# RSPCA with out photos



## dymented (2 June 2014)

_The warrant supposedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal, they did not show me or leave a copy__ they took 9 dogs. On the Monday I had a call from the solicitor saying they had called him stating a dog had died the day before IE Sunday. My vet went out and examined the rest of the dogs and was informed the dog had died Monday the RSPCA has never contacted me informing me that one of my sons dog was dead. _


_I asked Clive to find out what had happened? I get a copy of a message he got, that 3 German Shepard's had attacked and killed the dog, the dog was 8 week pregnant at the time.__ They informed my vet that the body had been sent to Essex for an examination, so I got Clive to request that my vet also had chance to examine the body to make sure it was my sons dog and that there was nothing amiss. They told the vet it would be dropped off Tuesday, surprising that was a no show from them. _


_On Friday night 8pm they dropped it at my vets they wanted it back Monday morning he called me to and told me the report on the dead dog was very damming to the RSPCA and did I want him to proceed with an autopsy? I asked if i could come with my son to make sure it was his dog? When we saw it __the skin had been removed, the head removed and she was in bits, there was no way possible to say it was his dog. We scanned the dog and contents of the bag and no micro chip that she was registered with was present__, they knew before hand through Clive we were going to go and identify the dog she had only been in there care 2 days, I firmly believe that the RSPCA did this act deliberately. I have found out another dog has been attacked and bitten about the head, I have photos and there own vet report stating no marks on the dog._


_They granted me access Friday 25 to see my dogs they only fetched 4 dogs. Out of the 4 dogs one was emaciated and had lost 1/3 of his weight with bites to his back legs and tail. I pointed this out to the police and the RSPCA that were present, and the answer I got was to email them with a complaint. I then asked the office why he would not do something abut them starving the dog and the injuries his reply was report the matter to the RSPCA. Its like there a law unto themselves. I went to the police station to report the fact that they had killed one dog, had injured anther and the emaciated dog, There reply you, will have to write to the RSPCA as its nothing to do with them. I did ask them if it was there duty to stop or prevent any acts of cruelty? They would not answer. Hunting in the UK is legal under the DEFRA guidelines (rat rabbit and fox for the protection of game birds). _full story here https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog 

 i have not been charged with any offence at all 

she was returned in a plastic bag in just two days skinned and beheaded by the rspca


----------



## dogatemysalad (2 June 2014)

Were you encouraging your dogs to fight with wild animals ?


----------



## *hic* (2 June 2014)

Eh ??


----------



## risky business (2 June 2014)

I don't understand if you haven't been charged with any offence why you haven't got any of the dogs back? 

You don't state whether you were encouraging a fight or not?

Rspca are usually useless when it comes to seizing animals quite frankly, even when they need removing. I find it difficult to believe they just took all the dogs based on one claim? Or is this an ongoing issue they have with you?


----------



## Amymay (2 June 2014)

This is best left to your solicitor, not a public forum.


----------



## dymented (2 June 2014)

No i have not been charged with any offence The warrant supposedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal No i was not everything was all legal and above bored


----------



## dymented (2 June 2014)

they seem to do what they want and yes i will be getting the other dogs back they like to try and intimidate you threaten you ect its well known 



risky business said:



			I don't understand if you haven't been charged with any offence why you haven't got any of the dogs back? 

You don't state whether you were encouraging a fight or not?

Rspca are usually useless when it comes to seizing animals quite frankly, even when they need removing. I find it difficult to believe they just took all the dogs based on one claim? Or is this an ongoing issue they have with you?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## risky business (2 June 2014)

Well I'm sorry you lost one of the dogs and the others are not being kept in good standards. 

I hope something is sorted and the others are returned.


----------



## Tiddlypom (2 June 2014)

jemima*askin said:



			Eh ??
		
Click to expand...

There was a thread up last night, with some graphic photos, which seems to have been pulled. OP's dogs were seized by the RSPCA and one later died.

Agree with Amymay, leave this to your solicitor. You are not helping your cause one iota by going public like this until after legal proceedings, if any, have taken their course.


----------



## Goldenstar (2 June 2014)

Was there a police officer present when the dogs where taken ?
Did they enter your property without your permission ?
If so you need good heavy weight advice fast if the dogs where illegally seized pursue the RSPCA through the courts with every penny you have to get the dogs back .
If they have broken the law make them pay .
But I would concentrate your efforts on getting your dogs back public campaigns risk them digging in and using their considerable resources against you.


----------



## Dobiegirl (2 June 2014)

Ive seen this on fb and I agree about not ranting on here however warranted but pursue through your solicitor to get your dogs back. Perhaps contact DDA there is a fb group who can put you in touch with a skilled solicitor who fights to get peoples dogs back that are seized either by the police or the RSPCA.

Good luck and hope you get your dogs back soon and justice for your plummer Terrier.


----------



## dogatemysalad (2 June 2014)

dymented said:



No i have not been charged with any offence The warrant supposedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal No i was not everything was all legal and above bored

Click to expand...

So you were encouraging the dogs to fight then. Shame on you.


----------



## Goldenstar (2 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			So you were encouraging the dogs to fight then. Shame on you.
		
Click to expand...

Allegedly only .


----------



## dogatemysalad (2 June 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Allegedly only .
		
Click to expand...

If someone asked if you had used your dogs to fight, wouldn't you be mortified and deny it quite categorically ? The poster merely states that 'everything was all legal and above bored'. (sic)


----------



## Goldenstar (2 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			If someone asked if you had used your dogs to fight, wouldn't you be mortified and deny it quite categorically ? The poster merely states that 'everything was all legal and above bored'. (sic)
		
Click to expand...

I am not OP .
If she thinks every thing was legal that's her position until the law decides otherwise .
It's up to this charity to take a civil case against her if they choose to do so.
In the mean time if they are behaving unlawfully themselves and have caused the death of one of the dogs I hope Op brings them to book over it .


----------



## risky business (2 June 2014)

OP said 'animals' not other dogs so I'm guessing they mean wildlife?! 

I know nothing about the laws on dogs and wildlife. What I'm assuming is OP was maybe hunting with her dogs which have caught a wild animal? It's the only logically thing I can think of? As I said though no ideas on law and original post isn't clear. I 

Can you clarify OP.


----------



## dogatemysalad (2 June 2014)

The warrant said 'encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal.' 
That would be different from a dog catching a rabbit or a rat. What were the circumstances and who made the complaint, OP ?


----------



## fburton (2 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			If someone asked if you had used your dogs to fight, wouldn't you be mortified and deny it quite categorically ? The poster merely states that 'everything was all legal and above bored'. (sic)
		
Click to expand...

"No i was not" seems pretty definite to me - although I agree it would be helpful to have further clarification.




			The warrant said 'encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal.' 
That would be different from a dog catching a rabbit or a rat. What were the circumstances and who made the complaint, OP ?
		
Click to expand...

I too would like to know the circumstances. Presumably any wild animal involved would be one _capable_ of fighting back in more than just a token fashion, such as a fox...?


----------



## Lynsey&Smartie (2 June 2014)

From looking at the facebook page it appears that they use the dogs to control rabbits. I have no idea what the law on this is but from the comments from the OP on the first post s/he seems to admit to that.


----------



## Goldenstar (2 June 2014)

Hunting rabbits is listed as an exception on the government website so it can't be that .


----------



## Tiddlypom (2 June 2014)

This sentence is included towards the end of the OP.

'Hunting in the UK is legal under the DEFRA guidelines (rat rabbit and fox for the protection of game birds).'

OP hasn't denied that the dogs were used for hunting. It sounds like one or the other side would have to prove, or disprove, the legality of the hunting.


----------



## Arizahn (2 June 2014)

I saw the photos yesterday. The one that was said to be of the dog two days prior to her death did not look like a heavily pregnant animal, and gestation in dogs only takes nine weeks so this confused me. Perhaps there was an error?


----------



## lexiedhb (2 June 2014)

Confused.com.

Do the RSPCA just take dogs for no apparent reason now then?


----------



## dogatemysalad (2 June 2014)

The claim that he ' encouraged a dog to fight a wild animal' is what puzzles me. Was the 'wild animal' in a ring or trapped in some way ? Dogs are used legitimately for ratting on farms everywhere, so it's hardly that. 
 Unfortunately the OP disappeared when I started asking specific questions. Perhaps he'll return later to clarify.


----------



## widget (2 June 2014)

probably badger baiting or similar? also if they had a warrant they must have produced evidence to a court so maybe have photos or video footage? 

as its rspca taking the prosecution you wont be 'charged' with anything you will be interviewed under caution and then summons will be issued if taking to court. I suggest you speak to your solicitor and not a forum or facebook!


----------



## thewonderhorse (2 June 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			Confused.com.

Do the RSPCA just take dogs for no apparent reason now then?
		
Click to expand...

Just what I was thinking too......


----------



## JillA (2 June 2014)

Whatever the rights and wrongs in this particular case, the RSPCA have a huge problem in that there is no real way to contact them other than via their call centre. I have tried several times to express concerns, or ask for an update etc. No way of updating, getting feedback, giving feedback - and for an organisation which relies on public donation that stinks IMHO.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 June 2014)

JillA,  I agree with you,  and with no apparent communication system other than word-of-mouth,  the tactics and behaviour of what was once a respected and revered charity,  now seems to have sunk to a level of political scheming,  underhand tactics and a less than transparent approach.

There's no question that the grass roots Inspectors,  though on occasion poorly trained, clearly incompetent and often out of their depth,  have the well being of their charges at heart.  The problem occurs with the senior management.  The heavy handed,  uncompromising and stubborn approach to those who would advise caution,  speaks volumes of a group with no thought to their very own charter.

The rspca,  or so it seems to me,  are only interested in their own self promotion,  and building a portfolio of high level successes,  with the hope that they,  as their American counterparts,  have government clearance to act as a force.  Our Government have already abdicated responsibility,  in part,  by permitting a charity (and one with fund raising preferences),  to act as a prosecuting body.  Madness,  pure madness.

Alec.


----------



## dymented (2 June 2014)

the photo off the dog was taken 4 weeks be for the seized her in the eyes of the rspca any form off hunting is against there policy. Ii do legitimate pest control which i have in writing i have not been charged with any offence !Or done anything illegal. Its not about me its about getting justice for the dog that was killed by the rspca in there care through there incompetence ( she died a long agonizing death ) taken from there own vet report .Did she deserve to be torn to bit


----------



## Goldenstar (2 June 2014)

To understand clearly .
You have not and are not to charged for any offense .
Your dogs where seized not signed over and a police officer was not present .
Your remaining dogs are still with the RSPCA.


----------



## dymented (2 June 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			To understand clearly .
You have not and are not to charged for any offense .
Your dogs where seized not signed over and a police officer was not present .
Your remaining dogs are still with the RSPCA.
		
Click to expand...

there was a police officer present yes they still have the remaining dogs i have not been charged with any offence


----------



## Alec Swan (2 June 2014)

dymented,  the irony of your case is that your dogs were seized,  for their own protection _(sic)_,  and whilst in the care of the rspca,  and after 4 days,  one was 'Found dead' (their words),  but had been killed by 3 GSDs,  again,  whilst in their care.  I wonder if it's occurred to the clowns that the dog may well have been safer,  had she been left with you.  The idea of the poor little thing being killed,  as you say,  by 3 larger dogs,  should be unthinkable.  

Isn't there a proposed level of legislation whereby those who don't demonstrate proper care of those dogs,  under their 'Care and control',  and who permit such behaviour,  to now face increased and stiffer prison sentences?  A further irony would be to see the rspca prosecuting themselves.  Further lunacy!!

The next time that I read of anyone on here who demands prison sentences for those who don't control their dogs,  and there's a fatality,  then I shall remind them of this thread!  It's all to do with responsibility,  and I'm wondering where the rspca see theirs. 

In your shoes,  I too would be less than impressed.  

Alec.


----------



## Goldenstar (2 June 2014)

Ok so it sounds as if it was legal for them to take the dogs .
Have you been cautioned in presence of the police officer ?
If so I think you need to stay off the internet and talk to your solicitor .
I think they have six months to charge you and they can keep your dogs in this time as far as I can remember .
Get Legal help from people with experience of defending against the RSPCA.
Just because they have not charged you yet does not mean they won't .
Get your solicitor on their case about the welfare of your other dogs .


----------



## dymented (2 June 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Ok so it sounds as if it was legal for them to take the dogs .
Have you been cautioned in presence of the police officer ?
If so I think you need to stay off the internet and talk to your solicitor .
I think they have six months to charge you and they can keep your dogs in this time as far as I can remember .
Get Legal help from people with experience of defending against the RSPCA.
Just because they have not charged you yet does not mean they won't .
Get your solicitor on their case about the welfare of your other dogs .
		
Click to expand...

 i already have a well known solicitor on the case and intend to show as many people as possible what the rspca are like !! as well as getting justice for the death off the dog in rspca care


----------



## Goldenstar (2 June 2014)

I am glad you have it covered .
And wish you well in bringing them to book for the death of your lovely little dog and that the others are kept safe until such time all is resolved .


----------



## fburton (2 June 2014)

dymented said:



			i already have a well known solicitor on the case and intend to show as many people as possible what the rspca are like !! as well as getting justice for the death off the dog in rspca care
		
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, I assume he or she has advised you on the wisdom of public pronouncements on the substance of the case?


----------



## dymented (2 June 2014)

if any one would like to read the full story feel free https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog


----------



## Tiddlypom (2 June 2014)

dymented said:



			if any one would like to read the full story feel free https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog

Click to expand...

Had a look but it's all rather muddled. None the wiser.


----------



## dogatemysalad (2 June 2014)

dymented said:



			the photo off the dog was taken 4 weeks be for the seized her in the eyes of the rspca any form off hunting is against there policy. Ii do legitimate pest control which i have in writing i have not been charged with any offence !Or done anything illegal. Its not about me its about getting justice for the dog that was killed by the rspca in there care through there incompetence ( she died a long agonizing death ) taken from there own vet report .Did she deserve to be torn to bit
		
Click to expand...

Still confused. Pest control of rabbits and rats with dogs is legal and usual. I do not understand why the RSPCA and police seized your dogs if you were acting in a reasonable manner. 
If the RSPCA and police rushed out to seize every ratting dog, there wouldn't be a many dogs left on farms in the UK and the police would need a few thousand more officers to attend all these 'offences'. 
Perhaps you've missed a bit of the story....


----------



## dymented (2 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			Still confused. Pest control of rabbits and rats with dogs is legal and usual. I do not understand why the RSPCA and police seized your dogs if you were acting in a reasonable manner. 
If the RSPCA and police rushed out to seize every ratting dog, there wouldn't be a many dogs left on farms in the UK and the police would need a few thousand more officers to attend all these 'offences'. 
Perhaps you've missed a bit of the story....
		
Click to expand...

Nor do i understand why there were seized


----------



## dogatemysalad (2 June 2014)

dymented said:



			Nor do i understand why there were seized
		
Click to expand...

I expect all will be clear in time.


----------



## dymented (2 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			I expect all will be clear in time.
		
Click to expand...

Dosent come any clearer than the dog being killed in rspca care due to neglect and cruelty if you ask me


----------



## Queenbee (2 June 2014)

How about your son?  You say it was your sons dog, was the warrent justified for your son?  Was he enciting illegal attacks?  Perhaps it was the number of dogs involved in the attacks that the rspca had a problem with?  As the number can be the difference between legal and illegal.

Now dont get me wrong, im absolutely no fan of the rspca or their practices in general, but i just feel something is missing from this equation, did any of the dogs attack a wild animal?  What animal did they attack?  How many dogs attacked the animal, who was in charge at the time?  Much of your posts are hazy to the point of being deliberately so, and as much as im not a fan of the rspca, it makes me disinclined to take you seriously.


----------



## vieshot (2 June 2014)

Queenbee said:



			How about your son?  You say it was your sons dog, was the warrent justified for your son?  Was he enciting illegal attacks?  Perhaps it was the number of dogs involved in the attacks that the rspca had a problem with?  As the number can be the difference between legal and illegal.

Now dont get me wrong, im absolutely no fan of the rspca or their practices in general, but i just feel something is missing from this equation, did any of the dogs attack a wild animal?  What animal did they attack?  How many dogs attacked the animal, who was in charge at the time?  Much of your posts are hazy to the point of being deliberately so, and as much as im not a fan of the rspca, it makes me disinclined to take you seriously.
		
Click to expand...

Quite agree. Not getting told the whole story. Doesn't add up. Can't stand the RSPCA however I'm not buying this.


