# RSPCA



## elijahasgal (22 October 2012)

I post this not knowing what others think of this society.
I really really dont like them
Especially where horses are concerned.
I got harassed once by them years ago, and when I say harassed......
Because I had sprained my back, and was not for a few days able to clear poo from around the ad lib haylage bale in a ring feeder, so their back feer were in muck. not one other thing could they find fault with, for this I was visited and harassed repeatedly for about 2 months. 

That said, the fact that they are more political than useful now, especially where our equines are concerned (cause they cost a lot of money to keep) 
I dont like them. I know too many inside stories now.  But I put my case down to youth, and naievity in dealing with them

But today a friend of mine told me of harassment that she is receiving from them.  She is suing a buisness because of trouble that they caused her.  She believes that they have put in a complaint, to start this.
I have known this lady 25 years. She works in racing, deals mainly in mares, youngstock, but regually takes in rescues, and rehomes them, saving them from being put down.  All her horses (minus rescues just in) are in fantastic condition. 
RSPCA inspector comes not happy that the horses are turned out as the fields wet, and there is mud.(we are up north here where its rained all year) Not happy that out of 58horses 2 need trims. So my friend plays along with her, gets her to put in writing all the complaints, and acts on it. 
Her demands were that the field was topped, she get rid of 10 horses, get the two trimmed.  With the threat that if they took them they would put them down.
Following week inspector is back.....this is the point that she realises that she picking on the wrong person.....
10 horses rehomed...given away, with independent valuation and vets reports on each one. £20,000 value to horses. 
fields topped, with before and after pictures, in this wet, showing done as told, made fields in worse condition.
two were trimmed (needed sedation, the only reason that they had not been done)
All horses fit and healthy, in good condition.  
She had a copy of the animal welfare act, and then turned tables on inspector, firing questions at her, exposing her lack of knowledge, feed ratios, etc
The inspector comes back again, makes a comment that the number of horses have changed, before she comes down the drive that my friend was "conning" her
So that then becomes a challenge of you cannot count numbers from outside, and as we have had rugs and equipment stolen, please would you like to tell the police how you got the information, and if you came onto my property without permission or escort.
proof the horses been fed, all the invoices for haylage, and there are the wrappers that have not yet been collected. feed bills, proof what they are being fed, etc etc
then it became what do you advise, they cannot "advise", even though they are there to "prevent" the horses becoming welfare cases
Especially when she pointed out that several horses she knows that are in RSPCA care that are in hock deep mud in the area, being fed mouldy haylage, and more.

So why do I so dislike them, knowing what I do about them?

youngsters put down, just because they retain a testicle
the trouble in this corner that people have getting the money to care for them off the area co-ordinator
taken because they are on a shorter tether, as they are close to a road, even though they are in fantastic condition, and put down
a yard I knew that took them in, dark stables nothing to see, no turnout, 2ft high bedding, and they kept sending them there, even after receiving complaints
The blind eye that they turn to persistant offenders. 
The fact that they are political, not really after the welfare of the horses. So they pressure with popular opinion, not what really matters, so that their coffers get filled.  
Is it just me?


----------



## Meowy Catkin (22 October 2012)

Deleted.

I'm sure that the Times had an article about them recently.


----------



## elijahasgal (22 October 2012)

RSPCA, or my friends?


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (22 October 2012)

Psedo Political Organisation whose Royal Patronage should be withdrawn more interested in headlines and political agendas than Animal Welfare.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (22 October 2012)

RSPCA.


----------



## EAST KENT (22 October 2012)

A load of pseudo police jobsworths,you are definitely not alone.


----------



## mollymum (22 October 2012)

Don't know anyone who really likes the RSPCA - including me.  But, to be fair, they have to follow up on any complaints.  That's not to say they do anything useful about such complaints of course.....


----------



## Tinseltoes (22 October 2012)

I don't like them either!!!!


----------



## elijahasgal (23 October 2012)

@ mollysmum, horse tethered in snow with no access to food and water, took about 2 weeks of constant complaints from train passengers before they would look.
I loaned a horse, and she was in bad condition, asked advice, as she had had a foal, they were as useful as a chocolate teapot.  The mare had to be put down a year later because of an injury she sustained while she was so weak, and started degenerating on it.
The person was well known to them......if I had known that before I loaned they would never have had my beautiful girl. but she jumps the gun on them by renting many patches of land, and moving the horses between them, so they dont know where they are.
they dont follow up on everything, but they pick on weak targets....or perceived weak targets


----------



## MerrySherryRider (23 October 2012)

Like any big organisation, they are not perfect. Neither is the NHS, but I'm sure everyone agrees we need help for those who are vulnerable.
 Just as there are stories of incompetence and failure on the part of the RSPCA, so there are success stories too.
 I am indebited to the RSPCA officers who rescued a horse and his companions from imminent death and sent his owner to prison. A magnificent horse who has been much loved ever since.

So complain all you like, but what would you replace it with ? Constructive input is usually more valuable than harping on. 
 Would you get rid of it or restructure and how ?
 Should those who inflict suffering on animals never be prosecuted, fined or sent to prison ? Who else would have the expertise and will to make a case for abusers like Jamie Grey of Spindles Farm ?

Or do we not have an animal protection society like many countries where equines live miserable, unjust and pain racked lives ?


----------



## Alec Swan (23 October 2012)

Hairy Old Cob said:



			Psedo Political Organisation whose Royal Patronage should be withdrawn more interested in headlines and political agendas than Animal Welfare.
		
Click to expand...

This,  exactly.  Regarding the individual inspectors,  the first mistake is putting them in a uniform,  it gives them a sense of importance,  and one to which they're not entitled.

Alec.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 October 2012)

Like any big organization made up of individuals some good, some bad. Their political policies, are a bit sus.

As far as individual inspectors go, there are some excellent, dedicated knowlegable people, some of whom I know have followed cases at a lot of personal risk.

Not everyone involved with keeping animals has their best interest at heart, some far from it. RSPCA people who infiltrate, expose and prosecute people involved in cock fighting, dog fighting, badger baiting and the like have nothing but respect from me.

The Police don't get too involved, someone needs to do it, so I support them.


----------



## Amymay (23 October 2012)

OP, whilst I'm not the biggest fan of the RSPCA - I find your post interesting, and don't believe a word of it I'm afraid.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (23 October 2012)

*amymay* as ever, you get to the crux of the matter so succinctly.


----------



## fburton (23 October 2012)

As a matter of interest, has anyone brought and won a legal case against the RSPCA?


----------



## EAST KENT (23 October 2012)

You need to google the SHG of soliciters,they love taking on stuff for lesser man against the RSPCA,or any other big brother bullies too.I expect you will find many examples of them winning.


----------



## Dobiegirl (23 October 2012)

This is an example of the RSPCA. I saw an advert on Gumtree selling a 3-4 week Staffy pup, I reported it to Gumtree and sent an email to the nearest RSPCA centre with the link. I had an email back from them asking me to ring the cruelty helpline, now why didnt they do that themselves considering it the same orginisation?


----------



## elijahasgal (23 October 2012)

Amymay, I hope that you never end up on the receiving end of their harassment.  And yes, I everything I have written is as true to the facts as I remember being told, and having years ago been on the receiving end, for pooh around a ring feeder, when the horses were fit and well with ad lib haylage, resulting in about 8 visits, and harassment, yes, I fully believe my friend, who I have known for nearly 30 years, and know to be genuine, honest, and generous to the fore.


----------



## Amymay (23 October 2012)

And yet your friend simply gives away 10 horses.....


----------



## rascal (23 October 2012)

What i think of them cant be printed!!

We reported an appy mare with a coloured foal that was about a month old, after we caught the mare loose on the road, at night in blizzard. Both of them were shivering. They said they would go that night, but didnt. The foal died, i saw the owners loading it on to a 4x4 when i went past the field next day. I go past twice a day to work. The owner showed them an older appy foal at a different place. So these experienced, trained people not only cant tell the age of a foal, they dont know spots from patches either!


----------



## Moomin1 (23 October 2012)

amymay said:



			And yet your friend simply gives away 10 horses.....
		
Click to expand...

Quite Amymay!! 

And I also like the fact OP fails to realise the fact that her 'friend' omitted to get the two horses' feet trimmed, just because they needed sedating!  Err?!!  Well why did it take an RSPCA inspector to make her get it sedated and done?!!  It's not hard to get a vet out to sedate a horse for a hoof trim! 

Sounds like a scorned person who is red faced to me!


----------



## Burmilla (24 October 2012)

Good and hopeless and other qualities in between, as in all large institutions. My experience of reporting to RSPCA cases of neglect and cruelty to dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, cage birds, chickens, rats, mice and chinchillas , in households I visit in a professional capacity, on an outer London massive slum estate, have been promptly and appropriately responde and a great number removed from their keepers. So, for once, an OK for them. Not for the incident last year when they shot a number of GSDs because without a great deal of involvement with them, and despite lobbying from GSD Rescue, who had foster homes and specialist assessors, and immediate transport arranged, they killed them with bolt guns because they said they were 'too dangerous'. I guess most animals would if their owner was dead, they were in the garden, starving, and a bunch of strangers turned up and stared at them.


----------



## Moomin1 (24 October 2012)

Burmilla said:



			Good and hopeless and other qualities in between, as in all large institutions. My experience of reporting to RSPCA cases of neglect and cruelty to dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, cage birds, chickens, rats, mice and chinchillas , in households I visit in a professional capacity, on an outer London massive slum estate, have been promptly and appropriately responde and a great number removed from their keepers. So, for once, an OK for them. Not for the incident last year when they shot a number of GSDs because without a great deal of involvement with them, and despite lobbying from GSD Rescue, who had foster homes and specialist assessors, and immediate transport arranged, they killed them with bolt guns because they said they were 'too dangerous'. I guess most animals would if their owner was dead, they were in the garden, starving, and a bunch of strangers turned up and stared at them.
		
Click to expand...

Why didn't GSD rescue remove them and rehome them then?!!


----------



## Burmilla (24 October 2012)

I understand that the RSPCA would not allow them to do so, as they assessed the dogs to be dangerous and the remaining family had signed the dogs into RSPCA's"care". If you look on GSD rescue website there was a large amount of information about this. Havent been on it for ages as have decided after 30+ years of having GSDs, and my last beloved one being quietly pts age 13 in March this year, not to have another one. My time at home and my strength has lessened now. GSD had her devoted "staff" who came in every day at lunchtime and took her for long outings, as well as the walks and social events I took her to, morning and night. I know exactly how much time, determination and physical fitness is involved and I'd be 80+ when the next one went to her just reward!


----------



## 1life (24 October 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			Like any big organization made up of individuals some good, some bad. Their political policies, are a bit sus.

As far as individual inspectors go, there are some excellent, dedicated knowlegable people, some of whom I know have followed cases at a lot of personal risk.

Not everyone involved with keeping animals has their best interest at heart, some far from it. RSPCA people who infiltrate, expose and prosecute people involved in cock fighting, dog fighting, badger baiting and the like have nothing but respect from me.

The Police don't get too involved, someone needs to do it, so I support them.
		
Click to expand...

Same, I'm another supporter. Been on here with pro/con debates before. At the end of the day it is my belief that they operate in very difficult circumstances sometimes and some people will never want them to win, so they won't.


----------



## partypremier (24 October 2012)

A friend of mine used to get reported a lot about their young horses in field near road.  Horses always fine.but it got muddy around feeders & the field shelter was deep littered.  Always reported to rspca by the same looney anti.  Rspca officer always used to apologise & said they had to answer to all reports of neglect.
Think they are as stretched & have money wasting tasks as all large organisations.
They could always save money by not funding anti hunt activities.

Yes I know I sit on  the fence.  Some good work some not do good.


----------



## WelshD (24 October 2012)

I do think the inspectors out in the vans are keen and want to do their best for the animals but I also think the society in general is rubbish. They seem to graduate to big stories, I wouldnt be surprised if the OP story is true as I can see the headlines now 'Amateur rescue neglect horror' its the sort of 'big' story they would go after if it proved to be true

I have had run in's with them before when I had a horse with sarcoids and a growth on his sheath, They came round relentlessly to speak to me and I was only a teen at the time. I resorted to signs on gates explaining the horses condition and giving the telephone numbers of the two vets practices involved in his treatment

I've also phoned to report something only to be met with a long automated message giving a list of things they dont want to know about

I think what finished my respect for them in the end was the money they spent on a new headquarters


----------



## Spook (26 October 2012)

I see RSPCA and think ........??????? .....And what? the !? are they really going to do ...... other than make sure there will be a donatin from someone/where...... well are they?

Synic that I am.


----------



## Moomin1 (26 October 2012)

Spook said:



			I see RSPCA and think ........??????? .....And what? the !? are they really going to do ...... other than make sure there will be a donatin from someone/where...... well are they?

Synic that I am.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder if those who have been prosecuted by the RSPCA would say the same...


----------



## Dobiegirl (26 October 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fined-86-000-banned-keeping-animals-life.html


This is why people have no confidence in the RSPCA, Ive followed Hope case on fb since Vikki payed for Hope to get her out of that situation. The RSPCA were told repeatedly about the horses plight but it took forever for them to act.


----------



## Moomin1 (26 October 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fined-86-000-banned-keeping-animals-life.html


This is why people have no confidence in the RSPCA, Ive followed Hope case on fb since Vikki payed for Hope to get her out of that situation. The RSPCA were told repeatedly about the horses plight but it took forever for them to act.
		
Click to expand...

Oh that beauty!!  It would seem Vikki didn't help the case there.


----------



## Amymay (26 October 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fined-86-000-banned-keeping-animals-life.html


This is why people have no confidence in the RSPCA, Ive followed Hope case on fb since Vikki payed for Hope to get her out of that situation. The RSPCA were told repeatedly about the horses plight but it took forever for them to act.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, a particularly unpleasant situation.


----------



## Dobiegirl (26 October 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Oh that beauty!!  It would seem Vikki didn't help the case there.
		
Click to expand...

If you have fb look for Hopes Cause and read the documents first, If Vikki hadnt stepped in Hope would have died, it was touch and go for a long time with Hope.
 I cant see how you think she didnt help the case unless buying Hope and taking her away made things difficult for the RSPCA. 

