread.
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's quite true.  From people I know who were there, there was only one member of the public (the same person) for an hour or so on the morning of day 1 and a couple of hours later on (in the second week I think).

From what I've been told, the member of the public wasn't there for any of the Defence, nor the claim from Cooper Wilson that he shot them and she didn't see any cross examination by the Defence.

The names and fate of all the horses was, I believe, stated very clearly in Court.  If Christine/Catherine was/were there, don't they know?

I've been led to believe the only constant members attending throughout the whole trial were the legal teams from both sides, the experts from both sides and various RSPCA Inspectors.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (29 September 2015)

OK. I wasn't there myself, so must have misunderstood how often they, or one of them attended the case.


----------



## be positive (29 September 2015)

Jill Lloyd said:



			I don't believe that's quite true.  From people I know who were there, there was only one member of the public (the same person) for an hour or so on the morning of day 1 and a couple of hours later on (in the second week I think).

From what I've been told, the member of the public wasn't there for any of the Defence, nor the claim from Cooper Wilson that he shot them and she didn't see any cross examination by the Defence.

The names and fate of all the horses was, I believe, stated very clearly in Court.  If Christine/Catherine was/were there, don't they know?

I've been led to believe the only constant members attending throughout the whole trial were the legal teams from both sides, the experts from both sides and various RSPCA Inspectors.
		
Click to expand...

If the names and fates were clearly stated in court why was this statement given by the AHS recently, surely the horses were already identified so no reason to have to be "patient as it will take some time" even if they were only known by stable names they could have been disclosed during the meeting, the passports should have been checked at some point, the vet who did the early checks is quoted as noting one had a mechanical lameness declared in his passport so presumably he had access to it and could recognise the animal he was looking at .


I have this morning had a rewarding meeting with the Head of Public Affairs and Staff Officer, Inspectorate Department at the RSPCA head office. We had a good meeting and now have set up a communication system which I'm sure will be of benefit both to the Arab Horse Society and the RSPCA. The RSPCA are going to do their utmost to identify the horses which were only known by stable names and not registered names. Please be patient as this will take sometime, but I am confident that this will come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/foru...ep-fees-for-months/page27#mVFFJKLQHqCrBbMw.99


----------



## Jill Lloyd (29 September 2015)

Got it in one!

Surely the horses were "evidence" so each one would have to be catalogued with its name and description.  The identity of the horses has to be known as is their fate.

A little bit of backside covering by the AHS and RSPCA methinks!

To use a totally inapppropriate metaphor - they really have shut the door after the horse was shot!


----------



## chillipup (29 September 2015)

I think the prosecution and destruction of the horses removed are now becoming separate matters. There is to be an official inquiry/investigation into the RSPCA regarding their role in both investigation and prosecution of animal related cases (I think this has been on the cards for some time)

However, if the horses destroyed in this case were indeed signed over to the RSPCA then they would be within their rights and have the "power," as the new legal owners, to make any decision (good or bad) on the future of the horses and apparently it was the RSPCA's own specialist Equine Officers who were brought in to decided their fate. (The RSPCA also, I believe have ordinary Inspectors who specialize in dealing with exotic animals, wild animals, flood rescues involving animals, rescues from cliffs/down wells (rope rescues) to name a few)

 I am bewildered as to why the RSPCA didn't communicate with the AHS and feel it a great shame any other leading horse welfare organisations weren't given the opportunity to take on these horses - or were they? (I understand HAPPY took some and later had them destroyed) but why not any others? Were none of the big ones contacted? were they all full too?) 


Please remember RSPCA Inspectors do not have any powers in law unlike the powers of the Police but they do have to strictly adhere to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and have done since 1984 when it was introduced, in both their investigations and interviews. They have to use the PACE caution in the same manner as the Police when interviewing but add that the the person being interviewed is not under arrest and does not have to stay with the Inspector, may leave at any time and seek legal advice at any time. If the caution is shown not to have been given correctly the prosecution case would be thrown out of court in the first intance, if indeed it ever got there in the first place.

Any one of the animal charities/organisations (and I understand any civil body/person) can investigate and bring a prosecution to court if they so wished. This includes the BHS, WHW, HAPPA, etc. However, the RSPCA has always investigated and prosecuted ever since their formation back in 1824 and have never been just an advisory body.

 I'm led to believe Student Inspectors have to complete at least six months of practical and theory in all aspects of animal welfare and law, with numerous exams having to be successfully completed before they are able to qualify as an Inspector. Therefore, having had so many years of practice and with the majority of prosecutions taken being successful, should the RSPCA now be relieved of any duty as regards equines? Haven't they got it right in most cases? Should they now just shut down their own equine facilities and stop all equine investigations leading to prosecution?
 Perhaps the BHS and/or others should now step up and take on this role as regards investigation and prosecution involving equines but in reality do any of them have the experience, expertise or even the inclination?