----------



## FionaM12 (2 June 2014)

I found the original thread (gone now) confusing, this one equally so, and the Facebook group no help.

It all seems very odd and garbled.


----------



## dymented (3 June 2014)

How about your son? You say it was your sons dog, was the warrent justified for your son? No my son was not mentioned on the warrant or has never been contacted
Was he enciting illegal attacks? No one was doing anything illegal
Perhaps it was the number of dogs involved in the attacks that the rspca had a problem with? I do not think so as they never mentioned it
They simply did it because they could as far as i am concerned its not the first time the rspca  have done anything like this have a listen to the radio interview http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037v4fp


----------



## fburton (3 June 2014)

dymented said:



			Was he enciting illegal attacks? No one was doing anything illegal

Click to expand...

Not even what people, including the RSPCA, would consider dodgy? There must have been _some_ reason given for the action taken!


----------



## dymented (3 June 2014)

They came with a warrant saying encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal so they say. I was never left a copy or saw one. The solicitors have requested a copy twice and still have not received it
They must have been hoping and praying they could find something illegal but they have not and will not


----------



## thewonderhorse (3 June 2014)

I really cant believe that the RSPCA, no matter how bad a press they can sometimes have, would seize dogs for no reason.

As for encouraging the dog to fight with a wild animal....

Its all a bit fishy to me I am afraid.


----------



## dymented (3 June 2014)

thewonderhorse said:



			I really cant believe that the RSPCA, no matter how bad a press they can sometimes have, would seize dogs for no reason.

As for encouraging the dog to fight with a wild animal....

Its all a bit fishy to me I am afraid.
		
Click to expand...

Do these look like they have been fighting ?? photos taken by a vet at the rspca center where the dog was killed


----------



## lexiedhb (3 June 2014)

Its hells own job to get the RSPCA to do anything about actual animal suffering, I can not see how they would seize what 7 dogs for absolutely no apparent reason.


----------



## dogatemysalad (3 June 2014)

So you're saying that the RSPCA seized 9 dogs for absolutely no reason, aided and abetted by the police ? You claim that you were doing absolutely nothing to compromise their welfare or cause unnecessary suffering to a wild animal. This stretches the bounds of credibility. 
 Out of interest, what were the circumstances that caused the RSPCA to intervene ?


----------



## thewonderhorse (3 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			So you're saying that the RSPCA seized 9 dogs for absolutely no reason, aided and abetted by the police ? You claim that you were doing absolutely nothing to compromise their welfare or cause unnecessary suffering to a wild animal. This stretches the bounds of credibility. 
 Out of interest, what were the circumstances that caused the RSPCA to intervene ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes my thoughts too


----------



## Alec Swan (3 June 2014)

dymented said:



			.......






Click to expand...

The pictures on display show the 9 seized dogs.  So what do we have?  A rather handsome Ridgeback,  a Boxer (of sorts!),  an ageing black and white dog of indiscriminate breeding,  a predominately white lurcher (again,  of sorts),  a black and tan broken coated dog,  and one which really doesn't look to be very happy,  a useful looking liver coloured terrier,  just the head pic of what looks like a B&W greyhound,  a little black terrier bitch and though claimed to be a working dog,  she wouldn't be for me,  and lastly,  the fawn and white terrier which was killed.  Does anyone see the 3 GSDs which the rspca claim killed the little dog?  

I will accept that there will be a degree of confusion regarding this thread,  in that perhaps the O_P hasn't explained themselves,  too well.  A less than lucid command of the English language doesn't make the person guilty,  nor the rspca innocent of crime.

Just a thought for those who find it incomprehensible that the rspca could act against someone in a less than justified manner,  does it occur to you that all of those dogs seem to be in good condition,  none are those which are used as fighting dogs,  and with the exception of the rather smart liver coloured terrier,  none would be the choice of most for illegal activities........  

........Furthermore,  if these dogs had been used for illegal activities,  then they would contain the battle scars,  wouldn't they? ...... so where are the rspca photographs which will be evidence of such activities?  The simple fact is that they don't exist.  I'd suggest that those who are in doubt ask those who keep working terriers and ask if any,  with the exception of the above mentioned Liver coloured animal,  would be considered of any use.  

The dogs in the pics,  appear to me to be a rather motley collection of pets.  

It would be interesting to know if the rspca have managed to achieve an injunction to prevent the media reporting this case.  Does anyone know if such matters are open to public scrutiny?

Alec.


----------



## dogatemysalad (3 June 2014)

The OP offers no explanation as to why the RSPCA along with the police who attended and cooperated, removed the dogs. Even the most vociferous critics of the RSPCA would find this a little bizarre.


----------



## Alec Swan (3 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			The OP offers no explanation as to why the RSPCA along with the police who attended and cooperated, removed the dogs. Even the most vociferous critics of the RSPCA would find this a little bizarre.
		
Click to expand...

Having read the O_P's posts,  just as you have,  it would seem to me that He (or She) are as confused as you and I.  Read the O_P's posts again,  and you will see that the rspca,  apart from spurious insinuations,  haven't offered any reason,  or evidence.

To suggest that the rspca wouldn't be involved in false allegations and accusations,  is nonsense,  as must be clear to all.

Alec.


----------



## dymented (3 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			The OP offers no explanation as to why the RSPCA along with the police who attended and cooperated, removed the dogs. Even the most vociferous critics of the RSPCA would find this a little bizarre.
		
Click to expand...

The warrant supposedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal, they did not show me or leave a copy. How much plainer do i have to type it i have not been charged with any crime they can not nor will find any evidence of any off our dogs fighting wild animals every thing i have done is legal and above bored Its well known fact that the rspca do what they want when they want 
They have a enormous amount of funding that they use to bully people 
 more story's on the rspca here www.grumpyoldarchive.co.uk i am not the only person that something like this has happened too nor will i be the last !! there own vet report stated the dog that was killed in rspca care was in good health and condition


----------



## Alec Swan (3 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			The OP offers no explanation as to why the RSPCA along with the police who attended and cooperated, removed the dogs. Even the most vociferous critics of the RSPCA would find this a little bizarre.
		
Click to expand...

I,  you may have noticed,  am amongst your quoted 'most vociferous',  and am as confused by their behaviour,  as you.  Another thought for you,  perhaps you should direct your question to towards the rspca.  

Alec.


----------



## dymented (3 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I,  you may have noticed,  am amongst your quoted 'most vociferous',  and am as confused by their behaviour,  as you.  Another thought for you,  perhaps you should direct your question to towards the rspca.  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I hope they more answers than i did i called them over 164 times and they would not reply all i get was your message has been passed on


----------



## abracadabra (3 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Having read the O_P's posts,  just as you have,  it would seem to me that He (or She) are as confused as you and I.  Read the O_P's posts again,  and you will see that the rspca,  apart from spurious insinuations,  haven't offered any reason,  or evidence.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, it's there in plain language from the OP, that the OP HAS indeed offered what explanation they have, if people care to read the posts properly.




			To suggest that the rspca wouldn't be involved in false allegations and accusations,  is nonsense,  as must be clear to all.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

As crystal.


----------



## webble (3 June 2014)

The OP has said that the pics were taken by the RSPCA but that cant be the case with a few of those pics and if thats not fact I would question what else isn't


----------



## dymented (3 June 2014)

webble said:



			The OP has said that the pics were taken by the RSPCA but that cant be the case with a few of those pics and if thats not fact I would question what else isn't
		
Click to expand...

Have you been to speck savers​photos taken by a vet at the rspca center where the dog was killed 






Im sure if you scroll back you can see what i posted just in case you cant i coped and pasted it above you can clearly see it says taken by a vet at the rspca center in fact it was my vet that took the photos his own words were i can not for the life off me understand why they have done this  . The photo off the dogs chilling out on the sofa was to show ignorant people what they were like at home The one of the plummer terrier was take be for the seized her the only other photo i have of her in the rscpas care was in a plastic bag skinned and beheaded  Do not be fooled by the rspca it could happen to any one


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 June 2014)

Might you have been grassed up by someone with a grudge against you or your family?


----------



## dymented (3 June 2014)

Tiddlypom said:



			Might you have been grassed up by someone with a grudge against you or your family?
		
Click to expand...

Quite possible i live in an area thats full off bunny huggers but as i have stated every thing was legal and above bored But what excuse to the rspca need they do what they want when they want they have no governing body to investigate there wrong doing at all as i was told when i made formal complaints i believe the reply from inspector j g was ( going to be interesting me investigating myself )


----------



## FionaM12 (4 June 2014)

Some things about this seem very odd. The photo of the terrier on the Facebook page, next to the photo of its remains, bears the caption "From this to this in two days" implying the photo was taken two days before its death (end of April). 

https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog

On this thread, the OP says the photo was taken "four weeks before it was seized" yet here's the very same photo on a for sale site from three months ago.

http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/classifieds/544650-plummer-terrier-bitch-mablethorpe.html

It's all a bit hard to follow.


----------



## FionaM12 (4 June 2014)

Also... on the facebook page it says "Was told officially on Tuesday 13th (May) 8 weeks after they took her that she died in a fight".

EIGHT weeks after they took her? :confused3:  Then how could the photo have been taken four weeks before she was seized?



dymented said:



			the photo off the dog was taken 4 weeks be for the seized her
		
Click to expand...

And in the first post here, the Op says 



dymented said:



			she had only been in there care 2 days,
		
Click to expand...

So, she'd only been in their care two days, but she died 8 weeks after they took her?


----------



## FionaM12 (4 June 2014)

Also... on the facebook page it says "Was told officially on Tuesday 13th (May) 8 weeks after they took her that she died in a fight".

EIGHT weeks after they took her? :confused3:  Then how could the photo have been taken four weeks before she was seized?



dymented said:



			the photo off the dog was taken 4 weeks be for the seized her
		
Click to expand...

And in the first post here, the Op says 



dymented said:



			she had only been in there care 2 days,
		
Click to expand...

So, she'd only been in their care two days, but she died 8 weeks after they took her?


----------



## FionaM12 (4 June 2014)

Sorry for the double posting. I don't know how that happened! 


Copied and pasted from Facebook:




			&#8226;	 
Rspca did this: Was told officially on Tuesday13th 8 weeks after they took her that she died in a fight and when i asked over the other dog being emaciated with bites marks on his legs inspector J G reply was hes only lost a tad over 2.5 kg and it was his bedding that caused the marks on him and that they had addressed the matter wtf do they think they can get away with neglecting animal in there care. I have had animals over 40 years and nothing has ever happened to any animal i have owned and looked after
Like &#8226; Reply &#8226; May 15 at 11:35am
&#8226;
		
Click to expand...


----------



## dymented (4 June 2014)

FionaM12
Some things about this seem very odd. The photo of the terrier on the Facebook page, next to the photo of its remains, bears the caption "From this to this in two days" implying the photo was taken two days before its death (end of April).

implying she was alive well and healthy !
FionaM12
On this thread, the OP says the photo was taken "four weeks before it was seized" yet here's the very same photo on a for sale site from three months ago.
i do appolagise when i asked my son for a photo off his dog he gave me a few and i chose that one. She was in the same condition as they took her. He could not take his dogs with him to his new place and we offerd to keep his dogs so they would be safe
FionaM12
Also... on the facebook page it says "Was told officially on Tuesday 13th (May) 8 weeks after they took her that she died in a fight".  the rpsca called my solicitor i used when they siezed the dogs and told him Monday 17th she had been killed on the Sunday in a fight. They never contacted me at all till 8 weeks after she was killed
FionaM12
So, she'd only been in their care two days, but she died 8 weeks after they took her?
they took her on the friday and so they say she died on the sunday 2days later
FionaM12
Rspca did this: Was told officially on Tuesday13th 8 weeks after they took her that she died in a fight and when i asked over the other dog being emaciated with bites marks on his legs inspector J G reply was hes only lost a tad over 2.5 kg and it was his bedding that caused the marks on him and that they had addressed the matter wtf do they think they can get away with neglecting animal in there care. I have had animals over 40 years and nothing has ever happened to any animal i have owned and looked afte

yes thats correct 8 week later they told me officially she was killed in a fight as stated on FB i had viseted 4 dogs one which looked emaciated to me the repli i got was hes only lost a tad over 2.5kg since making complaints they have refused me access to the remaining dogs what are they hiding ????

I would gladly post the detailed reports by the rspcas own vet showing her gruesome death in there hands but i am pretty sure some one from or who has dealing with the rspca would report the thread again .Question is did she deserve to die FionaM12 by being torn to bits in the care of the rspca thank you for your questions hope this helps a bit FionaM12 but if your that bored try having a read on here http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/rspca6.asp many more story's about how and what the rspca do and treat people and animals in there care !


----------



## dymented (7 June 2014)

We have now issued legal proceedings against the rspca for neglect and cruelty inflicted on the poor dog that was torn to bits in there care will keep you all updated as and when there is any news


----------



## Lynsey&Smartie (7 June 2014)

dymented said:



			We have now issued legal proceedings against the rspca for neglect and cruelty inflicted on the poor dog that was torn to bits in there care will keep you all updated as and when there is any news
		
Click to expand...

Good for you. Whether you have been hunting legally as you claim or illegally as the RSPCA appear to claim it is totally unacceptable for the RSPCA to seize an animal 'for it's own protection(?!)' if they do not have the facilities, resources and staff to ensure that it is protected and cared for i.e. in this case kept away from a pack of larger dogs which could attack and kill it. If they cannot do this they should not and should not be able to forcibly remove peoples animals.


----------



## Goldenstar (7 June 2014)

dymented said:



			We have now issued legal proceedings against the rspca for neglect and cruelty inflicted on the poor dog that was torn to bits in there care will keep you all updated as and when there is any news
		
Click to expand...

Good for you .


----------



## MerrySherryRider (7 June 2014)

Hope you have deep pockets. 

You've still omitted to say what the circumstances where prior to the dogs removal in the presence of the police, except to vaguely say it 'all legal and above board'. The whole story sounds very dodgy.


----------



## Fides (7 June 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Hope you deep pockets.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed - the last publicised case like this cost the losing side £26K in RSPCA legal fees.


----------



## abracadabra (7 June 2014)

good luck, though doubt you'll get anywhere whether you're in the right or wrong, they're a law unto themselves,


----------



## Alec Swan (7 June 2014)

Fides said:



			Agreed - the last publicised case like this cost the losing side £26K in RSPCA legal fees.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed,  but my bet is that the charity wont be that stupid,  and will settle out of Court.  Let's face it,  they can afford such triflings.

Alec.


----------



## Goldenstar (7 June 2014)

Fides said:



			Agreed - the last publicised case like this cost the losing side £26K in RSPCA legal fees.
		
Click to expand...

Of someone taking a private proceeding against the RSPCA for neglect for allowing a dog to be killed by other dogs in RSPCA care ?
What where the names in the case and I'll look it up I would like to see the details of that one.


----------



## Fides (7 June 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Of someone taking a private proceeding against the RSPCA for neglect for allowing a dog to be killed by other dogs in RSPCA care ?
What where the names in the case and I'll look it up I would like to see the details of that one.
		
Click to expand...

No just as an example of how much RSPCA legal fees can run up to

OP - because of the amendments to the DDA you could, in theory, now insist the police prosecute them under the DDA and failing to meet their duty of care.


----------



## Goldenstar (7 June 2014)

Well let's hope OP can afford her day in court .
And her brief is on top of it all and I look 'forward 'to hearing the explanation of how OP's dog ended up skinned and in bits in a bag when returned to her .
I can only hope they are taking better care of the other dogs .


----------



## dymented (7 June 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Hope you have deep pockets. 

You've still omitted to say what the circumstances where prior to the dogs removal in the presence of the police, except to vaguely say it 'all legal and above board'. The whole story sounds very dodgy.
		
Click to expand...

On the first page of this thread it says ( The warrant supposedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal, they did not show me or leave a copy ) Every thing was alleged No charges have ever been brought against me !


----------



## Alec Swan (7 June 2014)

Fides said:



			.........

OP - because of the amendments to the DDA you could, in theory, now insist the police prosecute them under the DDA and failing to meet their duty of care.
		
Click to expand...

And this very point brings to the fore,  a now accepted prosecuting service who are themselves now open prosecution.  Prosecuting services should be above reproach,  not doing their level best,  as the rspca are doing,  to extricate themselves from the mire.

The rspca are a collection of clowns,  and they shouldn't be.  They should be open to respect.

Alec.