Vikki recently won the best vet of the year award.


----------



## FairyLights (26 October 2012)

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/314698.html

Well done RSPCA the owner found guilty and ordered to pay £100,000. Sends out the right message to horse abusers.


----------



## YorksG (26 October 2012)

I can explain to the poster above, why they wanted the poster to ring the helpline. It generates money for the RSPCA, so by refusing to accept the report by e-mail they gain the money of concerned members of the public, by rather underhand means IMO. I also get a little steamed up about their quasi official status. When I see them, on the various TV programmes, issuing people with the official police 'caution' it annoys me hugely!


----------



## Moomin1 (27 October 2012)

YorksG said:



			I can explain to the poster above, why they wanted the poster to ring the helpline. It generates money for the RSPCA, so by refusing to accept the report by e-mail they gain the money of concerned members of the public, by rather underhand means IMO. I also get a little steamed up about their quasi official status. When I see them, on the various TV programmes, issuing people with the official police 'caution' it annoys me hugely!
		
Click to expand...

HAHAHAAAAAA!!! You actually think they issue an official 'police' caution!?!!  Are you for real?!!

They are called 'Adult written cautions' and they are merely a caution which goes on the rspca system which will be raised in any future court proceedings if they ever offend again!!

Oh, I am sorry YorksG, I see what you may mean.

I think what you are talking about is the caution which is read out when an offence is detected.  That is not a police caution.  It is in accordance with government laws and something called PACE.  Anybody who detects an offence and wishes to investigate and progress with a possible prosecution HAS to by law abide by PACE.  That means a caution has to be read out so that the potential offender knows their rights before answering any questions. 

You, a mere member of public, could do the same if you wished to progress with a prosecution case.  Anybody can take them!!!


----------



## Mike007 (29 October 2012)

Horsesforever1 said:



http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/314698.html

Well done RSPCA the owner found guilty and ordered to pay £100,000. Sends out the right message to horse abusers.
		
Click to expand...

Surely you meen well done to the vet !I expect the rspca were overjoyed to have another news making (and therefore cash making)case land in their lap,AAND THEY DIDNT HAVE TO DO ANY WORK TO  FIND IT EITHER.


----------



## Moomin1 (30 October 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			This is an example of the RSPCA. I saw an advert on Gumtree selling a 3-4 week Staffy pup, I reported it to Gumtree and sent an email to the nearest RSPCA centre with the link. I had an email back from them asking me to ring the cruelty helpline, now why didnt they do that themselves considering it the same orginisation?
		
Click to expand...

Because they are not the same 'orginisation' (I suspect you mean 'organisation' there).  The branches are separate organisations who take on the RSPCA name.  They have their own rules and regulations, and sometimes don't have much to do with the National Society inspectors at all.


----------



## brighteyes (30 October 2012)

*Moomin1* You may very well be a diligent and knowledgeable employee of the Ridiculous Society Pretending to Care Any, but the management have alienated what once might have been an army of effective soldiers against cruelty to animals, with their transformation of it into a politically motivated, money orientated machine with faceless executives at the helm.

What is your angle on the Hope case?  I'd be interested to hear...


----------



## Moomin1 (30 October 2012)

brighteyes said:



*Moomin1* You may very well be a diligent and knowledgeable employee of the Ridiculous Society Pretending to Care Any, but the management have alienated what once might have been an army of effective soldiers against cruelty to animals, with their transformation of it into a politically motivated, money orientated machine with faceless executives at the helm.

What is your angle on the Hope case?  I'd be interested to hear...
		
Click to expand...

I have stated what my angle is on the Hope case on other threads!

Sounds like the RSPCA have really got under your skin at some point!...


----------



## Hunter93 (2 November 2012)

I called RSPCA a while back as there was a dog left in a car multi story in summer with no water no air no food, RSPCA answer? Not their problem. They only come out and check on animals in extra need. pathetic! 
On another note, someone Reported that my horse was limping and there was no water. So RSPCA come down and I show them that there is water and they say the horses look fine. They didn't even look in the stable where my poorly horse actually was?!?


----------



## 4x4 (2 November 2012)

Well I think they are rubbish.  There was a programme on Radio 4 a couple of years ago with some stories about peoples' animals - 1 was about a GSD with a stomach disorder and the RSPCA interfered and eventually took the dog away and had it put down - the poor woman didn't even get the body back to bury it as they 'lost' it.  The same programme said that the previous year the RSPCA put down something like 48,000 healthy animals (unlike the Dogs Trust who say they never put a healthy dog down).  They also cooked up a case about a very well respected ex-Olympic family locally several years ago which caused them to lose their business -  friend of mine was a livery there at the time and neither of us had ever seen any of the things that they were accused of.  They certainly wouldn't get a penny of my money.


----------



## joeanne (2 November 2012)

Our local RSPCA has for YEARS needed decent upgraded kennels......yet HQ spent FOUR MILLION pounds on revamping it's offices a few years back THEN bleat on tv how short of cash they are.
Bunch of morons.
Oh and they have NO right to enter your land or house without a warrant.
As useful as a box of condoms in a nunnery!


----------



## Sixteen Hands (2 November 2012)

I fail to understand why this has been posted in the latest news section...


----------



## Moomin1 (2 November 2012)

joeanne said:



			Our local RSPCA has for YEARS needed decent upgraded kennels......yet HQ spent FOUR MILLION pounds on revamping it's offices a few years back THEN bleat on tv how short of cash they are.
Bunch of morons.
Oh and they have NO right to enter your land or house without a warrant.
As useful as a box of condoms in a nunnery!
		
Click to expand...

I should think a box of condoms would actually be quite useful in many nunneries! 

To repeat, the local branches are SEPARATE charities which take on the name of the RSPCA.  The are random people who decide to set up shelters in the name of the RSPCA.  Their income is solely down to THEM not the National Society.


----------



## happyhunter123 (2 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			I should think a box of condoms would actually be quite useful in many nunneries! 

To repeat, the local branches are SEPARATE charities which take on the name of the RSPCA.  The are random people who decide to set up shelters in the name of the RSPCA.  Their income is solely down to THEM not the National Society.
		
Click to expand...

That's good them. I'd much rather support these individual branches who actually help animals than the bloated, politicised main organisation.


----------



## Moomin1 (2 November 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			That's good them. I'd much rather support these individual branches who actually help animals than the bloated, politicised main organisation.
		
Click to expand...

That's fair enough.  Hopefully enough people who care about prosecuting those that offend will continue to donate!


----------



## Shysmum (3 November 2012)

I was an RSPCA Inspector for a long time, and can see both sides of the argument. 

It is my definite belief that the Inspectorate is only as good as the Inspector on the ground, who deals with a certain patch. Excellent ones, and not so excellent ones. 

If a complaint is made, under any circumstances, about an animal that is considered to be suffering, an Inspector is OBLIGED to attend it as soon as possible. This often causes offence, but the animal HAS to be seen. Like I say, it is then up to the individual Inspector how to react.

Remember, no other organisation PROSECUTES offenders, the police will almost always defer to the RSPCA. As will the BHS, WHW (both of whom i worked with a lot, often very successfully).


----------



## elijahasgal (5 November 2012)

@Amymay
You make the point that my friend gave away 10horses (at instructions of RSPCA)  and are shocked at that.  What you do not know is that with her contacts (extensive network) she can do that easily.And into good homes.  What you do not also know when you stand in judgment on her (and me) is that she is regually given horses to rehome, to save them from being put down where owners cannot afford them.  
And out of over 50 horses, when an inspector was nit picking only 2 that needed trimming?  Of horses that may or may not have just arrived?  Maybe they were going to be trimmed on the last visit from farrier and they prooved to be difficult, then needing to be sedated without the time then to do it, and it was planned in.  That is not neglect.
The whole point in how she is dealing with them is to do everything that they were telling her to, and showing them that they were wrong.  Like the topping of the field in the wet  (everything they said done in writing from them, photographic evidence, vetinary evidence, independent valuations etc)  And she will sue the pants off them if they continue the harassment, with proof of her losses at their hands. 
Down in my corner, you get a lot more sense from independent charaties.  
Why is it in this section? where else should it be? Was fresh news


----------



## Amymay (5 November 2012)

Thanks for your response Elijahasgal.  Over 50 horses?  That's a huge amount of equines to have.  I'm guessing she's running some sort of pseudo rescue, which is admirable. But boy have you got to have the funds to be able to finance something like this.

I'd suggest that rather than sueing the RSPCA, she simply uses the money to ensure all of her horses are adequately cared for, and that she can pay her staff to assist in that care.


----------



## joeanne (5 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			To repeat, the local branches are SEPARATE charities which take on the name of the RSPCA.  The are random people who decide to set up shelters in the name of the RSPCA.  Their income is solely down to THEM not the National Society.
		
Click to expand...

So please tell me why I keep getting begging bl00dy "charity workers" at my door telling me that what I donate will benefit my LOCAL shelter?
Clearly that is not the case.....I wonder if I should talk to trading standards about that?


----------



## elijahasgal (5 November 2012)

Amymay, it shows that you have not read the whole posts.  She has a buisness, and often takes in, on the side to the buisness, horses that have been neglected, or horses whose owners have run out of funds to rehome them.  She mainly deals in TBs, mainly broodmares, and is known across the whole industry for her honesty and integraty knowledge and care, and is often phoned by big studs to rehome mares that have not taken (in many cases else they would be put down) Yes she has a huge undertaking, but does it well, with fit, healthy horses.  The fact that nitpicking could only find 2 whose feet needed care, not one in bad condition, or unhealthy says something about her level of dedication. oh and docks in fields that were too wet to top....You seem determined to trash her without knowing her, but if you have read the other replies, the RSPCA has few knowledgable friends, especially in that area.  
I do know her, have for years and years, know that she is savvy, is letting them play their game, and prooving that they are talking out their asses. And using their rules and doing things their way (but covering her own back with independent reports along the way) to proove that they are clueless.  As said she runs a buisness, in which reputation is everything, and having them camp their vans on her drive will damage her reputation and her buisness.....for what? one visit cause someone complained, fine, all actions requested done, but they dont let go. they HARASS, having had it done to me for pooh by a ring feeder, for keeping a colt seperate from mares when i took it in to treat it for lice, even though it had ad lib haylage (by the way dont you know mud fever is caused by standing on a pooh....I laughed that inspector out the place) Even though all horses were fit, well, in glowing health (well that colt was when I had finished with him) no signs of infection, or illness, coats shining.  Because somebody decided that they didnt like the "look" of what they saw. (actually in my case because someone wanted to try and force me to sell my horse) Then cases that they dont take action, because horses are so expensive to get well again, and feed.  I have never said how many people she has working there, so you have no clue how well cared for the horses really are....and totally loved.


----------



## Luci07 (5 November 2012)

Have personally had a good experience with the RSPCA, albeit the inspector was not horse literate but helped me with 2 abandoned shetlands in an unhorsey friends field, miles from me. I found them homes and gave him advice on care, (watering and reducing grazing), he checked on them daily and researched the legal aspects. I paid for the castration, teeth, injections and worming. However, I also support hunting and help with Stafford Welfare so on both counts, will not agree with how the RSPCA functions. When money is so tight for rescue and so many healthy animals are being destroyed,  I bitterly resent the waste of funds on political antics. Wish, wish wish the RSPCA could get back to what most members of the public actually believe it is. A knowledgeable charity to care for animals in need. Personally think organisations like Battersea are doing a much better job of promoting rescue and the situation for animals that are dumped!


----------



## competitiondiva (12 November 2012)

I won't comment on everything here, and honestly no I have not read it all. 

Simply put the RSPCA is a BIG organisation costing over a hundred million each year to run.  Do they do a good job, well I suppose that would come down to your own experience (and not hearsay) and which side of the 'visit' you were on. (if you understand!?) and i'm sure for every person who's had a bad experience there are 100's that have had a good, but of course, no one shares good experiences! (human nature!) 

No they are not perfect, yes they've made some cock ups I'm sure. BUT they are the ONLY CHARITY willing to spend money to bring prosecutions and make people responsible for their actions (or lack of) and with something like a 98% success rate, they are damn good at it! 

As with anything in life there will be good officers and bad. 

Whether you agree with them or not, I don't see any other organisation able and willing to take on what the RSPCA does. Yes there are charities that will deal with parts, but not the whole. 

And for those who do not agree with the prosecution side of the RSPCA, please ask yourself in a situation where animal neglect/abuse is occuring and advice is refused etc, what do you want to happen? Only a court can remove ownership/responsibility for an animal.  Which means taking that person to court to get it.  

And yes they may take their time to attend in some instances, but they are not a government service like the police or ambulance, they have limited people on the ground available to attend, as the whole thing is paid for exclusively by donations........


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (12 November 2012)

competitiondiva said:



			And for those who do not agree with the prosecution side of the RSPCA, please ask yourself in a situation where animal neglect/abuse is occuring and advice is refused etc, what do you want to happen? Only a court can remove ownership/responsibility for an animal.  Which means taking that person to court to get it.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, and that should be decided/done by the part of government that is SPECIFICALLY there to do exactly that function - ie the Crown Prosecution Service. It is completely unacceptable for a body with a political agenda to be outsourced with the role that in a democracy is supposed to be undertaken by an impartial administrative body.

The very fact that the RSPCA is funded by donations in itself should disqualify it from any role in prosecuting anyone as it makes it vulnerable to conflicts of interests in many different aspects. 

Courts can only judge on the facts presented to them and personally I would prefer facts to be presented by someone who was there purely to do that, and not to undertake political campaigning on areas with which I might disagree with them.

There is absolutely no reason why using the proper bodies to undertake prosecutions should inhibit the number of prosecutions and the RSPCA could still give evidence as witnesses, but NOT operate the current system of ignoring many genuine welfare complaints in favour of grandstanding in front of TV cameras in cases they think will look good in the media.


----------



## Luci07 (12 November 2012)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			Yes, and that should be decided/done by the part of government that is SPECIFICALLY there to do exactly that function - ie the Crown Prosecution Service. It is completely unacceptable for a body with a political agenda to be outsourced with the role that in a democracy is supposed to be undertaken by an impartial administrative body.

The very fact that the RSPCA is funded by donations in itself should disqualify it from any role in prosecuting anyone as it makes it vulnerable to conflicts of interests in many different aspects. 