 Perhaps for the time being, they should at least all get together to discuss the issues and maybe each agree to take on their individual quota of any equines involved in RSPCA prosecutions? Then they should all agree on what to do with any excess!

 One last question, does the BHS actually rescue/rehabilitate and rehome any equines? Do they have their own facilities for this?

I don't know where the answers lie, and without a full transcript of the court proceedings in the Peel case I still feel really lost about the whole thing. I just thought I'd put my pennith worth in with some of my own queries and ideas. Please be gentle with me I'm still a newbie. x

chillipup.


----------



## Flame_ (30 September 2015)

If I understood correctly from AL, the two ladies who attended the hearing have bought the court papers, though I've no idea if these are a full transcript.


----------



## ribbons (30 September 2015)

Madlady, if you or anyone else wish to offer help and support to those who are not prepared to let this horrific situation drop, you can do so by going on to Arabian Lines. The thread is titled 'anyone have a date' on page 16 is a post from Edgevale asking if anyone wishes to help then contact her by pm.


----------



## Jill Lloyd (30 September 2015)

Magistrates' Court don't have the same transcripts as Crown Court.

There weren't "two ladies" who attended the trial. There was one for less than 4 hours of a 5 week trial.

The transfer of ownership contract is open to abuse. The keeper can sign over without the owner's knowledge or permission.  As you say though, once the document is signed, the RSPCA has control of the animals' fate. 

If none of the horses in this case needed to be shot on welfare grounds, and the owner was not guilty of any charge in respect of these horses, something isn't right and that links the RSPCA'shooting and their prosecution.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (30 September 2015)

Jill Lloyd said:



			Magistrates' Court don't have the same transcripts as Crown Court.

There weren't "two ladies" who attended the trial. There was one for less than 4 hours of a 5 week trial.

The transfer of ownership contract is open to abuse. The keeper can sign over without the owner's knowledge or permission.  As you say though, once the document is signed, the RSPCA has control of the animals' fate. 

If none of the horses in this case needed to be shot on welfare grounds, and the owner was not guilty of any charge in respect of these horses, something isn't right and that links the RSPCA'shooting and their prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

sorry,, can't keep up here, but this is the nub of the matter, is someone going to prosecute, if so who will do it?  The police?


----------



## Meowy Catkin (30 September 2015)

I thought that the whole point was that the Police give their evidence to the CPS, who then decide whether to prosecute or not and that the same should be the case for the RSPCA. They should also give their evidence to the CPS.

I do wonder why the 'clerical error' of claiming livery for dead horses has been allowed to slip by without any apparent further investigation.


----------



## Archangel (30 September 2015)

Jill Lloyd said:



			If none of the horses in this case needed to be shot on welfare grounds, and the owner was not guilty of any charge in respect of these horses, something isn't right and that links the RSPCA'shooting and their prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

I agree something isn't right at all.  She was only prosecuted on 4 counts yet 31 horses and 7 dogs were involved.  Surely then the animals not named in the counts should be returned to her or for the horses on loan to their rightful owners - but the RSPCA had already destroyed them - were the RSPCA so certain of a prosecution that they killed them anyway?   Smacks of a massive bungle.  

Why did they persist in calling the horses by their pet names - they should be referred to throughout the trial by their passported names. 

Two things trouble me a lot - all those dead horses round the farm.  How did they die when the others that we have seen were not hat racks.  The other thing is the video with the dogs.  My God all that excrement - when did those dogs last get let out. I only counted 2 dogs - poor things all waggy tailed and standing in their own ... Really anyone who keeps animals like that should have their head examined.


----------



## ester (30 September 2015)

She signed them over so they were never going back to her.


----------



## Jill Lloyd (30 September 2015)

I haven't seen a video - could you please tell me where that is.

And Esther - are you absolutely sure she signed over the horses? Given the amount of misinformation circling about, does anyone know 100% that it was her that signed them over? 

And has anyone, anywhere got proof that horses were on loan or is this yet more speculation?


----------



## Archangel (30 September 2015)

Thanks Ester.  So in fact the RSPCA got her to sign over animals that she couldn't cope with and they couldn't cope with either.   What a sad sad affair.


----------



## Archangel (30 September 2015)

The video is at the bottom
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/peel-arab-horses-rescued-rspca-put-down-511288


----------



## Jill Lloyd (30 September 2015)

Thank you.

I do remember hearing someone say that the dog photos were taken after the 4 large dogs had been shut in that room according to RSPCA instruction and they weren't removed by them for over 12 hours. No wonder there's so much mess! They look like lovely dogs.