----------



## Goldenstar (7 June 2014)

dymented said:



			) Every thing was alleged No charges have ever been brought against me !

Click to expand...

Yet OP , it's my understanding they have six months from when they cautioned you .


----------



## Dry Rot (7 June 2014)

Has everyone forgotten the days when someone reporting seeing a man carrying a spade and accompanied by a small dog was sufficient "proof" of badger baiting to have them get the police helicopters out? 

It doesn't take much to raise the zeal of the do-gooders. Why would they need evidence and witnesses to confuse the issue? The primary duty of the police is to "protect life and property". Wouldn't their role in being present when the dogs were seized be simply to make sure there was no breach of the peace?

Can an action in detinue be brought in the Small Claims Court? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detinue) If so, that would allow the OP to take action himself at minimal cost, and on-line too, without risking anything like £25k in legal fees. Or even £260 come to that!

Why do I suggest that? Because the only way to fight these bullies is with publicity. Even winning a Small Claim action would put the matter in the newspapers. Maybe some white knight would then step forward to fund a further legal action?


----------



## dymented (7 June 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Yet OP , it's my understanding they have six months from when they cautioned you .
		
Click to expand...

 I totally under stand that but why when the cps say there is no evidence that i have committed a crime Why do the rspca still insist on holding the dogs and trying to bring a private prosecution ? Where do they think they are going to get evidence from ? Un less they plan on manufacturing it them self . Personal if  i had laid down and let them walk all over me and not complained over them killing the poor dog , injuring another dog , and starving anther one i would have every thing back to normal now . Thank you Dry Rot for your advice on the small claims court but its a criminal matter so has to be in magistrates court so i am told but i will seek further advice on it to try to cut costs


----------



## Dry Rot (7 June 2014)

dymented said:



			I totally under stand that but why when the cps say there is no evidence that i have committed a crime Why do the rspca still insist on holding the dogs and trying to bring a private prosecution ? Where do they think they are going to get evidence from ? Un less they plan on manufacturing it them self . Personal if  i had laid down and let them walk all over me and not complained over them killing the poor dog , injuring another dog , and starving anther one i would have every thing back to normal now . *Thank you Dry Rot for your advice on the small claims court but its a criminal matter so has to be in magistrates court so i am told* but i will seek further advice on it to try to cut costs
		
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer and don't know either. Just an addict of Judge Judy! OK, that TV series is in the USA but some of the cases she handles either have been through the criminal courts or may go onto there later. I don't think one excludes the other. In fact, the burden of proof is less in the civil courts so cases sometimes do go through both after having failed in the criminal court. OK, it is also a different country, different laws, and different legal system but justice is justice. Good luck with whatever you do and I think most here are backing you and your cause.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (7 June 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			and I think most here are backing you and your cause.
		
Click to expand...

Not with me. He deliberately refuses to state why the dogs came to the attention of the RSPCA and police. His story has more holes than a Swiss cheese.


----------



## dymented (7 June 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Not with me. He deliberately refuses to state why the dogs came to the attention of the RSPCA and police. His story has more holes than a Swiss cheese.
		
Click to expand...

How many times do i have to post the same answer The warrant supposedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal, they did not show me or leave a copy we have asked twice for a copy and not received any I do not no you from Adam but id put ££ you have something to do with the rspca The rspca can not hid the fact the dog was killed in there care Fact  she was killed by other dogs in there care Fact The cps say there are no charges to answer. What else do you want to no ??? its been proven that the rspca lie cheat and bribe people to lie as well as fabricate evidence have a read on here or dose every one not an rspca lover telling pork pies http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/rspca again.asp  or read people comments from horse and hound http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/archive/index.php/t-504698.html


----------



## Fides (7 June 2014)

dymented said:



			How many times do i have to post the same answer
		
Click to expand...

I'm supporting you, but you _haven't_ actually answered the question, merely stated what they accused you of. Perhaps a better way of phrasing the question would have been 'What were you doing with your dogs (and also how many of them were with you at the time) that could have been misconstrued as 'fighting with a wild animal'?'

Or more simply - what were you doing that they were wrong about?

ETA - regardless of whether you were in the right or wrong, they had a duty of care to the animals they seized that they didn't fulfill and the police could prosecute them under DDA. If they fail, you could still take civil action.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (7 June 2014)

No Demented, I do not work for the RSPCA.

 I do own a horse that was starved to the point of death before the RSPCA rescued him and prosecuted the owner successfully. 
I have also owned several dogs that were rehomed from the RSPCA. My own experience of the RSPCA has been very positive and down to earth.


----------



## Dry Rot (8 June 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Not with me. He deliberately refuses to state why the dogs came to the attention of the RSPCA and police. His story has more holes than a Swiss cheese.
		
Click to expand...

See my post above. Not so long ago it was enough to be seen to be carrying a spade and accompanied by a small dog to get the police helicopters out.

I have had the SSPCA here. They were given the Cook's Tour and were so impressed that they gave me a copy of the complaint they'd received so I could pass it to my solicitor to bring an action in defamation against the writer as the allegations were so blatantly untrue. That's all it takes to get their attention. One complaint from a liar.

You do not seem to get it that you don't need to do anything to get the unwanted attention from these "welfare" organisations and do-gooders. OK, they have a role, but more often they over step the mark in order to justify their existence.

I have also had the SSPCA's lies. I have been chasing DEFRA over an infestation of ragwort up wind of my property. (DEFRA has the duty and powers to take action under the 1959 Weeds Act, not the SSPCA/RSPCA). The SSPCA visited the site because the absentee owner had left a dog on a chain for three months with someone paid to come in once a day only to feed and water. The SSPCA stated there was no ragwort (there are also ponies on site) yet, anticipating what would happen, I took photographs of the ponies grazing amongst a carpet of ragwort shortly after this visit. If you like, I will publish the photographs here with a copy of the letter I received from DEFRA. 

Many of these "inspectors" have very little training and not much experience. You do not have to do anything other than have a bad neighbour make an allegation to have these people make your life hell, It is time they were made accountable. Note, I do not say stopped and I do believe they have a role but, as I've said before, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Justice is depicted blind folded and carrying a two edged sword for good reason.


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

*There were 9 dogs altogether we were looking after my sons as well
We have written permission for pest control 
They took all the dogs from the house
All dogs were in good healthy fit condition.* 






(the alleged fighting with a wild animal) was an excuse so they could come with the police and sieze the dogs and charge you a fee of up to £20 per dog a day boarding while they hold your dogs
No evidance of any one here has been found of any dog fighting wild animals nor will they be
They have egg on there face big time and need to hide the fact that one dog was torn to bits in there care 
They have been trying to intimidate me bully me threaten me and i will not roll over for them 
I have done nothing wrong


----------



## Fides (8 June 2014)

I'm still none the wiser - what exactly were you doing with the dogs that gave them warrant to seize them? You still haven't answered the question. You say alleged fighting with a wild animal but you haven't said how many dogs, nor what type of animal. I was originally on your side, but I am starting to think that maybe there is more to it than you are letting on...


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

Fides said:



			I'm still none the wiser - what exactly were you doing with the dogs that gave them warrant to seize them? You still haven't answered the question. You say alleged fighting with a wild animal but you haven't said how many dogs, nor what type of animal. I was originally on your side, but I am starting to think that maybe there is more to it than you are letting on...
		
Click to expand...

what exactly were you doing with the dogs that gave them warrant to seize them?
Nothing at all as far as i am aware 
You say alleged fighting with a wild animal but you haven't said how many dogs
I cannot answer as i never saw a warrant 
what type of animal
i have no idea i did not see a warrant

i have not seen a warrant .They never left a warrant all i can gather is what i was told from them on the day .They waved a piece of paper saying they have a warrant for encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal they did not state what animal they were supposedly fighting the solicitor has request a copy twice now and never received a copy of the alleged warrant


----------



## MerrySherryRider (8 June 2014)

So are you saying that you or your son  have never encouraged your dogs to fight a wild animal other than in usual and accepted method of pest control, because as far as I know, there are many people offering rat and rabbit control who do not attract the attention of the RSPCA or the police.


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			So are you saying that you or your son  have never encouraged your dogs to fight a wild animal other than in usual and accepted method of pest control, because as far as I know, there are many people offering rat and rabbit control who do not attract the attention of the RSPCA or the police.
		
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct everything was legal and above board. In 40 years of owning animals i have never had any die in my care if they need veterinary treatment they got it. That poor dog was killed and torn to bits in less than two days in rspca care. The rspca are 110% anti hunting and are well known for harassing innocent people who hunt .They think they are above the law
*do these look neglected ? or abused ? or to have been fighting ?*


----------



## MerrySherryRider (8 June 2014)

Your dogs look great, but forgive me if I find your apparent victimisation odd, particularly with the lack of clarity in your story. 

 I know that no organisation gets it 100% right all the time, (NHS and  police make mistakes but essentially, they do a useful job, like the RSPCA) so I hope, like you, that the circumstances are investigated thoroughly and justice is done on behalf of the victims.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 June 2014)

I'm wondering M_S_R just how many times the O_P has to state their innocence,  and I wonder just how many times you need to ask the very same question,  only to receive the very same answer.

From what I read,  and just once more;  

'The poster who has named themselves as dymented,  has no apparent idea of the reasoning behind the rspca raid,  and as they haven't been charged with any specific offence,  and apart from having a loose and apparently spurious accusation as to illegal activities,  none of which have been made clear by explanation,  so dymented is no more able to answer your questions than is anyone else.  dymented has also had a terrier seized,  which has been killed by a group of other dogs whilst under the control of,  and in the care of the rspca,  and it seems that there has been no explanation offered,  nor from what I read,  any suggestion of regret'.

Your previous and heart-warming tales of rspca successes have no bearing,  what so ever,  on this particular case,  and neither do they alter or influence the facts as they've been given.

Alec.


----------



## Dry Rot (8 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



*I'm wondering M_S_R just how many times the O_P has to state their innocence,  and I wonder just how many times you need to ask the very same question,  only to receive the very same answer.*

From what I read,  and just once more;  

'The poster who has named themselves as dymented,  has no apparent idea of the reasoning behind the rspca raid,  and as they haven't been charged with any specific offence,  and apart from having a loose and apparently spurious accusation as to illegal activities,  none of which have been made clear by explanation,  so dymented is no more able to answer your questions than is anyone else.  dymented has also had a terrier seized,  which has been killed by a group of other dogs whilst under the control of,  and in the care of the rspca,  and it seems that there has been no explanation offered,  nor from what I read,  any suggestion of regret'.

Your previous and heart-warming tales of rspca successes have no bearing,  what so ever,  on this particular case,  and neither do they alter or influence the facts as they've been given.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

A very good post from Alec.

M_S_R, on the other hand, is becoming hectoring and is now harassing the OP.

I still think a first course would be to get the dogs back before any more damage is done. The RSPCA have clearly demonstrated that they are incompetent while the dogs were equally obviously being well cared for while in the OP's care.

I would also get the Press interested. Phone a local newspaper and ask to speak to a reporter. If they publish, it will quickly be picked up by the nationals. AND I would make sure the RSPCA knew what I was doing! That could be more effective than anything.


----------



## abracadabra (8 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I'm wondering M_S_R just how many times the O_P has to state their innocence,  and I wonder just how many times you need to ask the very same question,  only to receive the very same answer.

From what I read,  and just once more;  

'The poster who has named themselves as dymented,  has no apparent idea of the reasoning behind the rspca raid,  and as they haven't been charged with any specific offence,  and apart from having a loose and apparently spurious accusation as to illegal activities,  none of which have been made clear by explanation,  so dymented is no more able to answer your questions than is anyone else.  dymented has also had a terrier seized,  which has been killed by a group of other dogs whilst under the control of,  and in the care of the rspca,  and it seems that there has been no explanation offered,  nor from what I read,  any suggestion of regret'.
c.
		
Click to expand...

Really, simple as that.  Some of you are just embarrassing yourselves now by being either unable to read for comprehension or willfully misunderstanding what the OP has said SEVERAL times already.


----------



## Clodagh (8 June 2014)

And having had terriers used for digging for many years, none of those dogs look like they have spent much time near a fox, let alone a badger. And if you were encouraging them to hunt rabbits we may as well all go and hand our dogs in today!
The RSPCA, years ago, seized a foxhound and kept her for months, they had no reason to as it was before the ban and she was in good condition. When the hunt eventually got her back she was skeletally thin and very stressed. At least she was still alive, which is more than can be said for your poor little dog.
You can click on ignore user if some people repeatedly asking the same question is getting boring.


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

We have had one dog killed in the care of the rspca , when i then complained over the lurcher looking like skin and bone the inspector J G replied hes only lost a tad over 2.5kg . After making official complaints they have refused me access to visit the dogs . There reason behind this. (we are to busy  to arrange things at the moment ).I personal think its so i can not get more evidence of the rspca failing to look after our dogs as well as to cause us more stress / worry over if the dogs are still alive .One email that was forwarded on to us from inspector J G stated that there were only 7 dogs when there should be 8 Now did he do that deliberately ? To cause more worry and stress ? over which of our loved dogs had been killed this time ? .I have asked to see the dogs many times and get no reply. When the solicitor asks the reply is (we are to busy to arrange one) please try next week. We have not been allowed to see all of the dogs for nearly 3 months now and counting . Although we have had our own vet go out and check them over twice at our own expense to make sure things are all ok But no one can know your own dogs and how they should be like your self


----------



## Alec Swan (8 June 2014)

Clodagh said:



			And having had terriers used for digging for many years, none of those dogs look like they have spent much time near a fox, let alone a badger. ........
		
Click to expand...

Exactly the point which I made earlier,  there wouldn't be anyone with any experience of terriers which are accustomed to going underground,  who would view any of those dogs in anything other than a dismissive manner (Sorry OP,  but those are not hard bitten work dogs.  Hard bitten being a descriptive term).  "Those dogs",  viewed by those who know what work terriers look like,  will be considered as housebound pets.  There's a huge difference.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (8 June 2014)

Seriously, what IS the point in anyone, on a public forum, who knows neither the OP, or the facts involved, making any comment on the situation?  It's purely speculation on everyone's behalf.  OP could be telling the whole truth, or not.  Making speculative assumptions based on the words of a complete stranger on a forum is really rather pointless.

If OP is telling the truth, then justice will be done for them, otherwise, it won't. Simple.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 June 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			........

If OP is telling the truth, then justice will be done for them, otherwise, it won't. Simple.
		
Click to expand...

Such faith would be considered by many to be naivety. 

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (8 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Such faith would be considered by many to be naivety. 

Alec. 

Click to expand...

Either way Alec, it really isn't for any of us, who know nothing whatsoever about the real facts behind the entire situation, to decide what is right and what is wrong.

Perhaps OP should repost IF and WHEN an outcome, either way, occurs, and then people can make a thorough and balanced judgement.


----------



## PolarSkye (8 June 2014)

Am I alone in finding this thread extremely confusing and baffling?  All of it . . . or am I just really, really thick?

P


----------



## Alec Swan (8 June 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			Either way Alec, it really isn't for any of us, who know nothing whatsoever about the real facts behind the entire situation, to decide what is right and what is wrong.

Perhaps OP should repost IF and WHEN an outcome, either way, occurs, and then people can make a thorough and balanced judgement.
		
Click to expand...

Three points for you;

Firstly,  it's dymented who is taking action against the rspca,  and to date,  not the other way around,  and.....

Secondly,  are we to assume that you remain confident that the rspca will give a clear and unbiased defence,  or prosecution?  

Thirdly,  this case,  and interestingly,  it quite clearly demonstrates that there must be colossal doubts as to the integrity of the investigating officers,  so it would throw up serious questions as to the suitability of a prosecuting counsel,  which is reliant upon its own evidence.  Generally,  the CPS rely upon the evidence of the Police.  It seems that the rspca are enabled of the ability to rely upon their own,  how ever skewed it may be.

Again,  Generally,  the CPS will weed out the unsuitable evidence which it is offered,  and in the cases where evidence has been bastardised,  so they will them selves prosecute the suppliers of false claims.  Do you honestly imagine that the rspca will report themselves to the CPS?  Honestly?  The rspca,  as a prosecuting force,  are morally corrupt.

Alec.


----------



## webble (8 June 2014)

PolarSkye said:



			Am I alone in finding this thread extremely confusing and baffling?  All of it . . . or am I just really, really thick?

P
		
Click to expand...

Nope you aren't I am very confused, a lot of OPs text doesnt make sense.