Courts can only judge on the facts presented to them and personally I would prefer facts to be presented by someone who was there purely to do that, and not to undertake political campaigning on areas with which I might disagree with them.

There is absolutely no reason why using the proper bodies to undertake prosecutions should inhibit the number of prosecutions and the RSPCA could still give evidence as witnesses, but NOT operate the current system of ignoring many genuine welfare complaints in favour of grandstanding in front of TV cameras in cases they think will look good in the media.
		
Click to expand...

oh where is my like button. Brilliantly put..


----------



## Moomin1 (12 November 2012)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			Yes, and that should be decided/done by the part of government that is SPECIFICALLY there to do exactly that function - ie the Crown Prosecution Service. It is completely unacceptable for a body with a political agenda to be outsourced with the role that in a democracy is supposed to be undertaken by an impartial administrative body.

The very fact that the RSPCA is funded by donations in itself should disqualify it from any role in prosecuting anyone as it makes it vulnerable to conflicts of interests in many different aspects. 

Courts can only judge on the facts presented to them and personally I would prefer facts to be presented by someone who was there purely to do that, and not to undertake political campaigning on areas with which I might disagree with them.

There is absolutely no reason why using the proper bodies to undertake prosecutions should inhibit the number of prosecutions and the RSPCA could still give evidence as witnesses, but NOT operate the current system of ignoring many genuine welfare complaints in favour of grandstanding in front of TV cameras in cases they think will look good in the media.
		
Click to expand...

Your last comment is what really grates me about people's perspectives.  NUMEROUS prosecutions are taking place every single day within the RSPCA, ranging from a one animal abandonment, to a multi animal high level of neglect.  The press DO NOT cover these.  They only cover the stories that will cause a stir.  Inspectors work damn hard to secure evidence, convictions and hopefully bans on people who don't deserve to keep animals.  People seem to think that the  only prosecution cases that have taken place are those that are in the papers!! It's so far off the mark I can't even begin to say!


----------



## Alec Swan (12 November 2012)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			Yes, and that should be decided/done by the part of government that is SPECIFICALLY there to do exactly that function - ie the Crown Prosecution Service. It is completely unacceptable for a body with a political agenda to be outsourced with the role that in a democracy is supposed to be undertaken by an impartial administrative body.

The very fact that the RSPCA is funded by donations in itself should disqualify it from any role in prosecuting anyone as it makes it vulnerable to conflicts of interests in many different aspects. 

Courts can only judge on the facts presented to them and personally I would prefer facts to be presented by someone who was there purely to do that, and not to undertake political campaigning on areas with which I might disagree with them.

There is absolutely no reason why using the proper bodies to undertake prosecutions should inhibit the number of prosecutions and the RSPCA could still give evidence as witnesses, but NOT operate the current system of ignoring many genuine welfare complaints in favour of grandstanding in front of TV cameras in cases they think will look good in the media.
		
Click to expand...




Moomin1 said:



			Your last comment is what really grates me about people's perspectives.  NUMEROUS prosecutions are taking place every single day within the RSPCA, ranging from a one animal abandonment, to a multi animal high level of neglect.  The press DO NOT cover these.  They only cover the stories that will cause a stir.  Inspectors work damn hard to secure evidence, convictions and hopefully bans on people who don't deserve to keep animals.  People seem to think that the  only prosecution cases that have taken place are those that are in the papers!! It's so far off the mark I can't even begin to say!
		
Click to expand...

Moomin,  have you actually read the well reasoned post which you've just quoted?  

I understand that you feel passionately,  but do you not think that your energies may be better spent,  explaining to the rspca that the public's perception of them is that they are not fit for purpose,  and that the bulk of those who think about the current situation,  clearly,  feel that the bestowed Royal patronage should be removed?

Arguing that I,  and others,  are wrong,  is a futile exercise.  Bring your considerable passion to bear,  and convince the rspca that they have a less than admiring public,  and that to regain the confidence of the public,  a change of management and direction would be of benefit.  In short,  the body which you support,  are a joke,  sadly.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (12 November 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Moomin,  have you actually read the well reasoned post which you've just quoted?  

I understand that you feel passionately,  but do you not think that your energies may be better spent,  explaining to the rspca that the public's perception of them is that they are not fit for purpose,  and that the bulk of those who think about the current situation,  clearly,  feel that the bestowed Royal patronage should be removed?

Arguing that I,  and others,  are wrong,  is a futile exercise.  Bring your considerable passion to bear,  and convince the rspca that they have a less than admiring public,  and that to regain the confidence of the public,  a change of management and direction would be of benefit.  In short,  the body which you support,  are a joke,  sadly.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It's really not down to me to be doing what you suggest.  I would prefer to get out there and get some people prosecuted for not being fit to keep animals.  After all, that is surely what matters?

I am not arguing that you are wrong in your opinions, what I am arguing is that people are wrong in their perception that the only prosecutions that take place are high profile ones.


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (12 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Your last comment is what really grates me about people's perspectives.  NUMEROUS prosecutions are taking place every single day within the RSPCA, ranging from a one animal abandonment, to a multi animal high level of neglect.  The press DO NOT cover these.  They only cover the stories that will cause a stir.  Inspectors work damn hard to secure evidence, convictions and hopefully bans on people who don't deserve to keep animals.  People seem to think that the  only prosecution cases that have taken place are those that are in the papers!! It's so far off the mark I can't even begin to say!
		
Click to expand...

I am not basing this view on the perception from the papers or TV, other than the contrast between what is seen on there, and what is experienced from those reporting neglect or abuse,  I am basing it on personal experience, of me, of people that I know and of people who I dont know personally but who I have reason to believe have animal welfare at heart, very few of whom have had good positive help from the RSPCA in a significant number of appalling animal cruelty or neglect cases. 

I also did not suggest that individual inspectors dont work hard, I believe there could be many more inspectors if (i) money was not wasted in political campaigning (ii) the resources currently ascribed to appropriating part of the role of the officers of the state in this country was instead devoted to investigating and taking direct on the ground action in respect of ongoing neglect or cruelty.

ie quit the grandstanding and 'glamourous' case chasing and self importancing, RSPCA, and there would be resource for a lot more animals in need of your help to get it, added to which you would have a lot more cash from the large proportion of horse/animal lovers who currently wouldnt consider donating a penny to you.


----------



## Moomin1 (12 November 2012)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			I am not basing this view on the perception from the papers or TV, other than the contrast between what is seen on there, and what is experienced from those reporting neglect or abuse,  I am basing it on personal experience, of me, of people that I know and of people who I dont know personally but who I have reason to believe have animal welfare at heart, very few of whom have had good positive help from the RSPCA in a significant number of appalling animal cruelty or neglect cases. 

I also did not suggest that individual inspectors dont work hard, I believe there could be many more inspectors if (i) money was not wasted in political campaigning (ii) the resources currently ascribed to appropriating part of the role of the officers of the state in this country was instead devoted to investigating and taking direct on the ground action in respect of ongoing neglect or cruelty.

ie quit the grandstanding and 'glamourous' case chasing and self importancing, RSPCA, and there would be resource for a lot more animals in need of your help to get it, added to which you would have a lot more cash from the large proportion of horse/animal lovers who currently wouldnt consider donating a penny to you.
		
Click to expand...

See, you again talk about the 'grandstanding and glamourous case chasing, and the so called 'fact' that the RSPCA alledgedly ignore small cases won't get them publicity - this is what I'm saying - hundreds of those cases are getting put through the courts daily, but they don't make the press.  I myself know of numerous horse cases which have taken place this year, and only 1 of them has made the press, a tiny weeny little article in the local paper.  Unless the press feel there is a sensational story they won't show one iota of interest sadly.  What I would say, is that maybe that is where the RSPCA do go wrong, they should tackle this issue a bit more.  

I'm assuming the likes of Lesley Skipper shouldn't have been prosecuted in your eyes?  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the RSPCA is perfect, there is surely room for improvement in some areas, which is a work in progress.  

People still need to remember that there are thousands of animals out there that have been saved, rescued, removed and rehomed, and hundreds of people are banned from keeping animals.  Like them or not, the RSPCA do a provide a unique service, and until another organisation decides to do that, then we don't have much alternative, other than to stop providing the RSPCA money, and let everyone get away with neglecting and abusing animals.  The police very rarely show any interest in prosecuting, and in fact, aren't even trained in the Animal Welfare Act, often approaching inspectors asking what it is even!


----------



## Alec Swan (12 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			It's really not down to me to be doing what you suggest.  ........
		
Click to expand...

Why not?  How can you continue to support a body who are so often viewed as being a fund raising machine,  with very little genuine interest in animal welfare,  _*without*_ making an attempt to bring about change?

We need an animal welfare group,  of that there's no question,  just as long as it isn't the rspca.  

By saying that it's not really "down to you" to bring about improvement,  is a tacit agreement that whilst there's truth behind the grievances of many,  that's just tough luck,  and those who hold the rspca in a very poor light can maintain their often warranted views.

Rather than explain to us just how wonderful the rspca are,  you will have to accept that if you refuse to accept the criticisms of many,  then your claims have a rather hollow ring.  Sorry,  but it's fact.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (12 November 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Why not?  How can you continue to support a body who are so often viewed as being a fund raising machine,  with very little genuine interest in animal welfare,  _*without*_ making an attempt to bring about change?

We need an animal welfare group,  of that there's no question,  just as long as it isn't the rspca.  

By saying that it's not really "down to you" to bring about improvement,  is a tacit agreement that whilst there's truth behind the grievances of many,  that's just tough luck,  and those who hold the rspca in a very poor light can maintain their often warranted views.

Rather than explain to us just how wonderful the rspca are,  you will have to accept that if you refuse to accept the criticisms of many,  then your claims have a rather hollow ring.  Sorry,  but it's fact.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I do love the way you say I will HAVE to accept!!  

Who are you, the Opinion Enforcement Authority?! 

I can fully accept the grievances of many, as I say, I don't believe they are perfect.  I just feel that people quite often brush over the good stories, and don't even bother commenting when there's a positive post on HHO about a succesful prosecution.  How can people argue that they are generally interested in animal welfare when they don't even comment on a decent outcome ie ban for life etc?


----------



## Alec Swan (12 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			I do love the way you say I will HAVE to accept!!  

Who are you, the Opinion Enforcement Authority?! 

I can fully accept the grievances of many, as I say, I don't believe they are perfect.  I just feel that people quite often brush over the good stories, and don't even bother commenting when there's a positive post on HHO about a succesful prosecution.  How can people argue that they are generally interested in animal welfare when they don't even comment on a decent outcome ie ban for life etc?
		
Click to expand...

Refuse to accept logical arguments,  if you wish,  but by doing so,  you invalidate your own argument.  The role of the rspca isn't simply as an enforcement body,  or shouldn't be,  though your arguments are continually reinforced by the success rate of prosecutions (which are actually abysmally low),  and as has already been pointed out to you,  and very well too,  for the rspca to have no legal powers of entry to land (in fact,  no legal or enforceable powers at all,  without a Court order),  but to have the responsibility passed over to them by the CPS,  is lunacy. 

If you're attempting to persuade everyone on here,  that the rspca are worthy of our unquestioning support,  then you're on a sticky wicket.  

Campaign for change,  a change which your critics would have,  and I will give you my support.  

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (12 November 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Refuse to accept logical arguments,  if you wish,  but by doing so,  you invalidate your own argument.  The role of the rspca isn't simply as an enforcement body,  or shouldn't be,  though your arguments are continually reinforced by the success rate of prosecutions (which are actually abysmally low),  and as has already been pointed out to you,  and very well too,  for the rspca to have no legal powers of entry to land (in fact,  no legal or enforceable powers at all,  without a Court order),  but to have the responsibility passed over to them by the CPS,  is lunacy. 

If you're attempting to persuade everyone on here,  that the rspca are worthy of our unquestioning support,  then you're on a sticky wicket.  

Campaign for change,  a change which your critics would have,  and I will give you my support.  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Do you call 98% a LOW success rate?!!   That was the success rate percentage for 2011.


----------



## Alec Swan (12 November 2012)

Fine,  you win.

I'm off!! 

Alec.

(Psst,  just a question for you,  98% 0F WHAT?)


----------



## Moomin1 (12 November 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Fine,  you win.

I'm off!! 

Alec.

(Psst,  just a question for you,  98% 0F WHAT?) 

Click to expand...

I would have thought that was self explanatory!!?!  SUCCESSFUL CONVICTIONS!!!


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (12 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			See, you again talk about the 'grandstanding and glamourous case chasing, and the so called 'fact' that the RSPCA alledgedly ignore small cases won't get them publicity - this is what I'm saying - hundreds of those cases are getting put through the courts daily, but they don't make the press.  I myself know of numerous horse cases which have taken place this year, and only 1 of them has made the press, a tiny weeny little article in the local paper.  Unless the press feel there is a sensational story they won't show one iota of interest sadly.  What I would say, is that maybe that is where the RSPCA do go wrong, they should tackle this issue a bit more.  

I'm assuming the likes of Lesley Skipper shouldn't have been prosecuted in your eyes?  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the RSPCA is perfect, there is surely room for improvement in some areas, which is a work in progress.  

People still need to remember that there are thousands of animals out there that have been saved, rescued, removed and rehomed, and hundreds of people are banned from keeping animals.  Like them or not, the RSPCA do a provide a unique service, and until another organisation decides to do that, then we don't have much alternative, other than to stop providing the RSPCA money, and let everyone get away with neglecting and abusing animals.  The police very rarely show any interest in prosecuting, and in fact, aren't even trained in the Animal Welfare Act, often approaching inspectors asking what it is even!
		
Click to expand...

Of course people neglecting or abusing animals like Ms Skipper should be prosecuted. You act as if the RSPCA are uniquely qualified and able to do so - my experience has been of RSPCA staff who do not frankly know one end of a horse from another in many cases and I believe the CPS should undertake prosecutions in this country. 

I prefer to support knowledgeable non political animal welfare organisations who do not put down healthy animals, undertake political campaigning or think themselves the embodiment of the law.

So instead I support WHW and specific local animal rescue charities. Knowledgeable, accountable, and concentrating on welfare - as they should be.