----------



## ester (30 September 2015)

RSPCA statement 'signed over'
http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/0615_2

The fact they were signed over makes a lot more sense than a seizure given the later situation. It was discussed a fair bit back on page 1.


----------



## ester (30 September 2015)

Jill Lloyd said:



			Thank you.

I do remember hearing someone say that the dog photos were taken after the 4 large dogs had been shut in that room according to RSPCA instruction and they weren't removed by them for over 12 hours. No wonder there's so much mess! They look like lovely dogs.
		
Click to expand...

ah that unknown 'someone'


----------



## Jill Lloyd (30 September 2015)

Not unknown to me ;-)


----------



## ester (30 September 2015)

That doesn't really help anyone else make a judgement on that information though does it? A random person on the internet was told by another random person...


----------



## Fenris (1 October 2015)

ester said:



			That doesn't really help anyone else make a judgement on that information though does it? A random person on the internet was told by another random person...
		
Click to expand...

The problem is that a lot of the information in this case is not yet (as always) in the public domain, and because time limitations have not yet run out on certain actions that might be, or are, in hand, it can not yet be made public.  That leaves the RSPCA in a win situation in terms of public opinion.


----------



## ester (1 October 2015)

Of course, I was just a bit riled about being asked if I knew for certain that they were signed over - for which I was able to provide the RSPCA statement to then have the same person posting afawk random speculation.


----------



## Fenris (3 October 2015)

Please sign and share

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/109469

Petition
Remove the prosecution rights of the RSPCA

At the moment the RSPCA abuse their position to seize and prosecute innocent and vulnerable owners of animals, leading to extortionate costs. A number of these convictions are made on the evidence of lies by the RSPCA. It is wrong for the same organisation to investigate and prosecute.

More details
To get a fair trial of the accused it would be better for the Crown Prosecution Services to take any prosecution forward


----------



## honetpot (3 October 2015)

I have signed the above but I do not really think its worded correctly. The RSPCA has no more right than you or I, what they have got is loads of money which they use to pay lawyers to take on private prosecutions where the CPS has either decided not to get involved in or decided there is not enough evidence to convict.
  It would be far better if the Charities Commission prevented them from using money to use in these prosecutions, it would also be a lot quicker than trying to change a law.


----------



## Fenris (4 October 2015)

honetpot said:



			I have signed the above but I do not really think its worded correctly. The RSPCA has no more right than you or I, what they have got is loads of money which they use to pay lawyers to take on private prosecutions where the CPS has either decided not to get involved in or decided there is not enough evidence to convict.
  It would be far better if the Charities Commission prevented them from using money to use in these prosecutions, it would also be a lot quicker than trying to change a law.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed that the petition is badly worded, however it is far better to go with this one than to dilute potential support by starting another when we have the EFRA investigation looming.  

There are several possible routes to prevent the RSPCA from bringing private prosecutions.

Amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (and other acts that they use) so that they are no longer common informers acts. 

Amend the 1932 RSPCA Act so that the RSPCA can no longer prosecute. (The Act is both the RSPCA's strength and weakness - they lost 100,000 some years ago for failing to adhere to it)

Limit the right to bring private prosecutions so that any individual or organisation instituting more than 10 or 20 prosecutions a year must register, pay a licence fee and be subject to proper inspection, an ombudsman paid for out of registration fees, with the ombudsman or regulator having the power to order financial compensation to those who have lost or suffered.


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 October 2015)

Fenris said:



			Agreed that the petition is badly worded, however it is far better to go with this one than to dilute potential support by starting another.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear, this petition is well meaning, but I wish more time had been taken to draft it out, preferably by someone with legal experience. 

For instance, the opening line-

'*At the moment the RSPCA abuse their position to seize and prosecute innocent and vulnerable owners of animals'*

Erm, even the RSPCA are not seizing the owners, just their animals... It's well meaning but amateurish I'm afraid, which will dilute its impact.


----------



## Equi (4 October 2015)

I too agree this is a bad petition unfortuantely. Had so much potential. They have no powers, thats the thing. They in my opinion should not be allowed to investigate AND prosecute that is always going to mean the investigation sides with the prosecution. I know that is kind of what the petition means, but not entirely. I don't think they should stop prosecuting, they just need to have an independant body to look over evidence, and decide if they go to court or not for a prosecution. For example if you saw on paper "16yo cat, looks a bit rough cause it is old so was forced to be pts by us despite vet saying it was actually in ok health, now we want to sue the owner for keeping a cat for 16 years in good health" you would not even dream of wasting money taking it to court. 

Which brings me to my next point - how much say do vets have? I know some will put anything to sleep. But in that case, they did say it was not the worst cat they had seen at that age but it was still killed. Do vets believe the RSPCA have the power to tell them what to do?


----------