I used to be a volunter dog walker for an rspca rehome kennels and it was usual for no one but staff to have contact with case dogs so it isnt hugely unusual or suspicious for the OP not to be given access to the dogs in an ongoing case


----------



## webble (8 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Three points for you;

Firstly,  it's dymented who is taking action against the rspca,  and to date,  not the other way around,  and.....

Secondly,  are we to assume that you remain confident that the rspca will give a clear and unbiased defence,  or prosecution?  

Thirdly,  this case,  and interestingly,  it quite clearly demonstrates that there must be colossal doubts as to the integrity of the investigating officers,  so it would throw up serious questions as to the suitability of a prosecuting counsel,  which is reliant upon its own evidence.  Generally,  the CPS rely upon the evidence of the Police.  It seems that the rspca are enabled of the ability to rely upon their own,  how ever skewed it may be.

Again,  Generally,  the CPS will weed out the unsuitable evidence which it is offered,  and in the cases where evidence has been bastardised,  so they will them selves prosecute the suppliers of false claims.  Do you honestly imagine that the rspca will report themselves to the CPS?  Honestly?  The rspca,  as a prosecuting force,  are morally corrupt.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

This of course all based on the assumption that the op is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth


----------



## dogatemysalad (8 June 2014)

webble said:



			This of course all based on the assumption that the op is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
		
Click to expand...

That's my feeling too. I'd be interested in hearing the other side too. The Rspca has to content with a lot of malicious accusations from disgruntled people who have been brought to the attention of the RSPCA . There are numerous websites devoted to destroying the main organisation that prosecutes people guilty of cruelty to animals in the absence of any will to do so by the CPS. 
 The CPS advises people to use the RSPCA legal service because of its highly specialised team - and because it saves them money.

I'm damned if I'll stand by and let those with a vested interest in its destruction turn the clock back a century with a lack of animal welfare protection. 
It may not be perfect, but it's all we've got. While its in everyone's interests to investigate any wrong doing, being fair and not making judgement based on prejudice is better.


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

If an only if i had a video of the whole incident of the dog being torn to bits in rspca care i think a few people would still not believe what there eyes are seeing  and still claim the rspca were whiter than white. I still believe after all the rspca have done to me and my family they still have a use in the uk and should continue to do so only as a charity and leave the law up to the people that have been trained in it .


----------



## Alec Swan (8 June 2014)

webble said:



			This of course all based on the assumption that the op is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
		
Click to expand...

This actually has nothing to do with the O_P and whether they're telling the truth,  or not.  It has everything though to do with a charity which are reliant upon their own evidence,  that are corrupt,  and apparently unable to provide any evidence which is anything other than entirely contradictory.

Any Prosecuting Service needs to be above reproach,  and the rspca aren't.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (8 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			This actually has nothing to do with the O_P and whether they're telling the truth,  or not.  It has everything though to do with a charity which are reliant upon their own evidence,  that are corrupt,  and apparently unable to provide any evidence which is anything other than entirely contradictory.

Any Prosecuting Service needs to be above reproach,  and the rspca aren't.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Oh Alec, I honestly would have credited you with more intelligence than that.  You say it's not about the OP or whether they are telling the truth?! Well, of course it is, if you are saying it's about a charity being 'unable to provide evidence'...

How do YOU know they are unable to provide evidence?


----------



## fburton (8 June 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			If OP is telling the truth, then justice will be done for them, otherwise, it won't. Simple.
		
Click to expand...

Is justice always done? I think not. So - not so simple.


----------



## Moomin1 (8 June 2014)

fburton said:



			Is justice always done? I think not. So - not so simple.
		
Click to expand...

Well, if it isn't, I am quite sure OP will speak to their legal representative, who will be in receipt of all the facts (not hearsay, or opinion).


----------



## FionaM12 (8 June 2014)

I'm not a defender of the RSPCA as I don't know enough about them to know how they operate.

There are often threads on here or cases in the media which do cause me concern and give me reason to doubt the RSPCA's behaviour. However this thread isn't one of them.

The whole story seems bizarre and baffling. The dates involved are confusing and, sorry OP, it just doesn't have the ring of truth IMO.


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			I'm not a defender of the RSPCA as I don't know enough about them to know how they operate.

There are often threads on here or cases in the media which do cause me concern and give me reason to doubt the RSPCA's behaviour. However this thread isn't one of them.

The whole story seems bizarre and baffling. The dates involved are confusing and, sorry OP, it just doesn't have the ring of truth IMO.
		
Click to expand...

which bit are you struggling with ? The fact that the rspca allowed my sons dog to be torn to bits and sent it for collection skinned and beheaded ? what dates are you confused with ? explain for me please that way i might be able to shed light on it for you


----------



## FionaM12 (8 June 2014)

dymented said:



			which bit are you struggling with ? The fact that the rspca allowed my sons dog to be torn to bits and sent it for collection skinned and beheaded ? what dates are you confused with ? explain for me please that way i might be able to shed light on it for you
		
Click to expand...

I haven't got time to trawl back through your posts here and on Facebook to point out quotes again.

However, you say on facebook that your solicitor was told back in mid March (a few days after it died) that your dog was killed in a fight. Later you say you weren't told until late April.

Your dog was killed three months ago. Yet the very same photo was on a selling page selling the same terrier, also three months ago.

Your dog was killed, then, in mid March and your solicitor "Clive" has been involved from the start. Your online campaign (which didn't start until the end of April) should surely have been advised against by any solicitor?

I'm dropping out of this thread, as it's time-wasting. You still haven't answered peoples' reasonable questions about what you and your dogs were doing when they were seized. (The answer can't be "nothing", were you out hunting, at home asleep, out for a walk, watching tv.....?)

If other people want to check those dates, good luck to them, but the fact remains that to me it just doesn't look true. This is my last post here. No doubt if any of this is real and you're really making a case through your solicitor, the truth will come out in court where the facts (and not the baffling jumble of allegations on here) will be available.


----------



## webble (8 June 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			Oh Alec, I honestly would have credited you with more intelligence than that.  You say it's not about the OP or whether they are telling the truth?! Well, of course it is, if you are saying it's about a charity being 'unable to provide evidence'...

How do YOU know they are unable to provide evidence?
		
Click to expand...

This ^^ 

Wider discussion isnt about whether the OP is telling the truth but this particular thread is


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 June 2014)

For those of you convinced of the truth of the OP's story and allegations, you are able to contribute directly to the 'fightforstellafund' via PayPal on the 'RSPCA did this' Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog

That's handy.


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

I will answer the same questions again for you so it sinks in this time 

you say on facebook that your solicitor was told back in mid March (a few days after it died) that your dog was killed in a fight. Later you say you weren't told until late April.
I had a local solicitor at the time i did not have Clive Rees. It was the local solicitor that the rspca called and told that the dog was dead they gave no reason !!

Your dog was killed three months ago. Yet the very same photo was on a selling page selling the same terrier, also three months ago.
I asked my son for photos of the dog and that is the one i chose the dog was in perfect health and same condition be for it was killed in rspca care

Your dog was killed, then, in mid March and your solicitor "Clive" has been involved from the start. Your online campaign (which didn't start until the end of April) should surely have been advised against by any solicitor? 
At no point have i sad Clive was involved from the start But he is now and has been for a few weeks
The on line face book page is full of facts no lies have been told from me I have nothing to hide  

You still haven't answered peoples' reasonable questions about what you and your dogs were doing when they were seized.
I was sat watching the morning news as it was 9.15 am i had been up fed the dogs and cleaned them out was getting ready to take the for a run when they knocked on the door 

if any of this is real and you're really making a case through your solicitor, the truth will come out in court where the facts (and not the baffling jumble of allegations on here) 
I do apologize if you are confused ill try and make it more simple for you 
*( i had a dog and it was torn to bits in an rspca kennel )* hope you can understand that


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

Tiddlypom said:



			For those of you convinced of the truth of the OP's story and allegations, you are able to contribute directly to the 'fightforstellafund' via PayPal on the 'RSPCA did this' Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog

That's handy.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the donate link as you no your self it costs a lot to bring the rspca to court. I do not mind doing it all on my own . But i had a lot of people ask about donating to bring them to justice if like me you work then you have to pay for everything your self. I do not have 140,000000 like the rspca sat in the bank too wast 
If you look here you will see anther forum doing an auction to help raise funds to help cover the costs as well 
http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/forum/187-dymented-auction/ 
I never asked for any help people offered it as they know what the rspca are capable of doing and at any moment in time it could be any one of you next in my shoes !


----------



## dogatemysalad (8 June 2014)

LOL ! There's always a donate button with these stories.


----------



## GeeGeeboy (8 June 2014)

I really don't understand this thread! You were just sitting , watching tv and the R.S.P.C.A took your dogs away for no reason?!?! I thought they were known for being really useless at seizing dogs in any condition as long as they have basic food, water and shelter! Yet your dogs were seized for no reason at all?! Sorry, don't believe a word of it!


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			LOL ! There's always a donate button with these stories.

Click to expand...

I am sure you have lots stashed in the bank I work hard for mine !!


GeeGeeboy said:



			I really don't understand this thread! You were just sitting , watching tv and the R.S.P.C.A took your dogs away for no reason?!?! I thought they were known for being really useless at seizing dogs in any condition as long as they have basic food, water and shelter! Yet your dogs were seized for no reason at all?! Sorry, don't believe a word of it!
		
Click to expand...

The warrant supposedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal, if your going to comment at least read some of the thread thanks 

I was sat watching the morning news as it was 9.15 am i had been up fed the dogs and cleaned them out was getting ready to take the for a run when they knocked on the door was an answer to a question from some one else !


----------



## GeeGeeboy (8 June 2014)

dymented said:



I am sure you have lots stashed in the bank I work hard for mine !!

The warrant supposedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal, if your going to comment at least read some of the thread thanks 

I was sat watching the morning news as it was 9.15 am i had been up fed the dogs and cleaned them out was getting ready to take the for a run when they knocked on the door was an answer to a question from some one else !
		
Click to expand...

I have read the thread and it doesn't make any sense. They can't just remove a dog like that without evidence or anything. They have very limited powers when it comes to seizing dogs.


----------



## _GG_ (8 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			LOL ! There's always a donate button with these stories.

Click to expand...

That's just perfect. 

OP...just one thing...be sure to account fully for every last penny as you are asking for so much attention, you need to be absolutely above reproach. 

As for your comment that it could be any one of us in this position, no...it couldn't. Not all of us control pests and those that do, generally are so very good and correct that they never have any worries or troubles or accusations of wrong doing. 

I don't believe a word of it, have stayed quite for pages and pages of this thread, but knowing that people are giving their money is too much. 

If there was any truth to any of this, even a little bit...the RSPCA's vast legal department would have had it removed a long time ago. They managed to see my thread within 30 minutes....they will know this is here and the fact that they have not had it removed when it is an ongoing case, speaks volumes to me. 

Dymented, you are in danger of ruining your own campaign.


----------



## FionaM12 (8 June 2014)

I know I said I'd done posting here but I have to reply to this nonsense:



dymented said:



I had a local solicitor at the time i did not have Clive Rees. It was the local solicitor that the rspca called and told that the dog was dead they gave no reason !!

Click to expand...

The point isn't which solicitor, it's that you said you weren't told until late April what had happened to your dog, yet you say the solicitor was told after a few days.



dymented said:



At no point have i sad Clive was involved from the start But he is now and has been for a few weeks
The on line face book page is full of facts no lies have been told from me I have nothing to hide 

Click to expand...

Again, it doesn't matter who the solicitor is, I just can't believe they think it's alright to post details (including your solicitor's name and posting in your own name on Facebook) of an ongoing case. It also doesn't matter if you think it's all true and you have nothing to hide. It's a legal case. :rolleyes3:

I do wonder, as you're going for maximum publicity why none of the newspapers (currently quite keen on anti RSPCA stories) haven't picked it up? I can't believe you haven't tried. 



dymented said:



I do apologize if you are confused ill try and make it more simple for you 
*( i had a dog and it was torn to bits in an rspca kennel )* hope you can understand that

Click to expand...

I understand perfectly that's what you claim happened. I just don't believe you.

Right that's it. I will not post on this ridiculous thread again.


----------



## twiggy2 (8 June 2014)

any legal adviser with any brain would advise you to keep quiet about everything until you have a successful prosecution (if they feel you have a case) otherwise you risk a counter claim on many levels and the whole case could get thrown out of court.
sorry but I don't believe a word of it.

they say 'fools and their money are easily parted' I don't claim to be Einstein but I shall not be sending any money your way OP


----------



## Alec Swan (8 June 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			.......

Right that's it. I will not post on this ridiculous thread again.
		
Click to expand...

.... And this time,  I really mean it,  I really,  REALLY do!

Alec.


----------



## joycec (8 June 2014)

The RSPCA cannot just seize dogs, they require a warrant signed by a Magistrate, one of a panel of three, who have to be given evidence that the warrant is justified. Evidence is carefully and precisely graded and no JP would sign a warrant based on only one call from an aggrieved member of the public.

Also, it is not for the CPS to judge whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, OP, these cases are nearly always prosecuted by the RSPCA and you will likely receive a summons in due course.

I too would love to know exactly what vermin the OP  believes they are legally hunting.


----------



## joycec (8 June 2014)

Duplicate


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			I know I said I'd done posting here but I have to reply to this nonsense:



The point isn't which solicitor, it's that you said you weren't told until late April what had happened to your dog, yet you say the solicitor was told after a few days.
The solicitor was told a dog was dead after 3 days in there care at no point did they contact me or offer an explanation  as to what had happened officially till the 18th may
Please read it right if you want to bash the thread

Again, it doesn't matter who the solicitor is, I just can't believe they think it's alright to post details (including your solicitor's name and posting in your own name on Facebook) of an ongoing case. It also doesn't matter if you think it's all true and you have nothing to hide. It's a legal case. :rolleyes3: 
I have nothing to hide everything posted was fact ( the dog was killed in there care they will not or cannot deny it )

I do wonder, as you're going for maximum publicity why none of the newspapers (currently quite keen on anti RSPCA stories) haven't picked it up? I can't believe you haven't tried. 
Theres is a few new papers that have the story that have contacted the rspca and they refuse to comment ( what are they hiding ? )
I understand perfectly that's what you claim happened. I just don't believe you.

Right that's it. I will not post on this ridiculous thread again.
		
Click to expand...

 Thank you


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

joycec said:



			Can I just point out that the RSPCA cannot just seize dogs, they require a warrant signed by a Magistrate, one of apanel of three, who have to be given evidence that the warrant is justified. Evidence is carefully and precisely graded and no JP would sign a warrant based on only one call from an aggrieved member of the public.

Also, it is not for the CPS to judge whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, OP, these cases are almost always prosecuted by the RSPCA and you will likely receive a summons in due course.

I too would love to know exactly what vermin the OP  believes they are legally hunting.
		
Click to expand...

page one of the thread
The warrant supposedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal, they did not show me or leave a copy
I think you will find that the cps decide what they do if there is no evidence 
The rspca take it upon them selves to take out a privet prosecution if the cps say no as its no cost to the cps 
I do believe you can still legally hunt with dogs have a read here to clarify this matter http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/schedule/1


----------



## _GG_ (8 June 2014)

OP, I get that you are passionate about resolving this, I really do. But I would ask yourself has your son told you the whole truth, could there be things that have happened that you don't know about?

I fully understand your desire for justice, but none of it makes any sense, even to those of us that understand the RSPCA and/or the legal system in this country. 

It's like car crash telly and you're putting so much effort into it, I would hate to think you are not yourself, in receipt of the whole truth.


----------



## ester (8 June 2014)

If they did not show you the warrant why did you let them in and then take the dogs?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (8 June 2014)

Ah, the campaign for donations on Facebook and publicised further on various forums. Nice one, glad we can be of service. 

I have a sight and hearing impaired, rickety old dog. She'd like to spend her last days somewhere hot and sunny, like Cannes, to warm her arthritic bones. Donations, anyone ?


----------



## joycec (8 June 2014)

dymented said:



			page one of the thread
The warrant supposedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal, they did not show me or leave a copy
		
Click to expand...

And it would not have been signed if three magistrates had not seen sufficient evidence.




			I think you will find that the cps decide what they do if there is no evidence 
The rspca take it upon them selves to take out a privet prosecution if the cps say no as its no cost to the cps
		
Click to expand...

You are wrong. The decision to prosecute animal cases like yours is not made by the CPS.





			I do believe you can still legally hunt with dogs have a read here to clarify this matter http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/schedule/1

Click to expand...