----------



## Moomin1 (12 November 2012)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			Of course people neglecting or abusing animals like Ms Skipper should be prosecuted. You act as if the RSPCA are uniquely qualified and able to do so - my experience has been of RSPCA staff who do not frankly know one end of a horse from another in many cases and I believe the CPS should undertake prosecutions in this country. 

I prefer to support knowledgeable non political animal welfare organisations who do not put down healthy animals, undertake political campaigning or think themselves the embodiment of the law.

So instead I support WHW and specific local animal rescue charities. Knowledgeable, accountable, and concentrating on welfare - as they should be.
		
Click to expand...

But they don't prosecute.  

And if you think those other charities don't put healthy animals down, you are sadly and grossly mistaken.

On that note - do you HONESTLY think that it's animal welfare to not put healthy animals down, when they quite often sit in kennels for months, if not years going stir crazy?!


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (13 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			But they don't prosecute.  

And if you think those other charities don't put healthy animals down, you are sadly and grossly mistaken.

On that note - do you HONESTLY think that it's animal welfare to not put healthy animals down, when they quite often sit in kennels for months, if not years going stir crazy?!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, when they are less than upfront about it when soliciting donations....

Im not suggesting CPS and police are brilliant at prosecution rates etc - but the answer to that is to tackle that issue head on - that would be one role RSPCA could do with campaigning on -  once it had stepped out of its political and conflict of interest current activities itself.

Noone is suggesting Moomin that individual RSPCA inspectors can and do do some good work. However a LOT of people have issues with aspects of the RSPCA and that fact does not make them anti animal welfare (quite the opposite I would argue). Blind apologist approach will not make the RSPCA the best it can be nor ensure it has the most funds or the most help from people who would otherwise be a natural constituency for support. 

Bored of this now - if the RSPCA dont want to reform then thats their funeral....


----------



## competitiondiva (13 November 2012)

I have to say.... Whilst the rspca might have policies that people don't agree with, they do also do an almighty lot of good, if what they stand or their work isn't what you want, then that's fine. Just like there are aspects of various charities I don't agree with, I show that by not supporting/donating to them, not by bad mouthing them, because whilst I might not agree with those aspects there are others that do. No the rspca cannot possibly meet all expectations and meet everyone's.ideals, when everyone has different expectations and ideals, that would be impossible, especially on a charitable budget!


----------



## Shysmum (16 November 2012)

I was one of 370 Inspectors IN TOTAL for the whole of England and Wales.


----------



## elijahasgal (20 November 2012)

What that says then is worse when an inspector picks non stop on one person.  only 370 of you.  Oh as another story, another friend had an inspectors pony in their yard, pony paddock with very little there, but plenty of hay put out in winter.  That same yard got reported for how the ponies were kept......strangly nothing on that went furthur.....


----------



## Moomin1 (20 November 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			What that says then is worse when an inspector picks non stop on one person.  only 370 of you.  Oh as another story, another friend had an inspectors pony in their yard, pony paddock with very little there, but plenty of hay put out in winter.  That same yard got reported for how the ponies were kept......strangly nothing on that went furthur.....
		
Click to expand...

Well why would it?!! 

You say they had plenty of hay out in winter?!!  Not being funny but how many of us have fields or paddocks full of grazing in winter?!

I certainly don't!

If an inspector 'picks' on one person 'non-stop' then if I was that person I would be seriously looking at my management style with my horse!  There's clearly something wrong somewhere.  

The RSPCA does have disciplinary and capability procedures which are used regularly, and if inspectors were harrassing individuals where there is no need or concern, believe me, they would see the sharp end of the stick.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (20 November 2012)

Its easy to criticise but the RSPCA does a lot of good work. Is this not worth people donations ? Annie the old arthritic elephant is no longer beaten and chained by her feet 24/7. She now lives at Longleat.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sa...47&ssbinary=true&Content-Type=application/pdf


----------



## Moomin1 (20 November 2012)

horserider said:



			Its easy to criticise but the RSPCA does a lot of good work. Is this not worth people donations ? Annie the old arthritic elephant is no longer beaten and chained by her feet 24/7. She now lives at Longleat.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sa...47&ssbinary=true&Content-Type=application/pdf

Click to expand...

Problem is horserider is we live in a world where nobody likes to comment on the good sides of things, they just like to have a damn good moan about everything!  

I have posted links of fantastic results in prosecution cases on here, and either only one or two people respond at how wonderful it is to see a good outcome, or people start slating the RSPCA for not doing this or that.  I always question those poster's actual interest in animal welfare, because if they were genuinely concerned for animal welfare, they would be ecstatic to see justice being done, and animals recovered and living a happy life.  But instead, they ignore that and start moaning.


----------



## Anglebracket (21 November 2012)

Well evidently many people believe that the RSPCA does good work otherwise they would be bankrupt by now. 

Some people will just keep on acquiring new animals to replace those that have been taken from them. Prosecutions may be the only real disincentive for them.


----------



## Amymay (21 November 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			Oh as another story, another friend had an inspectors pony in their yard, pony paddock with very little there, but plenty of hay put out in winter.  That same yard got reported for how the ponies were kept......strangly nothing on that went furthur.....
		
Click to expand...

Of course it didn't.  Why on earth would it?


----------



## happyhunter123 (21 November 2012)

The RSPCA aren't all bad, very much of their work is good. Some of it isn't. I would donate to them if they only did their 'good' work, and if they did it better. 
It's their shift towards animal rights thinking that I don't like, and the real reason why I would never donate to them now.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (21 November 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			The RSPCA aren't all bad, very much of their work is good. Some of it isn't. I would donate to them if they only did their 'good' work, and if they did it better.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same as any big organisation but if those of us who care about animal cruelty withhold donations and voluntary work for them, they cease to exist.

 Then what do we replace it with ? Local independant charities with varying levels of expertise and competency and very limited funds, plus, the gap left by the RSPCA would leave the door open for the animal collectors and so called rescue rehoming shelters (dealers) that offer a worse option for rescued animals then the one they have come from.


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (21 November 2012)

horserider said:



			Pretty much the same as any big organisation but if those of us who care about animal cruelty withhold donations and voluntary work for them, they cease to exist.

 Then what do we replace it with ? Local independant charities with varying levels of expertise and competency and very limited funds, plus, the gap left by the RSPCA would leave the door open for the animal collectors and so called rescue rehoming shelters (dealers) that offer a worse option for rescued animals then the one they have come from.
		
Click to expand...

Umm the local independents I have come across have (in respect of horses at least) had a million times more competency than many of the RSPCA inspectors, some of whom do not appear to know anything about horses!

Agree with you about the plethora of unofficial rescues tho. But not about the knowledge- re horses - Im sure they are very good with dogs and cats.


----------



## happyhunter123 (21 November 2012)

horserider said:



			Pretty much the same as any big organisation but if those of us who care about animal cruelty withhold donations and voluntary work for them, they cease to exist.

 Then what do we replace it with ? Local independant charities with varying levels of expertise and competency and very limited funds, plus, the gap left by the RSPCA would leave the door open for the animal collectors and so called rescue rehoming shelters (dealers) that offer a worse option for rescued animals then the one they have come from.
		
Click to expand...

There are some very competent independent shelters. The RSPCA aren't the only people who can look after abandoned or abused animals, and indeed their are many other shelters currently. And with the RSPCA gone, I doubt their funds would be limited.  But as I said it's more their animal rights stance that I really dislike, and at the moment I don't see them moving away from it. It can only damage them in long term.


----------



## elijahasgal (21 November 2012)

I ask the people who say automatically that if the RSPCA inspectors are harassing individuals, what they would make of this case?

Horses in winter, fully rugged, with Ad lib hay and water on level hard standing, and good shelter, regually wormed, feet under care of. Also free access to field, though not easily visable from outside.

Only thing wrong was owner had seized back so was struggling to clear the manure, so while it was healing, was managing as best by moving the feeder each time it was emptied (aprox once a week) and getting it cleared in one. 

RSPCA called. Could not fault the condition of the animals. Was shown the field access.  

How many times do you think it was valid for them to go back to that place?


----------



## Moomin1 (21 November 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			I ask the people who say automatically that if the RSPCA inspectors are harassing individuals, what they would make of this case?

Horses in winter, fully rugged, with Ad lib hay and water on level hard standing, and good shelter, regually wormed, feet under care of. Also free access to field, though not easily visable from outside.

Only thing wrong was owner had seized back so was struggling to clear the manure, so while it was healing, was managing as best by moving the feeder each time it was emptied (aprox once a week) and getting it cleared in one. 

RSPCA called. Could not fault the condition of the animals. Was shown the field access.  

How many times do you think it was valid for them to go back to that place?
		
Click to expand...

As many times as they recieve a complaint..within reason.  If they were recieving the same allegation exactly, let's say for instance, horses thin with overgrown hooves, and when they attended, the horses were all reasonable body condition with ok hooves.  Now if they recieved the same call within a week or two, saying the same thing, about the same horses (provided there's not an allegation of new horses or hidden horses) then they would normally close the call down as a duplicate call.  If it goes longer than a few weeks and an allegation comes in again, yes, they will revisit because there is every chance that things may have deteriorated and become like that.  They may also be recieving different allegations which they HAVE to attend - ie and emergency complaint of a collapsed horse or severly injured horse (people will often exaggerate greatly when reporting stuff in order to get the officer out there as fast as possible, which is wrong when there really is a collapsed or road traffic accident animal out there).  

RSPCA officers have enough on their plate without having time to 'harrass' people without good reason.  If you think they do, you are sorely (and sadly for the officers!) mistaken.  If your friend (or whoever it may be - can't remember who you said now, and can't be bothered looking back through) is getting repeated visits, advice given, or notices, then yes there is a problem with the welfare of her/his horses that needs attention.


----------



## YorksG (21 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			As many times as they recieve a complaint..within reason.  If they were recieving the same allegation exactly, let's say for instance, horses thin with overgrown hooves, and when they attended, the horses were all reasonable body condition with ok hooves.  Now if they recieved the same call within a week or two, saying the same thing, about the same horses (provided there's not an allegation of new horses or hidden horses) then they would normally close the call down as a duplicate call.  If it goes longer than a few weeks and an allegation comes in again, yes, they will revisit because there is every chance that things may have deteriorated and become like that.  They may also be recieving different allegations which they HAVE to attend - ie and emergency complaint of a collapsed horse or severly injured horse (people will often exaggerate greatly when reporting stuff in order to get the officer out there as fast as possible, which is wrong when there really is a collapsed or road traffic accident animal out there).  

RSPCA officers have enough on their plate without having time to 'harrass' people without good reason.  If you think they do, you are sorely (and sadly for the officers!) mistaken.  If your friend (or whoever it may be - can't remember who you said now, and can't be bothered looking back through) is getting repeated visits, advice given, or notices, then yes there is a problem with the welfare of her/his horses that needs attention.
		
Click to expand...

I find this quite strange to be honest. If the same complaint is made by the same people, about the same yard and there were no problems the first time round, then why do the RSPCA not follow the same route as the statutory bodies? If a Mental Health Act Assessment is requested repeatedly, following a decision to take no action, with no significant change in circumstances, then no action is be taken. I would have presumed that the RSPCA would have had the same policy, to not harrass people in response to malicious reporting. Also, while you say that they HAVE to respond, the land owner does not have to allow them access, and after the first time I would doubt that a court would provide a warrant for them.


----------



## Moomin1 (21 November 2012)

YorksG said:



			I find this quite strange to be honest. If the same complaint is made by the same people, about the same yard and there were no problems the first time round, then why do the RSPCA not follow the same route as the statutory bodies? If a Mental Health Act Assessment is requested repeatedly, following a decision to take no action, with no significant change in circumstances, then no action is be taken. I would have presumed that the RSPCA would have had the same policy, to not harrass people in response to malicious reporting. Also, while you say that they HAVE to respond, the land owner does not have to allow them access, and after the first time I would doubt that a court would provide a warrant for them.
		
Click to expand...

Have you not read my post properly?  

I have clearly said that if the SAME complaint is made within a certain time frame, then they won't attend, they will close as a duplicate.  If a further complaint is made after that time frame, and it's a different caller, or different allegation then yes they will attend again.  If it's a call that's implying an emergency, then it doesn't matter - they will attend because of the nature of the allegation.  If the same caller is ringing in constantly, with the same allegation, then the officers will become very aware of the potentially malicious nature of the calls, pop this on the system (they won't block calls about the place, because that could result in the obvious welfare issues should there actually end up being a problem), possibly advise the owner to contact the police if they are experiencing malicious trouble (often if there is real malicious problems then the owner will have recieved visits from other agencies such as trading standards, police, child protection etc etc).  Obviously, if the same caller rings after a time frame of a few months, then yes, the officer may be likely to attend because things could have deteriorated in that time.  It all depends on what issues have been there in the past, how they have been dealt with etc etc.

Just to add, that it's usually the same officer that covers one particular area, and they will become very aware of nuisance callers, as will they become very aware of problem owners who do have management issues.


----------



## YorksG (21 November 2012)

Moomin1, yes I have read your post, however you did not specify a time frame, nor indicate whether or not annonymous calls are taken. The attitude which you display on these threads, is that all horse owners MUST be guilty if a 'member of the public' reports them to the RSPCA and that the RSPCA have a right of entry, and to 'arrest' people. I find this disengenuous.


----------



## Moomin1 (21 November 2012)

YorksG said:



			Moomin1, yes I have read your post, however you did not specify a time frame, nor indicate whether or not annonymous calls are taken. The attitude which you display on these threads, is that all horse owners MUST be guilty if a 'member of the public' reports them to the RSPCA and that the RSPCA have a right of entry, and to 'arrest' people. I find this disengenuous.
		
Click to expand...

Errm.  Ok.  Where have I ever said that 'all horse owners must be guilty if a member of the public reports them'??!!  Surely I have said exactly the opposite!!  I have said that if a nuisance malicious caller is repeatedly calling in, and the officer has visited and nothing is ever wrong, then it will be placed on the system that this is a potential malicious ongoing problem.  Clearly, calls will not be ignored because one day, there may well be a real issue, so if a really horrendous emergency sounding job comes in (broken leg, collapsed, bleeding to death, rta etc) then the officer will recieve the job, and attend to check.  As I have mentioned, local officers soon become very aware of nuisance lying callers, and also of the problem owners, it works both ways.