I know you can hunt with dogs dymented. But what I am confused about is your apparent reluctance to tell the forum what pests you believe you legally hunt with your dogs.


----------



## Fides (8 June 2014)

joycec said:



			i know you can hunt with dogs dymented. But what I am confused about is your apparent reluctance to tell the forum what pests you believe you legally hunt with your dogs.
		
Click to expand...

Yep I asked that too. I also asked with how many dogs. OP just got all red, bold and rude and basically called me an idiot. Still didn't answer my questions.

To be honest, reading the replies, the OP doesn't strike me as a very nice person and may have had dealing with people when his attitude aggregated them resulting in a claim to the RSPCA.

Regardless of what I think of the OP it doesn't take away from the fact that the dog died in the RSPCAs care. I would be interested to know just why the warrant was issued - the OP has refused to offer any more information than 'fighting with a wild animal' BUT the question is what wild animal and how many dogs?

I deeply suspect that the OP has been badger baiting or I he would have been more forthcoming with stating which animals he was hunting and with how many dogs.

FWIW I am not anti hunting - I clear my land of rabbits with my lurchers. And mmmm they make a nice stew


----------



## MerrySherryRider (8 June 2014)

As the dog died a couple of days after being seized, we do not know that the dog didn't die of injuries that occurred before it was taken away from the OP or his son, particularly as another of the OP's dog's had bites. 
We do not know what other dog's the OP owns. 
We do not know if he has other dogs used for fighting and what the wild animal on the warrant was. 

 We only have the deliberately limited information he has fed us.


----------



## diamonddogs (8 June 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			As the dog died a couple of days after being seized, we do not know that the dog didn't die of injuries that occurred before it was taken away from the OP or his son, particularly as another of the OP's dog's had bites.
		
Click to expand...

The OP claims the terrier was "torn to pieces" whilst with the RSPCA, so if the truth is being told, the dog was uninjured when seized.




			We do not know what other dog's the OP owns.
		
Click to expand...

Posts 50 54 62 and 91 clearly show what dogs the OP owns.




			We do not know if he has other dogs used for fighting and what the wild animal on the warrant was. 

We only have the deliberately limited information he has fed us.
		
Click to expand...

Yes true.

Posters keep asking the OP what the dogs were allegedly doing, and not getting a straight answer. I can only assume that this is because the OP doesn't actually KNOW as s/he wasn't told, but I wish the OP had made that a bit clearer, because it makes it sound as if they're deliberately holding back the main piece of information. What I don't get is, if an inspector knocked my door waving a bit of paper demanding I hand over my animals, I'd sure as hell get hold of that bit of paper and read it, and ask for anything I didn't understand to be explained to me before I'd even let them in, let alone take my dogs, so why didn't the OP?

What a strange story - I honestly don't know what to think.


----------



## dymented (8 June 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			The OP claims the terrier was "torn to pieces" whilst with the RSPCA, so if the truth is being told, the dog was uninjured when seized.



Posts 50 54 62 and 91 clearly show what dogs the OP owns.



Yes true.

Posters keep asking the OP what the dogs were allegedly doing, and not getting a straight answer. I can only assume that this is because the OP doesn't actually KNOW as s/he wasn't told, but I wish the OP had made that a bit clearer, because it makes it sound as if they're deliberately holding back the main piece of information. What I don't get is, if an inspector knocked my door waving a bit of paper demanding I hand over my animals, I'd sure as hell get hold of that bit of paper and read it, and ask for anything I didn't understand to be explained to me before I'd even let them in, let alone take my dogs, so why didn't the OP?

What a strange story - I honestly don't know what to think.
		
Click to expand...

All the dogs were sized from the house and were in kennels 
All dogs were alive and fit / healthy and in very good condition
The warrant allegedly stated encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal ( i have no idea what as i have not seen the warrant ) we have asked for copy's twice and still not got them
The police were in attendance so stupid as it seems i let them in as i had nothing to hide 
After speaking to the solicitor he says the warrant will not specify any animal just the word encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal


----------



## dogatemysalad (8 June 2014)

Who are you OP ? You seem very adept at avoiding answering the real questions. All I know is that you are seeking donations and have joined various websites to lamblast the RSPCA.


----------



## dymented (9 June 2014)

dogatemysalad said:



			Who are you OP ? You seem very adept at avoiding answering the real questions. All I know is that you are seeking donations and have joined various websites to lamblast the RSPCA.
		
Click to expand...

Every Question you asked i answered to the best of my ability and knowledge i can not answer what i do not know .I have been members of various web sites for years. All i am simply doing is seeking justice for the poor dog that was killed in rspca care due to there neglect and cruelty.


----------



## dogatemysalad (9 June 2014)

Has this extraordinary event been reported in the local press ?


----------



## sandi_84 (9 June 2014)

dymented said:



			Every Question you asked i answered to the best of my ability and knowledge i can not answer what i do not know .I have been members of various web sites for years. All i am simply doing is seeking justice for the poor dog that was killed in rspca care due to there neglect and cruelty.
		
Click to expand...

Not quite you haven't there is still the question someone put to you asking what exactly you were doing with your dogs that was "above board and legal". You haven't explained that further.


----------



## joycec (9 June 2014)

I've searched the internet for information about this dymented and I can only find what you've put there yourself. There are only two reasons why this wouldn't be picked up by the press, that they think the story isn't true, or that they have been told that a prosecution is pending.


----------



## _GG_ (9 June 2014)

joycec said:



			I've searched the internet for information about this dymented and I can only find what you've put there yourself. There are only two reasons why this wouldn't be picked up by the press, that they think the story isn't true, or that they have been told that a prosecution is pending.
		
Click to expand...

And if a prosecution was pending against the RSPCA, this thread would long have been pulled.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (9 June 2014)

Or perhaps it's just another malicious attack on the RSPCA. There are numerous pages on the net with campaigns, some run by very unbalanced characters with an axe to grind.

Is the OP just another troll ?


----------



## webble (9 June 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Or perhaps it's just another malicious attack on the RSPCA. There are numerous pages on the net with campaigns, some run by very unbalanced characters with an axe to grind.

Is the OP just another troll ?
		
Click to expand...

No!! They cant be a troll they have been members of various websites for years


----------



## MerrySherryRider (9 June 2014)

webble said:



			No!! They cant be a troll they have been members of various websites for years
		
Click to expand...

Indeed.


----------



## Alec Swan (9 June 2014)

_GG_ said:



			And if a prosecution was pending against the RSPCA, this thread would long have been pulled.
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean like the Lisa Walsh thread was removed? :wink3:

The owners of this forum are heavily reliant upon the income stream which comes from those who pay to advertise on here,  and the greater the flow of 'traffic' so the greater the perceived value to advertisers.  Heavily used or viewed threads are a bit of a balancing act,  I would imagine, between what is viewed as acceptable,  and what isn't.  

Apart from the occasional and rather puritanical stance,  HHO is by and large reasonably accepting.  The only clout which the rspca will have will be if they threaten litigation,  and the legal bods consider that they may have a case,  then the thread would be removed.  Otherwise,  I would imagine that the attitude would be that the rspca can go whistle if the flow of those visiting the thread is considered to be of value.  

It might help to clear up the question of prosecution;

The O_P has yet to be advised as to whether there's any evidence of him/her,  having broken any specific Law.  It would also seem that notice of prosecution has yet to be issued.

The O_P is keen to have their dogs returned to them,  as at best the evidence of the O_P's wrong doing seems rather sparse.  In the event that the rspca are refusing to return the dogs,  so they are also likely to face a 'civil' Law Suit from the O_P,  and dependent upon the outcome,  and equally dependent upon the apparent evidence,  so the option for the CPS to themselves bring a prosecution case against the rspca though highly unlikely,  would be an option.

It may well be worth raising the point that had the positions been reversed,  and accepting that the evidence would need to exist,  that the O_P had taken in 3 GSDs,  and had they killed the terrier which was the property of another,  then the O_P could well be facing the Courts.  The fact that it would seem that the rspca have been either grossly negligent,  or wilfully permitted such an act,  should not be ignored.  Charitable status is no excuse for neglect.

The suggestion that the rspca have six months in which to issue proceedings is questionable.  It's always been my understanding that the six month limitation refers to motoring offences,  not to criminal proceedings,  but I may well be wrong.

It is not my point that I would support or defend the O_P,  simply because of my views regarding the rspca,  but that whilst in the care of a charity,  one which would purport to be an authority on canine care,  there can be no question that they have been negligent and to the point of criminally so,  resulting in the death of a dog which is the O_P's property.  It's my understanding,  from what I read on here,  that there has been no apology or expression of regret from the rspca,  and that wont help their case,  I wouldn't have thought.  From the previous thread on the subject,  it seems that the rspca sub-contracted the care of the dogs concerned to a boarding kennel in private ownership,  and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they absolve themselves of blame,  by blaming their contractors.

I suspect that this will rumble on,  rather like the Lisa Walsh thread,  until either one prosecuting body,  or a civil Court make a decision as to the route to take.  I will predict that should a civil case,  brought by the O_P,  precede notice of prosecution,  then any such prosecution will be viewed more as retaliation than a worthwhile case.

It will be interesting to hear the outcome.

Alec.


----------



## _GG_ (9 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Do you mean like the Lisa Walsh thread was removed? :wink3:

The owners of this forum are heavily reliant upon the income stream which comes from those who pay to advertise on here,  and the greater the flow of 'traffic' so the greater the perceived value to advertisers.  Heavily used or viewed threads are a bit of a balancing act,  I would imagine, between what is viewed as acceptable,  and what isn't.  

Apart from the occasional and rather puritanical stance,  HHO is by and large reasonably accepting.  The only clout which the rspca will have will be if they threaten litigation,  and the legal bods consider that they may have a case,  then the thread would be removed.  Otherwise,  I would imagine that the attitude would be that the rspca can go whistle if the flow of those visiting the thread is considered to be of value.  

It might help to clear up the question of prosecution;

The O_P has yet to be advised as to whether there's any evidence of him/her,  having broken any specific Law.  It would also seem that notice of prosecution has yet to be issued.

The O_P is keen to have their dogs returned to them,  as at best the evidence of the O_P's wrong doing seems rather sparse.  In the event that the rspca are refusing to return the dogs,  so they are also likely to face a 'civil' Law Suit from the O_P,  and dependent upon the outcome,  and equally dependent upon the apparent evidence,  so the option for the CPS to themselves bring a prosecution case against the rspca though highly unlikely,  would be an option.

It may well be worth raising the point that had the positions been reversed,  and accepting that the evidence would need to exist,  that the O_P had taken in 3 GSDs,  and had they killed the terrier which was the property of another,  then the O_P could well be facing the Courts.  The fact that it would seem that the rspca have been either grossly negligent,  or wilfully permitted such an act,  should not be ignored.  Charitable status is no excuse for neglect.

The suggestion that the rspca have six months in which to issue proceedings is questionable.  It's always been my understanding that the six month limitation refers to motoring offences,  not to criminal proceedings,  but I may well be wrong.

It is not my point that I would support or defend the O_P,  simply because of my views regarding the rspca,  but that whilst in the care of a charity,  one which would purport to be an authority on canine care,  there can be no question that they have been negligent and to the point of criminally so,  resulting in the death of a dog which is the O_P's property.  It's my understanding,  from what I read on here,  that there has been no apology or expression of regret from the rspca,  and that wont help their case,  I wouldn't have thought.  From the previous thread on the subject,  it seems that the rspca sub-contracted the care of the dogs concerned to a boarding kennel in private ownership,  and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they absolve themselves of blame,  by blaming their contractors.

I suspect that this will rumble on,  rather like the Lisa Walsh thread,  until either one prosecuting body,  or a civil Court make a decision as to the route to take.  I will predict that should a civil case,  brought by the O_P,  precede notice of prosecution,  then any such prosecution will be viewed more as retaliation than a worthwhile case.

It will be interesting to hear the outcome.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

No idea who Lisa Walsh is. I normally stay out of these things...mainly because we only know what we get told and we are not getting told a lot here. 

I am not defending the RSPCA, nor will I venture to wonder how and why decisions are made regarding the pulling of threads, but the RSPCA do actually have some considerable clout when then want something removed as I've seen it happen before.


----------



## meandmyself (9 June 2014)

Did they perform a necropsy on the dog or not? That could be the answer to why you got the body back like you did.

I'll be honest though OP. Non of this sounds true to me. Your times and dates are jumbled, you keep repeating the same info over and over again.


----------



## twiglet84 (10 June 2014)

So let me just clarify. The RSPCA rocked up with the police, showed u no paperwork and seized your dogs. So did u not have a conversation with them? Did u not ask for paperwork and more details. I can't believe you handed over all your beloved dogs without exchanging any information with them whatsoever. So what exactly was the conversation u had?

And are u saying that the RSPCA did a post mortem on your dog, skinning it etc and then sent the body parts to the vet (in a bag like your picture) or was that all done after your vet saw the body?


----------



## Love_my_Lurcher (10 June 2014)

I am very much anti-RSPCA, but I too am struggling to understand exactly what happened. I would like to ask the poster as to why the picture of the dead dog is the exact same as the one from the online advert. 

It took a great deal of courage to look at the photos on the Facebook page, but the remains of the dog don't look big enough to have been the dog pictured. The skull just looked too small. Anybody else notice this?

If there is an ongoing investigation then why-oh-why is there a Facebook page and discussions about it on forums? Any solicitor/legal adviser worth his or her salt would most definitely recommend against any public discussions.


----------



## _GG_ (10 June 2014)

Love_my_Lurcher said:



			I am very much anti-RSPCA, but I too am struggling to understand exactly what happened. I would like to ask the poster as to why the picture of the dead dog is the exact same as the one from the online advert. 

It took a great deal of courage to look at the photos on the Facebook page, but the remains of the dog don't look big enough to have been the dog pictured. The skull just looked too small. Anybody else notice this?

If there is an ongoing investigation then why-oh-why is there a Facebook page and discussions about it on forums? Any solicitor/legal adviser worth his or her salt would most definitely recommend against any public discussions.
		
Click to expand...

I did wonder about the skull, thought it looked a little small and wrong shape but I'm no expert and didn't want to look for too long. 

I would comment on the worst pictures though, of the little dog with front part of mouth missing and that is to say that the dog has a myriad of old scars on its face. The lesions look to me more like lesions from a form of cancer or local infection than new wounds caused by another dog. 

I just don't believe any of it.


----------



## widget (11 June 2014)

Dog missing some jaw front teeth also synonymous with badger baiting dogs


----------



## Angelbones (11 June 2014)

Where can I find the facebook page with this on please? or anywhere else?


----------



## Dry Rot (11 June 2014)

As I see it, OP's solution is quite simple. Raise an action in Small Claims to require the RSPCA to hand back the dogs. If the OP doesn't want to do that, he loses all credibility in my eyes.


----------



## _GG_ (11 June 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			As I see it, OP's solution is quite simple. Raise an action in Small Claims to require the RSPCA to hand back the dogs. If the OP doesn't want to do that, he loses all credibility in my eyes.
		
Click to expand...

I think it is looking more like an RSPCA witch hunt. Collecting the stories of other people and using the shock factor. 

Personally, if my dogs were taken in such circumstances, I would not be going anywhere near facebook or this forum about it. I would have been straight in an office with a specialist solicitor and I would be doing every damn thing I could to get my dogs back. 

But then, I would know why they were taken because, unless the OP responsible for making the situation difficult, there is no reason at all that they couldn't have asked to read the warrant and be told what was happening. Regardless of the RSPCA, the police would contain the situation and explain the situation to you, then ask if you understood. if you were so difficult to deal with that they couldn't explain and show you the warrant, you'd be arrested. 

I am not saying that there isn't some element of truth as in, the RSPCA having the dogs...but the rest of it I find impossible to believe. 

You know how we got the horses rescued recently? We got it all stopped on facebook, stopped people being public about it and just spent hours each day on the phone to the police and RSPCA and within two weeks it was all sorted. 

Publicity is NOT always good. The facebook page has sent a message to the BBC, the BBC are not interested.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 June 2014)

D_R,

Presumably the O_P will be receiving legal advice,  and whilst you've raised an interesting point, I suspect that it would be unlikely that a Court would move against a prosecuting body who in their defence,  simply stated that enquiries were on going and that the animals concerned were evidence.

If in such a case,  a private claim was taken out,  then presumably any potential prosecuting team would need to explain to a Court just why they are holding the animals and they'd also need to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper body to care for seized animals.  They'd struggle with the last bit,  I suspect,  but at least the dogs wouldn't die of old age waiting for a hearing!  There would also be a certain level of accountability which the rspca would need to display,  I'd have thought.