YorksG, by saying that I have insinuated that the RSPCA can have right of entry, and arrest people, you make yourself look like a fool..Please find where I have said that.

I have said the officer will ATTEND.  That, if you know English language, does not in anyway suggest they have a right to GAIN ENTRY.

What I have said all through this thread is if the op's friend or whoever has had repeated visits, then I hazard a very strong guess that there are real issues that need dealing with there, because an officer simply would not waste their time repeatedly visiting over the same type of call if there was not an issue.  It would get closed.

I certainly do not think that everyone is guilty just because a member of public says they are - quite the opposite - personally I think most horsey people make a song and dance over jack all!

As for the right of entry - I have said this before - no, the RSPCA are not awarded any powers whatsoever.  The police, on the other hand are, and if the RSPCA provide enough evidence that an offence is being committed or has been committed, or potentially being committed, then the police work very closely with the RSPCA and use their powers.  Simples!  And that is how neglected and abused animals are removed from people!  Thank god for the Animal Welfare Act and the help from the police!


----------



## YorksG (22 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Errm.  Ok.  Where have I ever said that 'all horse owners must be guilty if a member of the public reports them'??!!  Surely I have said exactly the opposite!!  I have said that if a nuisance malicious caller is repeatedly calling in, and the officer has visited and nothing is ever wrong, then it will be placed on the system that this is a potential malicious ongoing problem.  Clearly, calls will not be ignored because one day, there may well be a real issue, so if a really horrendous emergency sounding job comes in (broken leg, collapsed, bleeding to death, rta etc) then the officer will recieve the job, and attend to check.  As I have mentioned, local officers soon become very aware of nuisance lying callers, and also of the problem owners, it works both ways.

YorksG, by saying that I have insinuated that the RSPCA can have right of entry, and arrest people, you make yourself look like a fool..Please find where I have said that.

I have said the officer will ATTEND.  That, if you know English language, does not in anyway suggest they have a right to GAIN ENTRY.

What I have said all through this thread is if the op's friend or whoever has had repeated visits, then I hazard a very strong guess that there are real issues that need dealing with there, because an officer simply would not waste their time repeatedly visiting over the same type of call if there was not an issue.  It would get closed.

I certainly do not think that everyone is guilty just because a member of public says they are - quite the opposite - personally I think most horsey people make a song and dance over jack all!

As for the right of entry - I have said this before - no, the RSPCA are not awarded any powers whatsoever.  The police, on the other hand are, and if the RSPCA provide enough evidence that an offence is being committed or has been committed, or potentially being committed, then the police work very closely with the RSPCA and use their powers.  Simples!  And that is how neglected and abused animals are removed from people!  Thank god for the Animal Welfare Act and the help from the police!
		
Click to expand...

The police have the power of entry, if it is strongly suspected that there is an urgent need to prevent harm to people. They may attend with the RSPCA to prevent a breach of the peace (potentially committed by the RSPCA inspector) A warrant would need to be obtained from magistrates or district judge in other cases. I do feel that in the instances described by the OP (obviously only on the story given by him/her) that they would have good grounds to request a police harrassment notice against an inspector who continues to attend, despite adequate care being given.


----------



## Moomin1 (22 November 2012)

YorksG said:



			The police have the power of entry, if it is strongly suspected that there is an urgent need to prevent harm to people. They may attend with the RSPCA to prevent a breach of the peace (potentially committed by the RSPCA inspector) A warrant would need to be obtained from magistrates or district judge in other cases. I do feel that in the instances described by the OP (obviously only on the story given by him/her) that they would have good grounds to request a police harrassment notice against an inspector who continues to attend, despite adequate care being given.
		
Click to expand...

Ahh the 'knowledgeable' YorksG!! Unfortunately, this is where you are slightly out of touch!

Police have power of entry under PACE section 17 to 'prevent damage to property'.  Animals are included as property.  They can also enter property under the Animal Welfare Act section 19 if there is believed to be a suffering animal or animal likely to suffer on the premises, and it is believed to be detrimental to the animal's welfare to wait for a warrant.    

Anyhow, despite any of this, warrants are routinely used by police in conjunction with the RSPCA if needed, so I don't really see what your argument is.  Are you saying that RSPCA can't ask police to apply for a warrant or something?!! 

Humour me YorksG, could you let me know how many RSPCA inspectors have actually been charged with a 'breach of the peace' by a police officer that has attended with the RSPCA to a potential offence?


----------



## Love_my_Lurcher (22 November 2012)

I think the RSPCA could do to take a good few pages out of the Scottish SPCA's books. The SSPCA do not kill perfectly healthy animals. They do not waste millions on lavish advertising every year. They only distribute the occasional leaflet and never broadcast their adverts outside of Scotland. The only channel I have ever seen their adverts on is STV (Scotland's equivalent of ITV). In fact their advertising is so modest that many people in Scotland still believe the RSPCA have power up here. The RSPCA say they always try to avoid advertising in Scotland and that is a downright lie. Their adverts are plastered all over the web and national TV. Not to mention the fact that their merchandise can be found in Scottish stores. I have looked at the wording on the merchandise and it only says the RSPCA is registered in England and Wales. What it should jolly well say (in bold print) is: DOES NOT HELP ANIMALS IN SCOTLAND. The SSPCA is also a reporting agency to the Crown Office and that is far greater than anything afforded to the RSPCA. Additionally, the SSPCA will act on each and every complaint received. 

All in all, I think the RSPCA is a disgrace, and one giant thief for stealing millions in donations from Scotland.


----------



## Moomin1 (22 November 2012)

Love_my_Lurcher said:



			I think the RSPCA could do to take a good few pages out of the Scottish SPCA's books. The SSPCA do not kill perfectly healthy animals. They do not waste millions on lavish advertising every year. They only distribute the occasional leaflet and never broadcast their adverts outside of Scotland. The only channel I have ever seen their adverts on is STV (Scotland's equivalent of ITV). In fact their advertising is so modest that many people in Scotland still believe the RSPCA have power up here. The RSPCA say they always try to avoid advertising in Scotland and that is a downright lie. Their adverts are plastered all over the web and national TV. Not to mention the fact that their merchandise can be found in Scottish stores. I have looked at the wording on the merchandise and it only says the RSPCA is registered in England and Wales. What it should jolly well say (in bold print) is: DOES NOT HELP ANIMALS IN SCOTLAND. The SSPCA is also a reporting agency to the Crown Office and that is far greater than anything afforded to the RSPCA. Additionally, the SSPCA will act on each and every complaint received. 

All in all, I think the RSPCA is a disgrace, and one giant thief for stealing millions in donations from Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

Why on earth should it say they do not help animals in Scotland?!! They are not a Scottish charity.  It's a free country to advertise where they like, if people are not intelligent enough to do some research into where they are donating their money then tbh that's their lookout.  That's like saying a company who only has branches in England or Wales should not be allowed to advertise on National tv because they are not available to provide goods to the Scottish?!!


----------



## Love_my_Lurcher (22 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Why on earth should it say they do not help animals in Scotland?!! They are not a Scottish charity.  It's a free country to advertise where they like, if people are not intelligent enough to do some research into where they are donating their money then tbh that's their lookout.  That's like saying a company who only has branches in England or Wales should not be allowed to advertise on National tv because they are not available to provide goods to the Scottish?!!
		
Click to expand...


You have answered your own question. They are NOT a Scottish charity! For a great many years, they led the Scots to believe they did help Scottish animals by not having any kind of wording on merchandise, etc. And why would a company that only sells goods to Wales and England waste money on advertising all over the UK? Besides, it would be rather pointless. I'm just glad the top bosses of the SSPCA don't receive vast sums of money every year. That they don't go round shooting dogs with captive bolts, and that they don't leave animals to suffer because of gross incompetence!

The RSPCA waste millions upon millions upon millions every single year on advertising alone. How can that be justified when they put thousands of HEALTHY animals down every single year? If the RSPCA really cared about welfare, they would significantly cut their costs and help lots more animals!

Please also tell me if you think "Registered in England and Wales" gives crystal clarity. Or the same wording appearing for a couple of seconds at the end of an advert is blatantly obvious to viewers? 

Since the RSPCA features in just about every animal rescue show on British TV, and since they advertise all over the place, it does not require a stretch of the imagination to come to the conclusion that Scottish people will think they operate north-of-the-border. It's about time the RSPCA kept themselves to England and Wales!


----------



## Moomin1 (22 November 2012)

Love_my_Lurcher said:



			You have answered your own question. They are NOT a Scottish charity! For a great many years, they led the Scots to believe they did help Scottish animals by not having any kind of wording on merchandise, etc. And why would a company that only sells goods to Wales and England waste money on advertising all over the UK? Besides, it would be rather pointless. I'm just glad the top bosses of the SSPCA don't receive vast sums of money every year. That they don't go round shooting dogs with captive bolts, and that they don't leave animals to suffer because of gross incompetence!

The RSPCA waste millions upon millions upon millions every single year on advertising alone. How can that be justified when they put thousands of HEALTHY animals down every single year? If the RSPCA really cared about welfare, they would significantly cut their costs and help lots more animals!

Please also tell me if you think "Registered in England and Wales" gives crystal clarity. Or the same wording appearing for a couple of seconds at the end of an advert is blatantly obvious to viewers? 

Since the RSPCA features in just about every animal rescue show on British TV, and since they advertise all over the place, it does not require a stretch of the imagination to come to the conclusion that Scottish people will think they operate north-of-the-border. It's about time the RSPCA kept themselves to England and Wales!
		
Click to expand...

If you really feel that strongly about advertising laws, campaign to the government.  Oh, wait, you probably haven't because you can't actually be arsed! 

There is no law against what they are doing.  If you don't like it - do something about it, because you clearly feel so strongly about animal welfare, that you would actively do something about it, rather than moan like a wet lettuce.

Whilst you are at it, please campaign against the charities that support ethiopian children etc for NOT CLARIFYING IN THE ADVERTS THAT THEY DO NOT SUPPORT BRITISH CHILDREN


----------



## Love_my_Lurcher (22 November 2012)

Oh, but I DO campaign for animal welfare! I donate money to a number of animal charities. I am also a regular donator of food, etc to the local Dog's Trust. Not to mention the fact that my Mum and I rescued our dog from the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home (which is another rescue organization that does NOT kill healthy animals). I have also written to all the stores in which I have seen RSPCA merchandise. I am also in the process of petitioning the Scottish Government. So, I do NOT moan like 'wet lettuce'! 

One thing is for sure and that is the RSPCA will NEVER receive a penny from me until they stop killing perfectly healthy animals, and squandering millions on unnecessary advertising!


----------



## 1life (22 November 2012)

LmL, how do you know (for a fact) that the RSPCA 'waste' money on advertising? If it generates more money than it costs, raises awareness or brings in funding from areas that may not normally consider donating, then surely it is not a waste.

I'm sure everybody can make a decision about where they want their hard-earned money to be used. People living all over the UK donate abroad. Why would you feel so offended about people in Scotalnd donating to anywhere outside the area? Tell me, would you be offended by someone in Wales to giving a large contribution to a donkey sanctuary...that happened to be located in Scotland?


----------



## fburton (22 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			They may also be recieving different allegations which they HAVE to attend
		
Click to expand...

I have occasionally wondered what would happen if a member of the public made an allegation about a vet school (for instance) or police horse stables. What would the RSPCA do in such a situation? Are they still obliged to attend?


----------



## Moomin1 (22 November 2012)

Love_my_Lurcher said:



			Oh, but I DO campaign for animal welfare! I donate money to a number of animal charities. I am also a regular donator of food, etc to the local Dog's Trust. Not to mention the fact that my Mum and I rescued our dog from the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home (which is another rescue organization that does NOT kill healthy animals). I have also written to all the stores in which I have seen RSPCA merchandise. I am also in the process of petitioning the Scottish Government. So, I do NOT moan like 'wet lettuce'! 

One thing is for sure and that is the RSPCA will NEVER receive a penny from me until they stop killing perfectly healthy animals, and squandering millions on unnecessary advertising!
		
Click to expand...

Well you clearly aren't campaigning hard enough then are you?!!  I really can't understand why someone would be stupid enough to actually try and stop a charity from advertising in an area where they don't operate?!! So charities helping orphans in poor countries shouldn't be allowed to advertise in Britain then?!!  Seriously?!!  

With regard killing healthy animals, are you aware of the state of the rehoming shelters and the amount of animals that are sitting in them not being rehomed?  If anyone thinks for one minute that keeping an animal sitting in a rehoming shelter for month and months, sometimes years on end, is good animal welfare then I'm afraid they are deluded.

I think a lot of people on HHO, given discussions on the situation with horses at the moment and overcrowding at shelters, would agree that pts is actually a welfare tool.

Oh, and you didn't 'rescue' your dog from the dogs home (unless of course the dog's home was neglecting it).  You rehomed it from the dog's home.  The people out there knocking on doors and removing severly neglected animals from them and taking lots of abuse and hassle over it and going home stinking of pee and crap from wading through filthy households, are the people that 'rescue' animals, not people that meander into a shelter, pick a nice pooch and take it home.


----------



## Moomin1 (22 November 2012)

fburton said:



			I have occasionally wondered what would happen if a member of the public made an allegation about a vet school (for instance) or police horse stables. What would the RSPCA do in such a situation? Are they still obliged to attend?
		
Click to expand...

Yes it would still be dealt with in the same manner.  Obviously, if the allegation made is not relating to animal welfare (ie some people may call and complain about barking dogs, which clearly isn't a welfare issue) then it will still be looked into (doesn't always require a visit - it may well be something that can be dealt with via phone call etc).


----------



## Love_my_Lurcher (22 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Well you clearly aren't campaigning hard enough then are you?!!  I really can't understand why someone would be stupid enough to actually try and stop a charity from advertising in an area where they don't operate?!! So charities helping orphans in poor countries shouldn't be allowed to advertise in Britain then?!!  Seriously?!!  

With regard killing healthy animals, are you aware of the state of the rehoming shelters and the amount of animals that are sitting in them not being rehomed?  If anyone thinks for one minute that keeping an animal sitting in a rehoming shelter for month and months, sometimes years on end, is good animal welfare then I'm afraid they are deluded.

I think a lot of people on HHO, given discussions on the situation with horses at the moment and overcrowding at shelters, would agree that pts is actually a welfare tool.

Oh, and you didn't 'rescue' your dog from the dogs home (unless of course the dog's home was neglecting it).  You rehomed it from the dog's home.  The people out there knocking on doors and removing severly neglected animals from them and taking lots of abuse and hassle over it and going home stinking of pee and crap from wading through filthy households, are the people that 'rescue' animals, not people that meander into a shelter, pick a nice pooch and take it home.
		
Click to expand...

I am NOT being stupid! I am just sick and tired of the RSPCA muscling in on the Scottish SPCA by relentlessly advertising in Scotland. Despite them saying that they go to great lengths to avoid doing so. If the SSPCA will only advertise in Scotland, then why on earth can't the RSPCA restrict their campaigns to England and Wales? How blooming hard is that to do? The answer is that it would be extremely easy for them to do that, but they choose to advertise on most of the major digital channels, plus Channel 5 and 4. Also in national papers, magazines, and online. For years and years and years, people have been led to think the Scottish SPCA is just the Scottish branch of the RSPCA. That they are one and the same. The RSPCA have NEVER gone out of their way to make that clear. The SSPCA save as much money as possible by NOT spending elaborately on big fancy adverts. That is no doubt why they have a no-kill policy. Oh, and I dont have a problem with charities (whose funds go abroad) advertising on British TV. That is due to the fact that the charities make it abundantly clear to viewers/readers/listeners that the money goes to different countries! Something the RSPCA does NOT do! In fact, for years the RSPCA refused to sign anything that would guarantee them changing their wording. When they did, it still implied that they might help animals in Scotland. You also did not answer my questions, so I will ask them again. Do you think that "Registered in England and Wales" gives crystal clarity. Or the same wording appearing for a couple of seconds at the end of an advert is blatantly obvious to viewers? Have a read of this and this too. It should also be noted that when they re-built their centre in Swansea, it went from being able to accommodate 140 dogs to just 27! Most of the space was taken up by admin offices. Explain that away for me  please.  

In 2011, the RSPCA killed 53,183 animals. Many of those would have been perfectly healthy. Using any old excuse to kill them including the one you just mentioned. That putting to sleep is a welfare tool. I know that the local Dogs Trust has quite a few long term residents. One (Trixie) has been there for years. Has she gone insane, is she suffering? Hell no - she has settled into her environment and staff are concerned that she wouldnt be able to cope in a home! If it had been up to the RSPCA she wouldnt have been granted the gift of life! The same goes for many other animals who are actually happy in shelters.  Now, please justify that staggering number of deaths when they pay those at the top of the ladder ridiculous amounts of money. The former director (Peter Davies) received at least £90,000 per year! Then, they bleat about how hard up they are, and how they must kill animals in order to free up space! Can you not flaming see that they could easily re-direct millions from their fund raising and salary accounts, and actually use donations to build more centres?! Centres that will actually create more space for the animals! 

Oh, and Im sorry that my Mother and I "meandered" into the EDCH and "picked a nice pooch". I am sorry we bothered to rescue a dog who had been ABUSED, then tossed out onto the streets. Why should we have bothered when somebody like you is going to make a sarcastic comment about us doing so? Oh, and we DID rescue him from being stuck in a kennel. No need to get pedantic!


----------



## Moomin1 (22 November 2012)

Love_my_Lurcher said:



			I am NOT being stupid! I am just sick and tired of the RSPCA muscling in on the Scottish SPCA by relentlessly advertising in Scotland. Despite them saying that they go to great lengths to avoid doing so. If the SSPCA will only advertise in Scotland, then why on earth can't the RSPCA restrict their campaigns to England and Wales? How blooming hard is that to do? The answer is that it would be extremely easy for them to do that, but they choose to advertise on most of the major digital channels, plus Channel 5 and 4. Also in national papers, magazines, and online. For years and years and years, people have been led to think the Scottish SPCA is just the Scottish branch of the RSPCA. That they are one and the same. The RSPCA have NEVER gone out of their way to make that clear. The SSPCA save as much money as possible by NOT spending elaborately on big fancy adverts. That is no doubt why they have a no-kill policy. Oh, and I dont have a problem with charities (whose funds go abroad) advertising on British TV. That is due to the fact that the charities make it abundantly clear to viewers/readers/listeners that the money goes to different countries! Something the RSPCA does NOT do! In fact, for years the RSPCA refused to sign anything that would guarantee them changing their wording. When they did, it still implied that they might help animals in Scotland. You also did not answer my questions, so I will ask them again. Do you think that "Registered in England and Wales" gives crystal clarity. Or the same wording appearing for a couple of seconds at the end of an advert is blatantly obvious to viewers? Have a read of this and this too. It should also be noted that when they re-built their centre in Swansea, it went from being able to accommodate 140 dogs to just 27! Most of the space was taken up by admin offices. Explain that away for me  please.  

In 2011, the RSPCA killed 53,183 animals. Many of those would have been perfectly healthy. Using any old excuse to kill them including the one you just mentioned. That putting to sleep is a welfare tool. I know that the local Dogs Trust has quite a few long term residents. One (Trixie) has been there for years. Has she gone insane, is she suffering? Hell no - she has settled into her environment and staff are concerned that she wouldnt be able to cope in a home! If it had been up to the RSPCA she wouldnt have been granted the gift of life! The same goes for many other animals who are actually happy in shelters.  Now, please justify that staggering number of deaths when they pay those at the top of the ladder ridiculous amounts of money. The former director (Peter Davies) received at least £90,000 per year! Then, they bleat about how hard up they are, and how they must kill animals in order to free up space! Can you not flaming see that they could easily re-direct millions from their fund raising and salary accounts, and actually use donations to build more centres?! Centres that will actually create more space for the animals! 

Oh, and Im sorry that my Mother and I "meandered" into the EDCH and "picked a nice pooch". I am sorry we bothered to rescue a dog who had been ABUSED, then tossed out onto the streets. Why should we have bothered when somebody like you is going to make a sarcastic comment about us doing so? Oh, and we DID rescue him from being stuck in a kennel. No need to get pedantic!
		
Click to expand...

I would re-read your comments about how it's fine for Dog's homes to keep some dogs for years in kennels, then re-read your very last two sentences of your post.


----------



## Dobiegirl (22 November 2012)

Its not that long ago that I assumed the SSPCA and the RSPCA were one and the same but in different localities, I suspect Im not on my own thinking that.


----------



## fburton (22 November 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			Its not that long ago that I assumed the SSPCA and the RSPCA were one and the same but in different localities, I suspect Im not on my own thinking that.
		
Click to expand...

No, you're not.


----------



## Moomin1 (22 November 2012)

Love_my_Lurcher said:



			I am NOT being stupid! I am just sick and tired of the RSPCA muscling in on the Scottish SPCA by relentlessly advertising in Scotland. Despite them saying that they go to great lengths to avoid doing so. If the SSPCA will only advertise in Scotland, then why on earth can't the RSPCA restrict their campaigns to England and Wales? How blooming hard is that to do? The answer is that it would be extremely easy for them to do that, but they choose to advertise on most of the major digital channels, plus Channel 5 and 4. Also in national papers, magazines, and online. For years and years and years, people have been led to think the Scottish SPCA is just the Scottish branch of the RSPCA. That they are one and the same. The RSPCA have NEVER gone out of their way to make that clear. The SSPCA save as much money as possible by NOT spending elaborately on big fancy adverts. That is no doubt why they have a no-kill policy. Oh, and I don&#8217;t have a problem with charities (whose funds go abroad) advertising on British TV. That is due to the fact that the charities make it abundantly clear to viewers/readers/listeners that the money goes to different countries! Something the RSPCA does NOT do! In fact, for years the RSPCA refused to sign anything that would guarantee them changing their wording. When they did, it still implied that they might help animals in Scotland. You also did not answer my questions, so I will ask them again. Do you think that "Registered in England and Wales" gives crystal clarity. Or the same wording appearing for a couple of seconds at the end of an advert is blatantly obvious to viewers? Have a read of this and this too. It should also be noted that when they re-built their centre in Swansea, it went from being able to accommodate 140 dogs to just 27! Most of the space was taken up by admin offices. Explain that away for me  please.  

In 2011, the RSPCA killed 53,183 animals. Many of those would have been perfectly healthy. Using any old excuse to kill them including the one you just mentioned. That putting to sleep is a welfare tool. I know that the local Dog&#8217;s Trust has quite a few long term residents. One (Trixie) has been there for years. Has she gone insane, is she suffering? Hell no - she has settled into her environment and staff are concerned that she wouldn&#8217;t be able to cope in a home! If it had been up to the RSPCA she wouldn&#8217;t have been granted the gift of life! The same goes for many other animals who are actually happy in shelters.  Now, please justify that staggering number of deaths when they pay those at the top of the ladder ridiculous amounts of money. The former director (Peter Davies) received at least £90,000 per year! Then, they bleat about how hard up they are, and how they must kill animals in order to free up space! Can you not flaming see that they could easily re-direct millions from their fund raising and salary accounts, and actually use donations to build more centres?! Centres that will actually create more space for the animals! 

Oh, and I&#8217;m sorry that my Mother and I "meandered" into the EDCH and "picked a nice pooch". I am sorry we bothered to rescue a dog who had been ABUSED, then tossed out onto the streets. Why should we have bothered when somebody like you is going to make a sarcastic comment about us doing so? Oh, and we DID rescue him from being stuck in a kennel. No need to get pedantic!
		
Click to expand...

With regard to 'Trixie' who has been in the dogs' home for a number of years now... you say she is happy and not gone stir crazy.  You also say the staff are concerned she may not cope back in normal home environment.  In animal welfare circles, this is called INSTITUTIONALISATION.  Dogs (in particular) become so institutionalised in kennels that they are unable to cope in the big wide world anymore, and literally have a meltdown and usually end up being pts for various temperamental reasons.  

http://old.wspa.ca/nd/Alternatives_to_Shelters.pdf


Animal welfare?


----------



## Fenris (22 November 2012)

Comments are open on the site.

http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/10064510.Outrage_at_plight_of_pony/

Outrage at plight of pony

3:00pm Thursday 22nd November 2012 in News

A WOMAN is outraged after a pony was left in excruciating pain by the RSPCA.

Donna Halcrow found the Shetland pony loose on Belhus football field, in Aveley, on the afternoon of Halloween.

He had gaping wounds on both sides of his neck which were filled with maggots, and was trembling with pain.

Ms Halcrow was concerned not only about the ponys welfare, but also that there could be an accident if he got on to the busy dual carriageway nearby.

Her first call was made to the animal charity at 2pm, and the RSPCA said it would send someone out within 20 minutes, but no one arrived.

Ms Halcrow took the pony to her friends garden, where he would be safer, and was shocked to be told by the RSPCA it had spoken to the owner, there was nothing more it could do and she should leave the pony loose on the field.

After she phoned the police, Ms Halcrow was told the RSPCA would send someone out that evening, but she was eventually told at 11.30pm no one was coming until the following morning.

When a vet arrived at 11am the next day, nothing could be done for the pony and he had to be put to sleep.

Ms Halcrow said:  It was totally disgusting to leave the poor pony overnight as it was in excruciating pain. It pains me deeply a vet was not sent out that night.

The RSPCA has apologised for the way her calls were handled. A spokesman said: We are extremely sorry the caller felt the complaint regarding the Shetland pony was not dealt with seriously by the member of staff who answered the call.

There appears to have been some miscommunication and we are currently looking into this further.

An officer did not attend the incident in the evening as we have very few staff covering very large areas at night and at weekends and have to prioritise those incidents where animals are in imminent danger.

She added: An officer did telephone a specialist equine vet, relaying the exact information we had received about the ponys condition.

The vet felt that, as the injury had been present for some time and the horse wasnt at imminent risk, someone should come out to provide treatment the following morning.

Without a vet present to confirm an animal was suffering, our officers would be legally unable to move the animal from the location and we must act within the law.

Readers should be assured we do take all incidents of suffering very seriously and we are sorry for any distress caused on this occasion.


----------



## happyhunter123 (22 November 2012)

Apparently they are in a 'funding crisis'. Is this actually true? 
I thought the RSPCA were mega-rich.


----------



## competitiondiva (22 November 2012)

elijahasgal said:



			I ask the people who say automatically that if the RSPCA inspectors are harassing individuals, what they would make of this case?

Horses in winter, fully rugged, with Ad lib hay and water on level hard standing, and good shelter, regually wormed, feet under care of. Also free access to field, though not easily visable from outside.

Only thing wrong was owner had seized back so was struggling to clear the manure, so while it was healing, was managing as best by moving the feeder each time it was emptied (aprox once a week) and getting it cleared in one. 

RSPCA called. Could not fault the condition of the animals. Was shown the field access.  

How many times do you think it was valid for them to go back to that place?
		
Click to expand...

of course we only have your word on the situation here (no offence intended, but this is an anonymous forum after all!?), which may also not be the full extent of the situation only what you have seen/know of yourself. 

But with only 278 Inspectors investigating 150,000 complaints every year, adding to that rescuing and collecting 119,126 animals (with 140 welfare officers and collection officers aiding in the latter) I really don't think an inspector has the time to 'harrass' needlessly!????
http://www.rspca.org.uk/media/facts


----------



## YorksG (22 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Ahh the 'knowledgeable' YorksG!! Unfortunately, this is where you are slightly out of touch!

Police have power of entry under PACE section 17 to 'prevent damage to property'.  Animals are included as property.  They can also enter property under the Animal Welfare Act section 19 if there is believed to be a suffering animal or animal likely to suffer on the premises, and it is believed to be detrimental to the animal's welfare to wait for a warrant.    

Anyhow, despite any of this, warrants are routinely used by police in conjunction with the RSPCA if needed, so I don't really see what your argument is.  Are you saying that RSPCA can't ask police to apply for a warrant or something?!! 

Humour me YorksG, could you let me know how many RSPCA inspectors have actually been charged with a 'breach of the peace' by a police officer that has attended with the RSPCA to a potential offence?
		
Click to expand...