Alec.


----------



## dymented (11 June 2014)

widget said:



			Dog missing some jaw front teeth also synonymous with badger baiting dogs
		
Click to expand...

The dog which you are on about is not my dog it is some one else's and all the damage in the photo was done to that poor dog in rspca care as well ask him nice and he will send you the report on how anther dog slipped free from his lead and did the damage instead of trying to make out the rspca do no wrong The solicitor is in the processes of dealing with the rspca for there neglect and cruelty they inflicted on the poor dog as to the warrant ill say it again no warrant was seen or left they waved a bit of paper about claiming to have one they were mob handed and shouting i did what i was told by the police i did not realize until later i had rights the solicitor has requested a copy of the warrant twice now and still not received it . Thank you all for your concern Remember the rspca could target any one of you nest they do not appear to have any reason they do it because they can have a listen to the inter view with a much respected horse owner and what they did to him ! http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037v4fp


----------



## cptrayes (11 June 2014)

Dymented I've followed this thread with interest and now to have come back, can you please answer one question?

What species of animals were your dogs used to control?


----------



## dymented (11 June 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Dymented I've followed this thread with interest and now to have come back, can you please answer one question?

What species of animals were your dogs used to control?
		
Click to expand...

Rats & rabbits


----------



## cptrayes (11 June 2014)

Thank you.

Has there ever been an occasion when they disturbed fox or badger which could have been mistaken by an ignorant onlooker for baiting, or has this accusation come from completely left field?

I'm sure they will have had a warrant, I'm just very puzzled what evidence they produced to get anyone in authority to sign it.


----------



## Fides (11 June 2014)

dymented said:



			Rats & rabbits
		
Click to expand...

Bloody finally! I've asked that question 4 times and you have dodged around it! Can't believe it took this many pages to get a straight answer...

Fwiw - the RSPCA couldn't issue a warrant for fighting wild animals if it were rats and rabbits due to the fact they aren't fighting animals. Badgers will...


----------



## thewonderhorse (11 June 2014)

Fides said:



			Bloody finally! I've asked that question 4 times and you have dodged around it! Can't believe it took this many pages to get a straight answer...

Fwiw - the RSPCA couldn't issue a warrant for fighting wild animals if it were rats and rabbits due to the fact they aren't fighting animals. Badgers will...
		
Click to expand...

Quite.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 June 2014)

Fides said:



			.......

Fwiw - the RSPCA couldn't issue a warrant for fighting wild animals if it were rats and rabbits due to the fact they aren't fighting animals. Badgers will...
		
Click to expand...

I'm still fence sitting,  but with a slant which is opposed to the animal charities.  However,  and whilst NOT taking the side of dymented,  I can assure you that I've had many 'decent' terriers in my time,  and to suggest that the little dog in question,  was a dog which could be or would be used to face a badger,  is just laughable.  By way of comparison,  would you be a little surprised that a Welsh Section B pony would complete the course at Burghley?  Would you be surprised to see a Standard Poodle come out of Greyhound traps?  Either would be just as likely as the apparent claim.

To suggest that the dead dog was a dog designed for work,  would be ridiculous,  and you'll have to take my word on that.  Over the years I've had dogs which would engage with a fox,  and kill it single handedly.  I've never allowed terriers below ground when there has been any chance of Brock being there.  Two reasons for this,  Firstly I rather like Brock,  and secondly,  I've never known a terrier which could take on,  again single handedly,  a badger and kill it.  All that I've ever seen are the most horrendous injuries and death from facing Mr. Badger.

I remain confused,  and still wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye.  Accepting that the rspca wouldn't know a decent dog if it bit them,  I'm still confused,  having seen the pics of the seized dogs which have been posted,  as to how anyone would view them as anything other than a rather motley collection of pets.   The dogs in the pics have not been used against badgers,  and even were the O_P to claim that they were,  then I would be more than happy to contradict them.

The quotes from previous posts where others have doubted that the P-M pics of the dead dog were those of the purported animal,  then let me assure you that the head size even though skinned out was of an entirely acceptable size to the supposed animal.  The missing teeth were also most probably lost whilst the animal was being killed by the 3 GSDs.  Such murder from other dogs is rarely an instant event,  and the attack would most likely have been sustained and it would have lasted for some while.  I remain appalled at the apparent rspca report which states that the dog in question was 'Found Dead'.  'Found Dead' would imply that there was no supervision,  what so ever.  The level of suffering which the poor wee thing went through would have been dreadful.  How others can support the rspca,  following on from their offered reports,  is beyond me.  How those who were responsible for the incompetence which lead to the murder (dog-upon-dog) of the animal on question,  are going to explain their incompetence,  will be entertaining,  at the very least!! 

Were the quoted rspca reports anything other than genuine,  then those who monitor this thread,  and on behalf of the rspca,  would have had this thread removed,  by now!  

Alec.


----------



## PolarSkye (11 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I'm still fence sitting,  but with a slant which is opposed to the animal charities.  However,  and whilst NOT taking the side of dymented,  I can assure you that I've had many 'decent' terriers in my time,  and to suggest that the little dog in question,  was a dog which could be or would be used to face a badger,  is just laughable.  By way of comparison,  would you be a little surprised that a Welsh Section B pony would complete the course at Burghley?  Would you be surprised to see a Standard Poodle come out of Greyhound traps?  Either would be just as likely as the apparent claim.

To suggest that the dead dog was a dog designed for work,  would be ridiculous,  and you'll have to take my word on that.  Over the years I've had dogs which would engage with a fox,  and kill it single handedly.  I've never allowed terriers below ground when there has been any chance of Brock being there.  Two reasons for this,  Firstly I rather like Brock,  and secondly,  I've never known a terrier which could take on,  again single handedly,  a badger and kill it.  All that I've ever seen are the most horrendous injuries and death from facing Mr. Badger.

I remain confused,  and still wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye.  Accepting that the rspca wouldn't know a decent dog if it bit them,  I'm still confused,  having seen the pics of the seized dogs which have been posted,  as to how anyone would view them as anything other than a rather motley collection of pets.   The dogs in the pics have not been used against badgers,  and even were the O_P to claim that they were,  then I would be more than happy to contradict them.

The quotes from previous posts where others have doubted that the P-M pics of the dead dog were those of the purported animal,  then let me assure you that the head size even though skinned out was of an entirely acceptable size to the supposed animal.  The missing teeth were also most probably lost whilst the animal was being killed by the 3 GSDs.  Such murder from other dogs is rarely an instant event,  and the attack would most likely have been sustained and it would have lasted for some while.  I remain appalled at the apparent rspca report which states that the dog in question was 'Found Dead'.  'Found Dead' would imply that there was no supervision,  what so ever.  The level of suffering which the poor wee thing went through would have been dreadful.  How others can support the rspca,  following on from their offered reports,  is beyond me.  How those who were responsible for the incompetence which lead to the murder (dog-upon-dog) of the animal on question,  are going to explain their incompetence,  will be entertaining,  at the very least!! 

Were the quoted rspca reports anything other than genuine,  then those who monitor this thread,  and on behalf of the rspca,  would have had this thread removed,  by now!  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec,

It's perfectly possible to be (to put it politely) dubious of the OP's claims and NOT be pro RSPCA.

P


----------



## Goldenstar (11 June 2014)

PolarSkye said:



			Alec,

It's perfectly possible to be (to put it politely) dubious of the OP's claims and NOT be pro RSPCA.

P
		
Click to expand...

This is absolutely so.

For Whatever and however the RSPCA removed OP's dogs if it was done in a lawful or unlawful way there's no excuse for a mauled to death pet on their watch .
I also don't understand why OP seems so little focused on the rest of their  dogs if it where me I would hysterical with fear for them worrying about them separated from me and not knowing where I was and worried that some further cock up might result in death ,PTS or rehomed and 'lost ' with out me knowing , yet OP  does not mention them.


----------



## ester (11 June 2014)

Alec, just to double check you do know the dead dog was different to the one with the jaw bitten off?


----------



## Alec Swan (11 June 2014)

ester said:



			Alec, just to double check you do know the dead dog was different to the one with the jaw bitten off?
		
Click to expand...

The photograph which the OP offered,  and was subsequently removed,  showed a bottom jaw intact-ish.  I'll go back and check,  to be sure of my facts.

Alec.


----------



## ester (11 June 2014)

I'll see if I can send you a link, as that is poss why badgers have been mentioned, I wouldn't have a clue what a badger dog might look like though!


----------



## ester (11 June 2014)

Oh apparently the one I was thinking of on the fb page is not one of the OPs, too many dogs!


----------



## MerrySherryRider (11 June 2014)

ester said:



			I'll see if I can send you a link, as that is poss why badgers have been mentioned, I wouldn't have a clue what a badger dog might look like though!
		
Click to expand...

Daschunds were bred as Badger dogs, Jack Russells used to hunt badgers because of their fearlessness as did Border Terriers and other working Terrier dogs.

Of course, it's not just badger's that the RSPCA is concerned about, it could be fox or deer being used for sport by an owner inciting a pack of dogs.


----------



## _GG_ (11 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I'm still fence sitting,  but with a slant which is opposed to the animal charities.  However,  and whilst NOT taking the side of dymented,  I can assure you that I've had many 'decent' terriers in my time,  and to suggest that the little dog in question,  was a dog which could be or would be used to face a badger,  is just laughable.  By way of comparison,  would you be a little surprised that a Welsh Section B pony would complete the course at Burghley?  Would you be surprised to see a Standard Poodle come out of Greyhound traps?  Either would be just as likely as the apparent claim.

To suggest that the dead dog was a dog designed for work,  would be ridiculous,  and you'll have to take my word on that.  Over the years I've had dogs which would engage with a fox,  and kill it single handedly.  I've never allowed terriers below ground when there has been any chance of Brock being there.  Two reasons for this,  Firstly I rather like Brock,  and secondly,  I've never known a terrier which could take on,  again single handedly,  a badger and kill it.  All that I've ever seen are the most horrendous injuries and death from facing Mr. Badger.

I remain confused,  and still wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye.  Accepting that the rspca wouldn't know a decent dog if it bit them,  I'm still confused,  having seen the pics of the seized dogs which have been posted,  as to how anyone would view them as anything other than a rather motley collection of pets.   The dogs in the pics have not been used against badgers,  and even were the O_P to claim that they were,  then I would be more than happy to contradict them.

The quotes from previous posts where others have doubted that the P-M pics of the dead dog were those of the purported animal,  then let me assure you that the head size even though skinned out was of an entirely acceptable size to the supposed animal.  The missing teeth were also most probably lost whilst the animal was being killed by the 3 GSDs.  Such murder from other dogs is rarely an instant event,  and the attack would most likely have been sustained and it would have lasted for some while.  I remain appalled at the apparent rspca report which states that the dog in question was 'Found Dead'.  'Found Dead' would imply that there was no supervision,  what so ever.  The level of suffering which the poor wee thing went through would have been dreadful.  How others can support the rspca,  following on from their offered reports,  is beyond me.  How those who were responsible for the incompetence which lead to the murder (dog-upon-dog) of the animal on question,  are going to explain their incompetence,  will be entertaining,  at the very least!! 

Were the quoted rspca reports anything other than genuine,  then those who monitor this thread,  and on behalf of the rspca,  would have had this thread removed,  by now!  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I don't have much experience with dogs used for pest control. Do any of the dogs pictured in this thread look like dogs used for pest control?
I hadn't thought of it, but if you say you can tell a working dog from a non working dog, then do they all look like working dogs?

Hope that makes some sort of sense


----------



## _GG_ (11 June 2014)

ester said:



			Oh apparently the one I was thinking of on the fb page is not one of the OPs, too many dogs!
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is. That is why I said it seems more like a witch hunt against the RSPCA...it is more about promoting stories against the RSPCA than trying to get back the dogs they still have.

I just don't understand. Also, the dog missing some jaw has some very old scars that look like fighting scars so I am extremely dubious...no...absoluetly totally unconvinced that the damage shown happened as the result of a recent dog attack.


----------



## ester (11 June 2014)

Well it didn't look to be a particularly fresh wound to me either, certainly seems an odd way to go about getting your dogs back.


----------



## _GG_ (11 June 2014)

ester said:



			Well it didn't look to be a particularly fresh wound to me either, certainly seems an odd way to go about getting your dogs back.
		
Click to expand...

Given how much work I have done with vets over the years, it looks more like a wound that is recovering from infection, the borders to the wound, the texture of the skin/flesh. I am very untrusting. All we have to go on is the OP's word. I can't see anything from the RSPCA so can't judge that, but I just don't get it.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 June 2014)

_GG_ said:



			I don't have much experience with dogs used for pest control. Do any of the dogs pictured in this thread look like dogs used for pest control?
I hadn't thought of it, but if you say you can tell a working dog from a non working dog, then do they all look like working dogs?

Hope that makes some sort of sense 

Click to expand...

Your question makes perfect sense.  It rather defines the case,  in my view.  The small chocolate terrier bitch,  though accepting that the pic isn't up to much,  'may' be a useful type.  NOT ONE other dog is of working type,  or stamp,  and that's NOT ONE.  Not one of those dogs would have what it takes to face a fox or a badger,  in my view.  Again,  Section Bs and Burghley!!  

Nothing in the photographs displayed would lead anyone to think that any of the dogs on display had ever faced anything which would bite back.  I'm not defending the O_P here,  far from it,  I'm just wondering if anyone who viewed those dogs had the faintest idea what they were looking at.  I would add that another on this thread,  with no particular axe to grind,  but who's opinion is of worth has already said exactly what I've said,  and that those are NOT work dogs.  

Encouraging them to fight with another animal?  They'd struggle with a mouse!

Alec.


----------



## _GG_ (11 June 2014)

dymented said:



			i have not seen a warrant .They never left a warrant all i can gather is what i was told from them on the day .They waved a piece of paper saying they have a warrant for encouraging a dog to fight with a wild animal they did not state what animal they were supposedly fighting the solicitor has request a copy twice now and never received a copy of the alleged warrant
		
Click to expand...

You said this on the 8th June on this forum, but on another forum, on the 8th of may you say you have already had one interview and are due another in a week. I will post again with details. You've even posted a link to that forum yourself so why say different things on there than on here? Did they not say anything to you in that interview that YOU admit you had, or the one after it? Did you not, when in the interviews ASK THEM???



dymented said:



			Every Question you asked i answered to the best of my ability and knowledge i can not answer what i do not know .I have been members of various web sites for years. All i am simply doing is seeking justice for the poor dog that was killed in rspca care due to there neglect and cruelty.
		
Click to expand...

You may not have been asked the specific questions....but tell me how you can post all of the information you have ib my next post on another forum and not on here?

I am home this week and next. I WILL get to the bottom of this because many people are donating to you and I WILL NOT stand by and watch people be duped out of money. If it is all true and above board, I will be the first to apologise and share the truth for you. Until then, I do not believe a word of it.


----------



## _GG_ (11 June 2014)

Link to another forum at bottom of post but here's a breakdown of Dymenteds posts from there. I am extremely confused as we seem to be getting none of this information. Dymenteds posts are in red...where other people have asked a question, I have not included usernames but put them in blue.

29th April

will keep every one updated on current events regarding the rspca i do intent to prosecute for cruelty and neglect haven't had chance to speak to Clive as of yet he was in court all day but hes free tomorrow ! main stream media are now involved as well so there will be a few worried members off the rspca  

30th April

I have already email both Alan Hardwick and  Niel Rhodes still waiting for a reply .Cannot take them to county court as previous post suggested has to be magistrates court .The main stream media have been contacted but as Clive suggested we will hold back until Ive had an interview . Formal complaint are in the process. Trying to bring criminal charges against the rspca for neglect and cruelty . Will keep people up to date with any more news as it comes in . Thanks for your support and generosity Anton

1st May

No visit tomorrow to see the reaming 3 or 4 dogs.
( email from rspca says 3 but should be 4 unless something else has happened ) 
They arranged the visit so i can check the welfare off the dogs left and have now changed there mind !! thank you inspector J G
please keep shearing https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog

3rd May

Getting an awful lot off main stream media wanting to do a story on them on how this happened   

6th May

 I have had an interview with a main stream paper who will be running the story who is going to do a big spreed on this case and a few more to show how caring the rspca really are i will off course let every one no what paper and when its out Clive wants to wait till after the interview next week 

8th May

Had a message from Clive saying the rspca wont let me see the remaining dogs at this stage dont no what else they are hiding and do not want me to see 

They have no powers at all but they are holding them for the police and you have to make arrangements with the rspca to see your dogs i saw 4 dogs two weeks ago and complained that one was emaciated ( i have the video ) so i think thats upset them .