Ahh the 'knowlegable' Moomin1
The POLICE may have right of entry, the RSPCA do not, even if they are with the police, the landowner has every right to refuse entry to the RSPCA staff, unless the RSPCA staff are specifically included on the warrant, then they cannot enter with the police if the police have obtained the warrant.


----------



## Dobiegirl (23 November 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/apr/24/top-1000-charities-donations-britain




Scroll down to see what the RSPCA is worth.


----------



## Moomin1 (23 November 2012)

YorksG said:



			Ahh the 'knowlegable' Moomin1
The POLICE may have right of entry, the RSPCA do not, even if they are with the police, the landowner has every right to refuse entry to the RSPCA staff, unless the RSPCA staff are specifically included on the warrant, then they cannot enter with the police if the police have obtained the warrant.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I know Fenris, which is why I said THE POLICE have powers under the animal welfare act. 

The police are more than happy to gain a warrant and name the RSPCA officer on it, and it happens all the time!  

Even if, for some bizarre reason, the RSPCA weren't named on a warrant, then the police can gather the evidence needed, they can call in a vet, who will possibly authorise a Section 18(5) AWA or a Section 19 PACE.  Or possibly even a Section 18(3) destruction.  The police then secure the evidence under PACE, and either take the prosecution themselves, or hand the evidence to the RSPCA.  Simples.  Or, if there is no issue, the police can see there's no issue, leave the premises, inform the RSPCA officer, and hey presto, everyone can go for a brew and a loo stop!

I wouldn't bother trying to insinuate I am not aware of how it all works Fenris.


----------



## Fenris (23 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Yes, I know Fenris, which is why I said THE POLICE have powers under the animal welfare act. 

The police are more than happy to gain a warrant and name the RSPCA officer on it, and it happens all the time!  

Even if, for some bizarre reason, the RSPCA weren't named on a warrant, then the police can gather the evidence needed, they can call in a vet, who will possibly authorise a Section 18(5) AWA or a Section 19 PACE.  Or possibly even a Section 18(3) destruction.  The police then secure the evidence under PACE, and either take the prosecution themselves, or hand the evidence to the RSPCA.  Simples.  Or, if there is no issue, the police can see there's no issue, leave the premises, inform the RSPCA officer, and hey presto, everyone can go for a brew and a loo stop!

I wouldn't bother trying to insinuate I am not aware of how it all works Fenris.
		
Click to expand...


Not me you are answering.  However . . . .

Warrants are usually worded so that the police may bring in whoever they believe they need. 

There are concerns about the police using the powers granted to them by Parliament to pass confidential information/data that a suspect gives to them (or that they take as evidence in the form of computers of phones or paperwork) on to a non-government body thus bypassing all of the protections that parliament imposed on the police.

If you think about it, people tell the police things they would not let anyone else know.  They do this because the police have a special position of trust in society.  If the police regularly pass on information then we could see people become more and more reluctant to put their trust in the police.

There is also an argument that the powers used should cease and all items be handed back once the police decide not to continue with an investigation.  


Unfortunately the police seem to see it as their duty to give special dispensation and consideration to the RSPCA.  We will see how long that continues as some police forces are currently dealing with complaints that might not be as easy to shrug off as some in the past have been.


----------



## YorksG (23 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Yes, I know Fenris, which is why I said THE POLICE have powers under the animal welfare act. 

The police are more than happy to gain a warrant and name the RSPCA officer on it, and it happens all the time!  

Even if, for some bizarre reason, the RSPCA weren't named on a warrant, then the police can gather the evidence needed, they can call in a vet, who will possibly authorise a Section 18(5) AWA or a Section 19 PACE.  Or possibly even a Section 18(3) destruction.  The police then secure the evidence under PACE, and either take the prosecution themselves, or hand the evidence to the RSPCA.  Simples.  Or, if there is no issue, the police can see there's no issue, leave the premises, inform the RSPCA officer, and hey presto, everyone can go for a brew and a loo stop!

I wouldn't bother trying to insinuate I am not aware of how it all works Fenris.
		
Click to expand...

Who were you answering in that post? I think you are a little confused, as well as rude.


----------



## Moomin1 (23 November 2012)

YorksG said:



			Who were you answering in that post? I think you are a little confused, as well as rude.
		
Click to expand...

I do apologise YorksG, I was somewhat tired and bleary eyed after just getting in at 2:15am and being called out on emergencies.  

Whether you think I come across as rude matters not to me one bit, as personally I find you to be quite obnoxious and rude in your manner too!


----------



## Moomin1 (23 November 2012)

Fenris said:



			Not me you are answering.  However . . . .

Warrants are usually worded so that the police may bring in whoever they believe they need. 

There are concerns about the police using the powers granted to them by Parliament to pass confidential information/data that a suspect gives to them (or that they take as evidence in the form of computers of phones or paperwork) on to a non-government body thus bypassing all of the protections that parliament imposed on the police.

If you think about it, people tell the police things they would not let anyone else know.  They do this because the police have a special position of trust in society.  If the police regularly pass on information then we could see people become more and more reluctant to put their trust in the police.

There is also an argument that the powers used should cease and all items be handed back once the police decide not to continue with an investigation.  


Unfortunately the police seem to see it as their duty to give special dispensation and consideration to the RSPCA.  We will see how long that continues as some police forces are currently dealing with complaints that might not be as easy to shrug off as some in the past have been.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe so Fenris, who knows, time will tell!

With regard police passing information on to other organisations - I assume you refer to my comment about police informing RSPCA if there is or isn't a problem?

Well at the end of the day, police always give outcomes to MOP's when they ring in and make an allegation.  It is usually a brief and undetailed outcome, but they will let them know the basics.  That is all that needs to happen in this case - the RSPCA may make an allegation of concern to the police.  The police go and have a look, if there's no issue, they simply give the RSPCA the outcome telling them that they have no concern and no further action is needed.  That is the same outcome that MOP's get.  

The police utilise the RSPCA often for many matters, just as they use social services, doctors etc etc.  It's a good thing in many ways that this does take place, as quite often all of the organisations form a network to try and safeguard both people and animals.  This quite often may involve an RSPCA officer showing concerns over the care of children in a household, and further checks resulting on those households with regard to children.  

I would be quite shocked and appauled if anybody, fan or no fan of the RSPCA, could say that this was a bad thing.  Sometimes the RSPCA officer's actions have turned the life of somebody around for the better, by helping them to improve the living conditions they and their family are in.  

The problem is many people don't actually know that this goes on, and the good that can come out of what is initially a very serious situation.  

It's not right that people and their children (or pets) should live in squalor, and to be quite frank, I don't care whether it's Joe Bloggs down the road who goes and knocks on the door, powers or no powers.  If that family's living conditions are improved, or that pet or child is removed from harm, neglect or danger then a good job has been done. Of course, the person who is guilty of allowing their conditions to become like that may not see it like that, and scream harrassment and unfair investigation.  They are the ones who end up red faced when the photos become public.


----------



## Fenris (23 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			The police utilise the RSPCA often for many matters, just as they use social services, doctors etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

The difference is that social services and doctors are professionals who are subject to a proper regulatory regime and also to their professional code of conduct.  Complaints that are not properly investigated can and are booted upstairs to independent bodies.

The RSPCA claims it has its own internal investigations.  Fine.  But there is then nowhere for a dissatisfied complainant to go other than the highly expensive legal system.  The Charities Commission openly admit that it is not their remit to deal with the vast number of complaints about charities.

The issue is one of transparency and trust.  

No transparency = no reason to trust.


----------



## Fenris (23 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			It's a good thing in many ways that this does take place, as quite often all of the organisations form a network to try and safeguard both people and animals.  This quite often may involve an RSPCA officer showing concerns over the care of children in a household, and further checks resulting on those households with regard to children.  

I would be quite shocked and appauled if anybody, fan or no fan of the RSPCA, could say that this was a bad thing.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...6073914/Secret-agenda-to-score-adoptions.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...tion-another-win-for-the-child-snatchers.html

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/3894/

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn350.pdf


----------



## Moomin1 (23 November 2012)

Fenris said:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...6073914/Secret-agenda-to-score-adoptions.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...tion-another-win-for-the-child-snatchers.html

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/3894/

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn350.pdf[/QUOTE

Right, so now you are actually implying that there is some sort of mass conspiracy between the RSPCA, police and social services to 'snatch children'.  

You have used one example, of a scorned couple who say they did nothing wrong (despite having their children removed and adopted), and that the disgusting conditions in their house was all down to the police and the RSPCA on a raid?!!  Seriously?  

Of course, the police and RSPCA have nothing better to do than go around spending money on organising and executing raids involving 18 police officers, and then of course the social services and adoption services waste their time and resources into removing children (because they love to do that) from respectable 'middle class' people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

It seems you have an issue with all levels of authority Fenris.  And before you say it, no, I don't think the RSPCA are an 'authority'.  They are merely a charity.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Fenris (23 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			It seems you have an issue with all levels of authority Fenris.
		
Click to expand...


Just quoting media reports that incidentally missed quite a few horrors from the tale.  No doubt you will be claiming that all of the authors and their editors also have issues with authority?  Including the writer of the government Post note?


----------



## combat_claire (23 November 2012)

This is an article by Barney White Spunner:

_Countryside Alliance Chairman Barney White-Spunner writes: Last Friday, whilst the eyes of the nation were understandably elsewhere, the RSPCA quietly dropped the private prosecution it had brought against Heythrop huntsman Julian Barnfield relating to two allegations from the 2010/11 hunting season. In offering no evidence the RSPCA admitted what we had always believed; that the allegations were spurious and completely without merit. This retreat should not go unnoticed, however, not least as the RSPCA has launched a second, larger prosecution involving Heythrop hunt staff, masters and the hunt as a whole. 
There is something very unseemly about the RSPCA using the court system to pursue its political agenda. Worse than that, the costs of these legal adventures are being borne by you and me. The bill for preparing and fighting Julian's case is well into 5 figures and common sense would suggest that the organisation that chose to prosecute should meet that cost. The court, however, decided that the taxpayer should pay for the failure of the RSPCA's prosecution through public funds.

Simon Hart MP recently asked the Ministry of Justice how much money had been paid from public funds to meet the cost of failed RSPCA prosecutions. He was told that the Ministry did not hold such figures. When Legal Aid funding is being cut to the bone it cannot be right that the Government is signing cheques to meet the cost of failed RSPCA prosecutions without even the most basic of scrutiny.

Of course there are also significant costs to the RSPCA in bringing prosecutions, whether they win or lose. Solicitors and barristers do not come cheap, especially for a huge case like that it plans against the Heythrop. Yet the RSPCA is currently making a 130 staff redundant and imposing cuts that will undoubtedly impact on its important animal welfare work.

The RSPCA faces charges of politicising the legal process, skewed internal priorities and wasting public money. It would be well advised to leave the hunting field and concentrate on real animal welfare issues._


----------



## Love_my_Lurcher (24 November 2012)

Moomin1: You still haven't answered my questions. Do you think the RSPCA's wording is clear and concise enough? Do you think they display it for long enough on their adverts? Justify their downgrading of facilities instead of upgrading them. Justify their bosses extortionate salaries. Justify the money they steal from Scotland every year (which averages a seven figure sum). Justify their conduct regarding the poor pony that Fenris told us about. Why are there so many anti-RSPCA sites and blogs? Why do so many people hate a charity that is supposed to help animals?


----------



## Love_my_Lurcher (26 November 2012)

Still awaiting your response, Moomin1! Scrap ignorance, I guess avoidance is bliss!


----------



## Moomin1 (26 November 2012)

Love_my_Lurcher said:



			Moomin1: You still haven't answered my questions. Do you think the RSPCA's wording is clear and concise enough? Do you think they display it for long enough on their adverts? Justify their downgrading of facilities instead of upgrading them. Justify their bosses extortionate salaries. Justify the money they steal from Scotland every year (which averages a seven figure sum). Justify their conduct regarding the poor pony that Fenris told us about. Why are there so many anti-RSPCA sites and blogs? Why do so many people hate a charity that is supposed to help animals?
		
Click to expand...

LML I quite frankly couldn't give a toss about their advert, or how Scottish people may percieve it!  It's got bugger all to do with me.

As for Fenris, mm, you should see some of the horrific cruelty cases that the so called 'specialist' defence solicitors that he/she talks about have actually whole-heartedly supported in order to try and clear them of any wrong doing.  I would imagine, by the sounds of you, that you are an animal lover.  Your toes would curl in your shoes.

I am quite bored of this thread now, it's had it's day, you believe what you will, and I will believe what I will. We are all adults at the end of the day.


----------



## Love_my_Lurcher (26 November 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			LML I quite frankly couldn't give a toss about their advert, or how Scottish people may percieve it!  It's got bugger all to do with me.

As for Fenris, mm, you should see some of the horrific cruelty cases that the so called 'specialist' defence solicitors that he/she talks about have actually whole-heartedly supported in order to try and clear them of any wrong doing.  I would imagine, by the sounds of you, that you are an animal lover.  Your toes would curl in your shoes.

I am quite bored of this thread now, it's had it's day, you believe what you will, and I will believe what I will. We are all adults at the end of the day.

Click to expand...

I am sorry to hear that you couldn't give a stuff about the suffering of Scottish animals and how they could be helped considerably if your beloved RSPCA didn't steal more than a million pounds from them every year! I am sorry that you cannot see that the RSPCA wastes so much money on completely unnecessary things like putting their staff up in Hilton hotels while attending conferences and their like. I am sorry that you can't be mature enough to answer questions when asked!


----------



## Moomin1 (26 November 2012)

Love_my_Lurcher said:



			I am sorry to hear that you couldn't give a stuff about the suffering of Scottish animals and how they could be helped considerably if your beloved RSPCA didn't steal more than a million pounds from them every year! I am sorry that you cannot see that the RSPCA wastes so much money on completely unnecessary things like putting their staff up in Hilton hotels while attending conferences and their like. I am sorry that you can't be mature enough to answer questions when asked!
		
Click to expand...

Oh the old Hilton Hotel story.  I actually feel embarrassed for the people who actually fell into the trap of believing all that hype without finding out the real facts!  

I do give a damn about all animals in the entire country LML, but I really am sick to death of this thread now, and to be quite honest just have run out of steam.  