 08 May 2014 - 7:23 PM, said:
Dy have you been charged or even interviewed by the police?


have had one interview not been charged with anything next interview is next week. Clive can only request for me to see the dogs ive seen the emails hes sent they take weeks to reply. I can take legal action to enforce this but like Clive says it could take months im hoping to have the dogs back be for that  

12th May

can't understand why the dogs can,t be seen, if no charges have been made. Would  a  request to the police of a third party such as a independent vet to inspect the dogs be taken up by the police or has the rspca have the final word ? and if so then they must have more powers the the police !.and if that's the case then anyone who has a pet of any description should be worried
Have had a vet go out once already to examine the dogs there was 1 police officer and 2 rspca officers in attendance with him the vet found no fault with the dogs and could not understand why they had them i had arranged with them to see the remaining 8 dogs had an email from the rspca stating they will bring 4 dogs first them the following week the remaining 3 (Theres a dog missing some where or a clerical error on the side of the rspca )i saw 4 dogs out off the 4 dogs one lurcher of my sons had lost 1/3 off his body weight all his bones were sticking out i did complain to the Sargent that was present that they were neglecting the dog its all on video his reply was to take it up with the rspca i spoke to Clive and he contacted the rspca since then they has told him they do not have time at present for me to see the remaining dogs although i can get a vet to go and see them again which means they will still have to provide the same cover of people ie inspectors and police when he goes I no what the dogs should look like  personal i think there hiding something else you cant force them to let you see your dogs with out taking them to court which could take months and great expense so ill make formal complaints tomorrow along with Clive about the wellbeing off the dogs in rspca care and see where we go from that



As the Lincolnshire police  are  investigating , might it not be a good idea for a Police dog handler to attend when You visit the dogs? they are based at the Lincolnshire Show Ground, Grange De Lings.
 

 it was a Sargent from there that told me to take it up with the rspca you can clearly hear him on the video

13th May

well they say there investigation is still on going they are trying to say i failed to seek veterinary assistance to a dog. I did keep asking them what had happened to the dog dieing in there care they seem to think it was another dog my son owns that killed her ( the dog they say did it did not have a scratch on her and has never ever been dog aggressive)I called bull **** and they didn't like it I have Clive sorting out how we are going to get a prosecution brought against the rspca for neglect and cruelty  he will let me know as soon as hes figured out how we can proceed on the matter.they are still retaining all the dogs because i admitted to hunting rabbits  

15th May

These are the dogs seized by inspector J G as he says he feared for there safety and are still holding the dogs. Photos taken a week after being seized  by a vet who could not understand why they took the dogs.
I was told officially on Tuesday 13th  8 weeks after they took Stella ( the terrier )  that she died in a fight and would not comment further  and when i asked over the white lurcher dog being emaciated with bites marks on his legs inspector J G replied hes only lost a tad over 2.5 kg and it was his bedding that caused the bite marks on him and fur to fall out and that they had addressed the matter. How do they think they can get away with neglecting animal in there care. I have had animals over 40 years and nothing has ever happened to any animal i have owned and looked after
even after 7 days you can see hes lost a tiny bit off weight, Then i got to see him 6 weeks after and complained over the condition off the dog so they stopped me seeing the rest off the remaining dogs 

Pics can be seen (page 28) by following link at bottom of post

May 20th

Clive emailed the rspca today requesting that all dogs be reunited to there owner as there is no legal reason to keep them any longer 
we are still looking in to how to proceed with bringing charges off neglect and cruelty against the rspca under the animal welfare act 2006 
will keep every one up to date with any news thanks for every ones support 

 the ipcc are involved as well we have to wait to find out what they find first but the wheels are in motion
i intend to get justice form the rspca,s for the neglect and cruelty inflicted on the poor dog   


23rd May

Still no word on the return off the other dogs so now im taking the rspca to court over this matter will keep every one informed

5th June

Sorry to hear about your loss mate ,they really are *******s.Just read all this through and the kennel fight dosnt ring true.Does the charity not kennel dogs seperately even from same address.My gut tells me she was destroyed intentionally ,then realising the intent passion you have, a botched attempt at producing a body was brought forward.Did they force entry to start with without an officer present ?Can't get my head round you not been charged yet won't return dogs .More to this sinister affair I feel .Hope you get satisfaction mate.
Yes an 9 officers were present  They claim to have had a warrant one was never left we have asked twice now for a copy and not received it no i have not been charged with any offence they are keeping the dogs to cause financial difficulty ( up to £20 per dog per day they charge you ) as well as to try and stress you out worrying if they to have been killed by the rspca. I was informed yesterday from a close friend  that the cps will not be bringing any charges and that the rspca are now trying to. They have no evidence / nothing but need to save face for what they have done !! I will be taking to Clive later today and keep you informed


Cont...


----------



## _GG_ (11 June 2014)

8th June

Clive has started the ball rolling with legal action stabba bud will inform every one when more comes in dont want the rspca getting any heads up with anything. Thanks to every one for all there help with this situation its an absolute night mare 

9th June

I have emailed the Chief Constable as well as the police commissioner.  The IPCC are involved as well  Clive has started legal action already but things never move fast im hoping for more news soon. I have spoken to a few people of here that have given me great advice and been extremely helpful i will keep you updated with any progress thanks again to every one for all your support and help  :thumbs:

11th June

Received some photos from my vet which he took from his last examination of the dogs at our request and expense as the rspca refuse me visits because i complain over how they keep the dogs and there condition they are kept in. I have never seen dogs with white fur turned yellow and fur falling out in patches with red skin is it because they are having to sleep in urine stained bedding and cramped conditions at the rspca kennels ? inspector J G told me he had sorted the problem out Obviously he has not as there are more bite marks and fur missing of the other dogs now what is it with the rspca and wanting to neglect dogs in there care ? In all the years we have had dogs we never had this problem !!!!

Link to thread

http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/topic/320138-rspca/


----------



## _GG_ (11 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Your question makes perfect sense.  It rather defines the case,  in my view.  The small chocolate terrier bitch,  though accepting that the pic isn't up to much,  'may' be a useful type.  NOT ONE other dog is of working type,  or stamp,  and that's NOT ONE.  Not one of those dogs would have what it takes to face a fox or a badger,  in my view.  Again,  Section Bs and Burghley!!  

Nothing in the photographs displayed would lead anyone to think that any of the dogs on display had ever faced anything which would bite back.  I'm not defending the O_P here,  far from it,  I'm just wondering if anyone who viewed those dogs had the faintest idea what they were looking at.  I would add that another on this thread,  with no particular axe to grind,  but who's opinion is of worth has already said exactly what I've said,  and that those are NOT work dogs.  

Encouraging them to fight with another animal?  They'd struggle with a mouse!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Good to know, but I was wondering if you thought they were all working dogs for the job of pest control of rats and rabbits which is what the OP states. I don't think I worded my question very well


----------



## dymented (12 June 2014)

_GG_ ill say it again i have never seen a warrant  we have requested a copy twice and still not got one

I have had two interviews with the rspca and at no point in any one of them has badger bating or digging ever been mentioned 

My son whos dog was killed has never been contacted 

I have Not been charged with any offence at all 

I have instructed the solicitor to proceed with legal action over the dog being killed in rspca care

We made formal complaints to the rspca whos response was its going to be interesting me investigating myself

Since making the complaints they have refused me access to see the dogs saying they are to buzzy 

Yes i do hunt which i have permission to do so in writing 

At no point have i ever asked for any donations 

The people that have donated are normal every day folk that believe the rspca do persecuting harass/ bully /intimidate / innocent people and they think the rspca behave as though they a law unto them self 

The dog with wounds to his face is not my dog it is some one else's dog that was attacked in rspca care as well. Dog abuse by the rspca is not an  isolated incident it happens daily just goggle it a lot of the time its hidden swept under the carpet so they can portray a clean image to the public 

I will have justice for the dog they killed. They can not sweep it under a carpet and hope it will go away .


----------



## cptrayes (12 June 2014)

So who hates you enough to make up stories about you and tell them to the RSPCA dymented?  Because they did have a warrant to seize your dogs, and it was signed by a judge or a magistrate who saw enough evidence to convince them out was right to do so.


----------



## _GG_ (12 June 2014)

dymented said:



			_GG_ ill say it again i have never seen a warrant  we have requested a copy twice and still not got one

I have had two interviews with the rspca and at no point in any one of them has badger bating or digging ever been mentioned 

I have Not been charged with any offence at all 

I have instructed the solicitor to proceed with legal action over the dog being killed in rspca care

We made formal complaints to the rspca whos response was its going to be interesting me investigating myself

Since making the complaints they have refused me access to see the dogs saying they are to buzzy 

Yes i do hunt which i have permission to do so in writing 

The dog with wounds to his face is not my dog it is some one else's dog that was attacked in rspca care as well. Dog abuse by the rspca is not an  isolated incident it happens daily just goggle it a lot of the time its hidden swept under the carpet so they can portray a clean image to the public 

I will have justice for the dog they killed
		
Click to expand...

I know...and may I say that is the most reasoned and calm response you have given on this thread so far. As I said, I will be 100% behind you if all is as you say. But I want it checked out first...I think it is the only right thing to do when you are raising money. Perhaps if my disbelief, and that of so many others on this thread is based on the way that you have posted...both in the difficulty in making sense of everything and in the way you have posted different details on different forums, it would be better for your cause if you handed the publicity of it to someone else. 

You must understand that to read everything on this thread, then to read another thread with so much additional information makes it hard to take it all in. 

I don't want to add to stress, but I also don't think people should be being asked to give their money when there is actually nobody's word to take but yours. 

We are a forum of dog lovers in the main...we're a great source of support and encouragement to our members, but you need to be straight and above all, honest...and that is what has been lacking. 

If it is true, I genuinely hope that you do get justice...and I really do mean that, I just think what is needed here is the truth and not just your version of it. 

I hope you understand.


----------



## dymented (12 June 2014)

cptrayes said:



			So who hates you enough to make up stories about you and tell them to the RSPCA dymented?  Because they did have a warrant to seize your dogs, and it was signed by a judge or a magistrate who saw enough evidence to convince them out was right to do so.
		
Click to expand...

Have you seen the warrant ? I haven't the solicitor has requested a copy twice as no warrant was seen or left


----------



## cptrayes (12 June 2014)

You've seen the warrant. You didn't read it, which many of us find totally inexplicable, but you saw the piece of paper. A policeman was present to keep the peace, and there is no way this  whole thing would have happened without that piece of paper you saw being a warrant.

So who hates you enough to have fabricated enough evidence against you to get one signed?


----------



## dymented (12 June 2014)

cptrayes said:



			You've seen the warrant. You didn't read it, which many of us find totally inexplicable, but you saw the piece of paper. A policeman was present to keep the peace, and there is no way this  whole thing would have happened without that piece of paper you saw being a warrant.

So who hates you enough to have fabricated enough evidence against you to get one signed?
		
Click to expand...

Last time I have not seen a warrant we have requested a copy twice and are still  waiting for them (ask your mates to forward a copy please  )
More cases of the rspca persecuting innocent people then dropping all charges NO evidence
More cases of the rspca persecuting innocent people then dropping all charges NO evidence


----------



## cptrayes (12 June 2014)

No. You have not READ a warrant. You have said all along that you saw a piece of paper.

If you genuinely believe this was not a warrant, go straight to the police and register a crime, as this would be an extremely serious offence, especially with a police presence.


----------



## dymented (12 June 2014)

cptrayes said:



			No. You have not READ a warrant. You have said all along that you saw a piece of paper.

If you genuinely believe this was not a warrant, go straight to the police and register a crime, as this would be an extremely serious offence, especially with a police presence.
		
Click to expand...

Independent Police Complaints Commission 
The ipcc are fully aware as formal complaints have been made and are investigating 
( We have requested twice now a copy of the warrant and none have been provided )


----------



## cptrayes (12 June 2014)

Well good luck with that because I find it impossible to believe that there was no warrant.

None the less, the RSPCA do not lightly take on the board and keep of nine dogs. So who have you annoyed so much, and how, that they would do this to you?


----------



## _GG_ (12 June 2014)

Dymented, I am leaving this now for the day...but just thought I'd clarify my position as I was allowing emotion to creep into my posts yesterday. 

I do believe your dogs were taken. I do believe it was probably quite a fraught experience. I do believe that the RSPCA are capable of doing things wrong. 

However, I don't believe we are being told the full story and I don't believe you should be asking for donations without absolute honesty on your part, which you have not shown.


----------



## ester (12 June 2014)

dymented said:



			At no point have i ever asked for any donations
		
Click to expand...


Why is there a donate button on the facebook page then?

and post this there? 'if any one would like to donate or bid on anything please look here'


----------



## dymented (12 June 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Well good luck with that because I find it impossible to believe that there was no warrant.

None the less, the RSPCA do not lightly take on the board and keep of nine dogs. So who have you annoyed so much, and how, that they would do this to you?
		
Click to expand...

You and me both then . They had no legal reason to take the dogs and they know it. I do believe if my sons dog was not killed and i had not complained and taken legal action then they would all be back home now and that would be an end of the matter .

Donations 
please scroll through the page and you will find people posting put a donation button up so we can help I have never ever asked for any thing i can and will stand on my own two feet as i have always done But if some one else wants to help stop the rspca from doing anything like this again what can i say ? you can see a comment on there from some one saying over donations i told them to donate to the dogs trust. 

I dont get what part  of the story you do not get or i am hiding ? MY SONS DOG WAS KILLED IN RSPCA CARE IT WAS TORN TO BITS IN A FIGHT DUE TO THERE NEGLECT AND CRUELTY is it right for them to allow this to have happened ?????


----------



## cptrayes (12 June 2014)

Dymented, the problem is that it cannot be true that they had no legal reason to take the dogs, because they cannot simply turn up at someone's home without a warrant and do that. And if they had a warrant, then evidence was presented to a judge or a bench of magistrates to get them to sign the warrant.

I'm not saying that the evidence was correct, and for all I know you have a terrible enemy, but until you accept that they had a warrant and say so, it is impossible to believe that your dog was killed while in RSPCA care, because we have only your word for that at the moment.

Meanwhile, I still think your big problem is to work out why the RSPCA picked on you. How did they even know who you were? What evidence did they give a judge or magistrates? Who hates you so much, and why, that they would fabricate this?


----------



## fburton (12 June 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Meanwhile, I still think your big problem is to work out why the RSPCA picked on you. How did they even know who you were? What evidence did they give a judge or magistrates? Who hates you so much, and why, that they would fabricate this?
		
Click to expand...

Burning questions, all of them.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (13 June 2014)

NINE police officers were present when the RSPCA attended without a warrant ? NINE ? Why would they send nine officers and why would they all be colluding with the RSPCA ? 
Do you have a reputation locally ? 

Why have the media not run this apparent tale of injustice ? 

Incidentally, our local rat man works with a ancient old lab, who is extremely efficient at dispatching rats and rabbits. 
 Of course, we only know of the dogs you have mentioned. I find it difficult to believe you are giving us the full story. I only know that you are hell bent on attacking the RSPCA in a very aggressive and single minded way. 
 Having spread your story around the internet, choosing forums and facebook pages that you thought would unquestioningly jump on the band wagon, you made a mistake in assuming that here on HHO we're equally blinkered.
 We 're more interested in finding out the facts, truth and probability.


----------



## cptrayes (13 June 2014)

MSR I read that as nine RSPCA officers, one for each dog. It's another reason why this wasn't just some whim by the RSPCA, it took an awful lot of coordination to get the removal of the dogs done, and now they are boarding them at great expense. This isn't something that'just happened' it's taken weeks of planning.


----------



## _GG_ (13 June 2014)

cptrayes said:



			MSR I read that as nine RSPCA officers, one for each dog. It's another reason why this wasn't just some whim by the RSPCA, it took an awful lot of coordination to get the removal of the dogs done, and now they are boarding them at great expense. This isn't something that'just happened' it's taken weeks of planning.
		
Click to expand...

Yes...it took teo weeks for them to organise moving 1 pony that they didn't even have to collect. 