I wish you every luck in your campaigning, I really do.  

I personally, am just going to carry on doing what I do in this life to save as many animals as I can, wherever they may be.  Surely that's all that matters.


----------



## Fenris (27 November 2012)

Love_my_Lurcher said:



			Justify their conduct regarding the poor pony that Fenris told us about.
		
Click to expand...




Moomin1 said:



			As for Fenris, mm, you should see some of the horrific cruelty cases that the so called 'specialist' defence solicitors that he/she talks about have actually whole-heartedly supported in order to try and clear them of any wrong doing.  I would imagine, by the sounds of you, that you are an animal lover.  Your toes would curl in your shoes.
		
Click to expand...

Seems to be a little misdirection there!

The answer to a question relating to the conduct of the RSPCA in the pony case I provided a link to is not a smoke and mirrors attempt to claim that specialist solicitors are all in some way cruel people who automatically defend those they know to be guilty.

For the record a solicitor is an officer of the court.  Their first duty is to the court.  They cannot defend a client who has admitted to being guilty.  They would have to withdraw from the case.

Media reports rarely favour the defendant.

For instance what do you all know about the Bobby Roberts case?   Would it surprise you to know that the Judge praised Mr.l Roberts and was highly critical of ADI?

See

http://t.co/1Kjf5pCJ

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resourc...bobby-roberts-sentencing-remarks-23112012.pdf 

http://www.circusthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/trial-by-media.html


----------



## Marydoll (27 November 2012)

Ive read this thread and i dont give to the RSPCA, another who thinks their priorities are rather "off" but in the main because they dont help animals in Scotland.
Moomin1 While i understand youre upset, especially if youre one of the many decent field workers, what is coming over loud and clear is your awful attitude to members of the public "US" who disagree with the percieved priorities of the charity.
There are large numbers of the public concerned at the way the charity is being run and if you work for them you are in a good position to try to change it from within, it sounds like youre dismissing/ignoring the views of potential contributors on here rather than going in to work and flagging it up as a major organisational and pr problem.


----------



## ponypilotmum (27 November 2012)

marydoll said:



			Ive read this thread and i dont give to the RSPCA, another who thinks their priorities are rather "off" but in the main because they dont help animals in Scotland.
Moomin1 While i understand youre upset, especially if youre one of the many decent field workers, what is coming over loud and clear is your awful attitude to members of the public "US" who disagree with the percieved priorities of the charity.
There are large numbers of the public concerned at the way the charity is being run and if you work for them you are in a good position to try to change it from within, it sounds like youre dismissing/ignoring the views of potential contributors on here rather than going in to work and flagging it up as a major organisational and pr problem.
		
Click to expand...

This has struck me too, over a few posts in recent days. It's quite worrying that a field officer can speak with such venom about people they would be required to work with on a daily basis. The attitude is very concerning. 

Moomin: three weeks ago a report was made to the local RSPCA about a group of tethered horses standing in flood water. No access to food or shelter. RSPCA have not attended. Horses are still stood knee deep in (now) mud with no hay or grass. I would estimate a body score of about 2/5 on most of them. 
Last year RSPCA were called to a group of horses being neglected. Less than two days later one horse had died. 
I'm hearing stuff like this weekly. I think our local inspector must have got lost or something? 

Sorry, I think some of their inspectors want sacking. I think it's a mickey mouse job. I've no doubt some inspectors are wonderful, but I think their salaries would be better spent on good sat nav systems so they can turn up to jobs!


----------



## CAYLA (28 November 2012)

ponypilotmum said:



			This has struck me too, over a few posts in recent days. It's quite worrying that a field officer can speak with such venom about people they would be required to work with on a daily basis. The attitude is very concerning. 

Moomin: three weeks ago a report was made to the local RSPCA about a group of tethered horses standing in flood water. No access to food or shelter. RSPCA have not attended. Horses are still stood knee deep in (now) mud with no hay or grass. I would estimate a body score of about 2/5 on most of them. 
Last year RSPCA were called to a group of horses being neglected. Less than two days later one horse had died. 
I'm hearing stuff like this weekly. I think our local inspector must have got lost or something? 

Sorry, I think some of their inspectors want sacking. I think it's a mickey mouse job. I've no doubt some inspectors are wonderful, but I think their salaries would be better spent on good sat nav systems so they can turn up to jobs!
		
Click to expand...

^^^^^ Not participated in the post but read it and those 2 last replies are very well put......and the satnav bit at he bottom....well


----------



## 1life (28 November 2012)

I like reading Moomin's posts. Good, balanced arguements for what she believes in. If there is ever venom it's usually through frustration....not surprising when you get other people refusing to believe that people can freely give their money (not have it 'stolen' from Scotland), that there will always be supposed stories of fat cat managememt and that, it appears, there are soooooooooo many sheep who stick with the herd even though they have no personal experience to warrant it!

Rescue teams are stretched to the hilt at the moment. If they haven't managed to reach somewhere I'm sure it will not be through lack of trying.


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (28 November 2012)

I don't like them either to many issues with them.


----------



## Fenris (28 November 2012)

http://www.thisishullandeastriding....line-cruelty/story-17434726-detail/story.html

Is RSPCA doing enough to protect victims of 'borderline cruelty'?

Tuesday, November 27, 2012


I HAVE spoken to the RSPCA several times in relation to the plight of a dog near where I live, but without success.

The dog is left in the back yard 24/7, often without drink, as it can be heard pushing around the empty bowl in what is a concrete yard.

Nobody takes any interest in this poor animal, who lives a solitary life with hardly any human contact and the back door constantly closed to him.

He is never taken out for a walk and has been there that long that he doesn't seem to have any power in his legs any more.

The RSPCA have been made aware, as I have said, but they seem to think that he is only borderline cruelty.

What constitutes cruelty?

When I contacted the RSPCA through a call centre, I was given the third degree by the operator, making me feel belittled for even daring to ring and ask them to step in.

We are led to believe through the media that the RSPCA are constantly aware of these cases and that a call never goes unanswered, but I have been waiting more than a year for an inspector to call me.

When I have mentioned this to other people, they have said they have experienced the same problem with the RSPCA and that unless the animal is high-profile and newsworthy it is left to rot.

The RSPCA constantly put out literature asking for donations and I received 10 letters about the same problem, surely a waste of money.

Instead of so much advertising, money could be targeted to paying the inspectors to root out this borderline cruelty.

I have always donated to the RSPCA but feel that my money would be better directed to other organisations ready to help the needy animal who does not have a voice.

I wonder how many feel the same as I do?

Name and address supplied.

An RSPCA spokesperson said: "We would be keen to reassure your readers that the RSPCA  as a charity  is doing everything it can. We are currently responding to more than 25,000 calls a week from the public and are overwhelmed.

"We would like to thank the public for their continuing support and patience during these difficult times and would urge anyone who has concerns about the way we have handled a call to contact our complaints coordinator at RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS."


----------



## Fenris (28 November 2012)

An empty water bowl IS an offence under the AWA.


----------



## Fenris (28 November 2012)

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/rspca-rant-and-some-ramblings-about-my-day

Chat Forum
RSPCA Rant... and some ramblings about my day

    30 posts & 22 voices | Started 15 hours ago by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR | Latest reply from Freester



    TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR - Member

    Disclaimer - a measured and composed rant, so no comments about swearing/capitals required etc.

    Right, so previous attempts to adopt a dog and subsequent interviews/interrogation that you might expect if you were a paedophile trying to adopt a 2 year old baby aside, my experience with the RSPCA today has left me seething.

    Working just off the M1 Junction 11 (Luton) today, on the roundabout to the A505, I found a trapped dog - a German Shepherd. It was seemingly trapped between a high security fence and a hoarding erected by a demolition company. It had no visible way out, but could move around freely (8ft gap). Although it had a run in either direction of approx 100mtrs, it seemed quite distressed and wanted to stay close to where I was working.

    Initially I presumed it was an agitated guard dog, as it paced up and down snapping and barking, but as the day wore on, it became more apparent that it wasn't. I tentatively approached it and ended up fussing it through the security fence - it now appeared to be quite young (less than 12 months), despite being a large beast - it was very friendly though and desperate to get to me through the fence.

    So, first call - local Police. Not interested, told me to ring the RSPCA, totally unwilling to help and surprised that I couldn't instantly memorise a 10 digit phone no. No worries, I got the number for the local RSPCA from my smartphone.

    2nd call - RSPCA. Whilst the operator seemed irritated that I'd bothered to wake her up, asked a series of totally irrelevant questions, came across as totally irksome and difficult, she eventually managed to log my location, acknowledge why I had called and even realised that she had been a bit of a pain and thanked me for my call and my patience - someone would be in attendance shortly.

    Half an hour later, a call from a different member of the RSPCA. Quite bluntly she told me that as the animal wasn't being treated cruelly, or in any immediate danger (bear in mind I initially selected the option for a trapped animal) that I had to contact the dog warden, as they weren't going to deal with it. I explained that I'd now spent an hour of my day (whilst I was being paid and supposed to be working for a customer) to really devote any more time to this. Not their problem apparently, at which point I pointed out that I had informed them of an animal in obvious distress and surely they had (if not a duty of care) at least some responsibility to deal with the situation.

    Apparently not - "we are a charity, the dog warden gets paid" was the response. Right, I'll just leave it there then shall I? I said. This was met with (don't quote me, but) something along the lines of - do what you want, we won't be attending. At this point I put the phone down, as not to swear.

    So, I eventually get hold of the local dog warden - guess what? "Sorry, it's on private property, we can't attend." Fortunately my exasperation struck a chord at this point and some sensible thinking came into play. Based on the possibility that if the dog escaped, it may possibly end up on the motorway, they overruled protocol and decided to attend. They did stress that if I/we could get it out somehow it would be of a great help.

    I'll go on, and I'm sure there'll be plenty of INRATS, but some might like to know the ending....

    Don't think I went through all this without investigating an escape route - a colleague had previously looked and couldn't find a way in/out. Anyway, a slightly less stupid(??) colleague had now found a way in and approached the pooch - fortunately, it was pleased to see him and didn't rip his face off. He tried to lead it out, but my new best friend wouldn't go unless I followed it along the fenceline. It came straight to me when it came out and had a good fuss. A bloke from the demolition site (who'd been phoned by the warden) came out and said he'd take it to a cabin for a warm and a drink.

    The final chapter - after HATO had been scrambled for assistance (by the dog warden, warning of the possibility of a loose dog on the motorway), everyone turned up on site - I was prepared to take my new best mate home if it was going to the pound to be destroyed. It seems the bloke who'd taken it onto the demolition site had taken a shine to it and was now it's new owner. Exactly what had been sorted with the warden was done before I came back. I don't think some owner was sat at home distraught - the general concensus was that it was a ***** dog. It was very smelly and seemed pretty much untrained.

    Flame forth with critiscism, but that's just how the day went. I think it was a blessing it didn't come home with me - as I spent 2 and a half hours sat in a jam on the M1 because of a loose pig nr Leicester!
    Posted 15 hours ago #


----------



## putasocinit (28 November 2012)

Hear hear horserider, page 1 post.


----------



## BWa (28 November 2012)

Based on the One Show tonight, they can do no wrong. Phah, that leaves a sour taste in my mouth.


----------



## Superhot (28 November 2012)

Ponypilotmum.  Did you call WHW about the tethered horses standing in water?  I have always found them to be very supportive.


----------



## fburton (29 November 2012)

BWa said:



			Based on the One Show tonight, they can do no wrong. Phah, that leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
		
Click to expand...

Which date was that one, and how far through the programme? I skimmed the episode broadcast on the 28th and didn't catch any reference to RSPCA at all.


----------



## BWa (29 November 2012)

fburton said:



			Which date was that one, and how far through the programme? I skimmed the episode broadcast on the 28th and didn't catch any reference to RSPCA at all.
		
Click to expand...

Last night-Wednesday. The bit about the floods with Ewan Thomas taking feed to calves with the RSPCA by boat.


----------



## elijahasgal (29 November 2012)

Been interesting reading the posts in the mean time, as have had computer issues!

In answer to how many times, it was at least 6. To ensure that the muck was moved so it didnt cause mud fever (!)

Yes you only have my word that nothing else was found to be wrong, but I am not given to distorting truth.  

It seems to me that if you give the officers any time, are willing to proove your worthiness to have an animal, and seem to take in what they say, they push in and harass you to acheive whatever level of care they decide is right.  If you tell them to get stuffed and get lost, they have no access to your land or animals and leave you alone. 

Bears thinking about, doesnt it?  Yet someone else I know who neglects horses (I loaned one not knowing, and the condition when it came home which is another story)  continually gets away with it. 

Maybe the RSPCA should become an prosecution/lobbying society, and leave the rescue and care of animals to smaller charaties, that if they can pass their inspections, should be awarded a badge, affiliated to the RSPCA. 

Then there is a clear line as to what is being done and by whome


----------



## fburton (30 November 2012)

BWa said:



			Last night-Wednesday. The bit about the floods with Ewan Thomas taking feed to calves with the RSPCA by boat.
		
Click to expand...

Got it, thanks! (Not sure how I managed to miss that part...)

However... I didn't pick up on anything untoward about the RSPCA and the job they were doing, and no suggestion that they "can do no wrong".


----------



## BWa (30 November 2012)

fburton said:



			Got it, thanks! (Not sure how I managed to miss that part...)

However... I didn't pick up on anything untoward about the RSPCA and the job they were doing, and no suggestion that they "can do no wrong".
		
Click to expand...

Nothing untoward, I just found it all a bit 'how amazing are we' in the way that they pointed out more than once that the calves would die without them. I dont like the way that they sometimes come across as the only ones who can save animals. But I don't like them so my opinion is somewhat twisted!


----------



## fburton (1 December 2012)

Ok, I see what you mean BWa. However, I think one has to accept that a degree of self promotion is natural for an organization that wants to attract public support and donations.


----------



## BWa (1 December 2012)

Certainly, but I'm not sure everyone who donates would be aware that some of their donations is spent on a fancy new headquarters and court cases against huntsmen following a law which is has more holes than a colander. I think we should agree to differ on this one fburton!


----------



## fburton (1 December 2012)

I certainly am not unthinkingly pro RSPCA (or SSPCA) - far from it.


----------