I worked very closely with the RSPCA over about 6 weeks with that whole saga and the inspector and officers involved worked their absolute backsides into the ground, fighting against the difficulties of all the procedures they had to go through. They did go through them though, it made their lives infinitely more difficult, but it managed the case in a way which enabled them to be able to bring charges (extremely necessary) against the owner. 

I cannot comprehend 9 RSPCA officers, accompanied by a police officer all coluding in such a massive injustice. I just can't.


----------



## FairyLights (13 June 2014)

Hope the dogs owner had the book thrown at him. Badger baiting, which I think this is about, is horrendous and is rightly outlawed.


----------



## dogatemysalad (13 June 2014)

cptrayes said:



			MSR I read that as nine RSPCA officers, one for each dog. It's another reason why this wasn't just some whim by the RSPCA, it took an awful lot of coordination to get the removal of the dogs done, and now they are boarding them at great expense. This isn't something that'just happened' it's taken weeks of planning.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, that makes sense. They must have been very concerned to direct so much man power into one case.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (13 June 2014)

cptrayes said:



			MSR I read that as nine RSPCA officers, one for each dog. It's another reason why this wasn't just some whim by the RSPCA, it took an awful lot of coordination to get the removal of the dogs done, and now they are boarding them at great expense. This isn't something that'just happened' it's taken weeks of planning.
		
Click to expand...

That's even worse. What an operation it must have been.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 June 2014)

cptrayes said:



			MSR I read that as nine RSPCA officers, one for each dog. It's another reason why this wasn't just some whim by the RSPCA, it took an awful lot of coordination to get the removal of the dogs done, and now they are boarding them at great expense. This isn't something that'just happened' it's taken weeks of planning.
		
Click to expand...

So with 'an awful lot of coordination',  'weeks of planning' and the 'great expense',  can you explain how they managed to have one small terrier kennelled with and killed by 3 GSDs?  Would you not accept that it's also possible that the rspca are totally inept,  and that their actions smack of wilful incompetence?

Ets,  with your undoubted equine experience,  and were you to witness fools and their behaviour,  and were your opinion asked,  then we both know what your reaction would be,  don't we?!!

Alec.


----------



## _GG_ (13 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			So with 'an awful lot of coordination',  'weeks of planning' and the 'great expense',  can you explain how they managed to have one small terrier kennelled with and killed by 3 GSDs?  Would you not accept that it's also possible that the rspca are totally inept,  and that their actions smack of wilful incompetence?

Ets,  with your undoubted equine experience,  and were you to witness fools and their behaviour,  and were your opinion asked,  then we both know what your reaction would be,  don't we?!!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I can't. But my problems are not to do with that. If that happened as we have been told, I will fully support the OP. 
However, I find it all very hard to swallow that the RSPCA coordinated 9 officers and the police to take 9 dogs for no reason, having only waved a piece of paper and not actually said anything to the OP during what would have taken more than a few minutes. 

There have been two interviews since, but still the OP knows nothing?

The dogs are still being held. We've been told by the OP that the dogs have lost weight in the RSPCA care, the OP has posted pictures apparently showing this, but then also posts to say that the independent vet said the dogs were in good health. 

It just concerns me. It concerns me if the RSPCA are guilty of all of this. But it also concerns me that people are being asked to donate. OP...you may not be outright asking, but you are sharing the link to donate and allowing others to share and ask for donations. 

It's just too difficult to believe without any absolute concrete facts. The truth is so very important with things like this, so please understand how hard it is to have followed your posts on this forum, only to go and see how differently you have posted on another one.

EDIT: An absolute, concrete fact to me is not the word of the OP. It is evidence taken directly from one of the involved authorities...not shared by the OP...but irrefutable. SO we may well have to wait for this to have its day in court...if it ever does. I simply grew up enough a long time ago to know that people are capable of lying so when it's something this important, I am just not prepared to take the OPs word for any of it.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (13 June 2014)

How much of the story can we believe though ? The Op says that his dog was killed by 3 GS's whilst in the care of the RSPCA and yet somewhere doesn't he state he was told one of his own dogs killed the terrier. He gives us a time line and details that may or not be correct. 
Problem is, we cannot take any of the details of this story as being factually correct without knowing the RSPCA's account.


----------



## hairycob (13 June 2014)

Goodness knows what the truth is here but it does remind me of the James  Grey supporters who came on here at the time of Spindles Farm.


----------



## Fides (13 June 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			NINE police officers were present when the RSPCA attended without a warrant ? NINE ? Why would they send nine officers and why would they all be colluding with the RSPCA ? 
Do you have a reputation locally ?.
		
Click to expand...

The only reason for that is them anticipating trouble of a physical nature.


----------



## _GG_ (13 June 2014)

Fides said:



			The only reason for that is them anticipating trouble of a physical nature.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think they were police officers Fides. I believe it was 9 RSPCA officers, accompanied by police. I can't remember if OP has stated on either thread how many police there were.


----------



## cptrayes (13 June 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			So with 'an awful lot of coordination',  'weeks of planning' and the 'great expense',  can you explain how they managed to have one small terrier kennelled with and killed by 3 GSDs?
		
Click to expand...


I have seen no proof that this has actually happened, Alec.  I would need more evidence before I could believe the death happened, and even then  the RSPCA is not necessarily at fault and more facts are required.




			could you not accept that it's also possible that the rspca are totally inept,  and that their actions smack of wilful incompetence?
		
Click to expand...

I have no evidence of that Alec, only dymented' s description of what seems to me have been a carefully planned and safely executed removal of nine dogs.

I find it completely impossible to believe that he has no idea whatsoever why these dogs were removed.  And therefore impossible to know how much of his story is true.




			Ets,  with your undoubted equine experience,  and were you to witness fools and their behaviour,  and were your opinion asked,  then we both know what your reaction would be,  don't we?!!
		
Click to expand...

&#8230;

But I have witnessed nothing in this case Alec, and what the OP has written has holes in it big enough to sink the titanic.




PS gg,   his Facebook page is now directly asking for donations.


----------



## Fides (13 June 2014)

_GG_ said:



			I don't think they were police officers Fides. I believe it was 9 RSPCA officers, accompanied by police. I can't remember if OP has stated on either thread how many police there were.
		
Click to expand...

It was nine police officers - the OP PMed me. "9 police officers and a few RSPCA" officers were his exact words.


----------



## abb123 (13 June 2014)

I have to agree with cptrayes. There is no evidence that anything the OP has posted is true.

From what I can gather from the posts, the facts are:

(1) OP has 9 dogs that he says he uses to control rats and rabbits. None of which look suited to that job and are more of the pet type.

(2) The RSPCA turned up with 9 police officers with warrant and removed the dogs.

(3) One dog at some point died.

There are questions over:

(1) What the warrant was for. The police would be duty bound to ensure that you understood the contents of the warrant.
(2) What the dogs were doing/being done to that would necessitate the RSPCA obtaining a warrant organising 9 police officers to be in attendance and why they felt the need for 9 police officers to be in attendance.
(3) The time line with dates changing.
(4) Solicitors involvement/ is there a solicitor and if there is then they are not acting as would be expected.
(5) How the dog died/when the dog died and in what condition it was when the RSPCA removed the animal.

I'm sorry OP, I may be completely wrong but the *impression* that all this is giving is that you/your son are known to the police and RSPCA and that they expected trouble. That you were either baiting badgers/foxes or involved in dog fighting in some way. That the dog was injured before the RSPCA seized it and was put down. You are now trying to make money out the situation by looking for 'donations'.

If this is not the case then you need to seriously reconsider how you are presenting your situation and how you are going about sorting it all out!


----------



## _GG_ (13 June 2014)

Fides said:



			It was nine police officers - the OP PMed me. "9 police officers and a few RSPCA" officers were his exact words.
		
Click to expand...

Really? Wow. I have been involved in enough welfare cases involving the removal of animals to know that that is an INCREDIBLE number of police officers.


----------



## _GG_ (13 June 2014)

abb123 said:



			I have to agree with cptrayes. There is no evidence that anything the OP has posted is true.

From what I can gather from the posts, the facts are:

(1) OP has 9 dogs that he says he uses to control rats and rabbits. None of which look suited to that job and are more of the pet type.

(2) The RSPCA turned up with 9 police officers with warrant and removed the dogs.

(3) One dog at some point died.

There are questions over:

(1) What the warrant was for. The police would be duty bound to ensure that you understood the contents of the warrant.
(2) What the dogs were doing/being done to that would necessitate the RSPCA obtaining a warrant organising 9 police officers to be in attendance and why they felt the need for 9 police officers to be in attendance.
(3) The time line with dates changing.
(4) Solicitors involvement/ is there a solicitor and if there is then they are not acting as would be expected.
(5) How the dog died/when the dog died and in what condition it was when the RSPCA removed the animal.

I'm sorry OP, I may be completely wrong but the *impression* that all this is giving is that you/your son are known to the police and RSPCA and that they expected trouble. That you were either baiting badgers/foxes or involved in dog fighting in some way. That the dog was injured before the RSPCA seized it and was put down. You are now trying to make money out the situation by looking for 'donations'.

If this is not the case then you need to seriously reconsider how you are presenting your situation and how you are going about sorting it all out!
		
Click to expand...

Very well constructed.


----------



## Goldenstar (13 June 2014)

_GG_ said:



			Really? Wow. I have been involved in enough welfare cases involving the removal of animals to know that that is an INCREDIBLE number of police officers.
		
Click to expand...

It's not really if they expected trouble  and I have been at removals where they were up to twenty and at one they had armed officers .
Taking animal in the circumstances described is unusual .


----------



## _GG_ (13 June 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			It's not really if they expected trouble  and I have been at removals where they were up to twenty and at one they had armed officers .
Taking animal in the circumstances described is unusual .
		
Click to expand...

Exactly....what the OP has been getting at all along is that they are totally innocent and had been doing nothing wrong. If that were the case, I'd expect one police officer present, 2 at most. To have 9 there means only one thing....as you say, they expected trouble.


----------



## FionaM12 (13 June 2014)

dymented said:



			I had a local solicitor at the time i did not have Clive Rees. It was the local solicitor that the rspca called and told that the dog was dead they gave no reason !!

At no point have i sad Clive was involved from the start But he is now and has been for a few weeks
		
Click to expand...

Interestingly the solicitor the OP names advertises that his speciallity is "defending the indefensible" which he defines as "animal related offenses, such as hunting with dogs, badger digging, poaching, disturbance of wild birds"

http://clivereessolicitor.com/


----------



## Fides (13 June 2014)

_GG_ said:



			Really? Wow. I have been involved in enough welfare cases involving the removal of animals to know that that is an INCREDIBLE number of police officers.
		
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. I wouldn't have even expected 9 RSPCA officers even to be honest - 9 dogs but surely they would remove them one by one to minimise stress.

My impression of the OP through this thread (and PMs he has sent me) is that he may be known already to the police and RSPCA as an 'unsavoury character' and they anticipated trouble. I am not talking behind the OPs back - I said this to them privately after they PMed me. I may be wrong but this is the impression that the OP gives with their aggressive stance on the thread and by PMing people who disagree with them. I would be interested to hear if anyone else has had PMs telling them how wrong they are - not polite PMs, ones with a pretty arsey 'tone' much like the replies in this thread.

ETA - I also don't like his 'name dropping'. Using peoples' full names without their permission, when they are the people being accused, smells a little of 'I know who you are' type witness intimidation.

The whole thing leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

But still - poor poor dog who was mauled. Someone does need to answer for that.


----------



## _GG_ (13 June 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			Interestingly the solicitor the OP names advertises that his speciallity is "defending the indefensible" which he defines as "animal related offenses, such as hunting with dogs, badger digging, poaching, disturbance of wild birds"

http://clivereessolicitor.com/

Click to expand...

So, he writes for Horse and Hound!


----------



## _GG_ (13 June 2014)

Fides said:



			That's what I thought. I wouldn't have even expected 9 RSPCA officers even to be honest - 9 dogs but surely they would remove them one by one to minimise stress.

My impression of the OP through this thread (and PMs he has sent me) is that he may be known already to the police and RSPCA as an 'unsavoury character' and they anticipated trouble. I am not talking behind the OPs back - I said this to them privately after they PMed me. I may be wrong but this is the impression that the OP gives with their aggressive stance on the thread and by PMing people who disagree with them. I would be interested to hear if anyone else has had PMs telling them how wrong they are - not polite PMs, ones with a pretty arsey 'tone' much like the replies in this thread.
		
Click to expand...

I have not had any PM's nor have I had much in the way of response to any of the points I have made throughout this thread. I have witnessed the OP respond to others and not me. The response to my long posts a couple of pages back was just a bit odd...no acknowledgement at all of the points made. 

I know others have PM'd but not what has been said...they are PM's, so non of my business, but I just find it all a bit odd. 

Even where a person had previously (in front of police officers) threatened to stab someone....only one police officer turned up when the horses were siezed. We were all, police/RSPCA, vet and myself petrified the owner was going to turn up...thankfully she didn't...but even with that history, only 1 officer.


----------



## FionaM12 (13 June 2014)

Fides said:



			But still - poor poor dog who was mauled. Someone does need to answer for that.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, if there was a dog that was mauled that is...


----------



## Goldenstar (13 June 2014)

_GG_ said:



			Exactly....what the OP has been getting at all along is that they are totally innocent and had been doing nothing wrong. If that were the case, I'd expect one police officer present, 2 at most. To have 9 there means only one thing....as you say, they expected trouble.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure if any thing can be inferred by it .
The warrant thing makes no sense to me who in their right mind would allow their dogs to be removed without reading the warrant .


----------



## dymented (26 June 2014)

_GG_ said:



			I have not had any PM's nor have I had much in the way of response to any of the points I have made throughout this thread. I have witnessed the OP respond to others and not me. The response to my long posts a couple of pages back was just a bit odd...no acknowledgement at all of the points made. 

I know others have PM'd but not what has been said...they are PM's, so non of my business, but I just find it all a bit odd. 

Even where a person had previously (in front of police officers) threatened to stab someone....only one police officer turned up when the horses were siezed. We were all, police/RSPCA, vet and myself petrified the owner was going to turn up...thankfully she didn't...but even with that history, only 1 officer.
		
Click to expand...

( A total of 13 officials turned up at 70-year-old John Spicer,s home )
70 year old and 13 turned up at a retired vets house was he an unsavory charter ???? 
link to the story here  
http://usecmagazine.usecnetwork.com/uk/?p=63906

you can post that to your buddies in the rspca 

under the 2006 animal welfare act they had a duty of care to to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the animals and have failed miserably 1 dog dead , 1 dog has been attacked and bitten about the head ,one dog emaciated , all the dogs seem to have lost fur in large patches the white dogs have urine stained legs now as stated Clive Rees is dealing with this matter of prosecuting the rspca 
I have never been questioned over dog fighting / i have never been questioned over badger bating 
as stated i did not own all the dogs. no one else has been questioned by the rspca or the police 
They have made a horrendous mistake and they know it ! they are now trying to cover there ass .
In a statement made to an investigator the rspca claim it was the police who seized the dogs and they had nothing to do with it they also claim that it was not at one of there kennels where it happened the kennel where it happened is ( http://www.rspca-lincseast.org.uk/catalog ) So the investigator called the police who state it was the rspca who advised them to size the dogs on there behalf and that they are looking after the dogs he also asked if they were going to prosecute me which the reply was No
its up to the rspca if they can find anything . he has the whole conversation on tape !!


----------



## _GG_ (26 June 2014)

dymented said:



			( A total of 13 officials turned up at 70-year-old John Spicer,s home )
70 year old and 13 turned up at a retired vets house was he an unsavory charter ???? 
link to the story here  
http://usecmagazine.usecnetwork.com/uk/?p=63906

you can post that to your buddies in the rspca 

under the 2006 animal welfare act they had a duty of care to to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the animals and have failed miserably 1 dog dead , 1 dog has been attacked and bitten about the head ,one dog emaciated , all the dogs seem to have lost fur in large patches the white dogs have urine stained legs now as stated Clive Rees is dealing with this matter of prosecuting the rspca 
I have never been questioned over dog fighting / i have never been questioned over badger bating 
as stated i did not own all the dogs. no one else has been questioned by the rspca or the police 
They have made a horrendous mistake and they know it ! they are now trying to cover there ass .
In a statement made to an investigator the rspca claim it was the police who seized the dogs and they had nothing to do with it they also claim that it was not at one of there kennels where it happened the kennel where it happened is ( http://www.rspca-lincseast.org.uk/catalog ) So the investigator called the police who state it was the rspca who advised them to size the dogs on there behalf and that they are looking after the dogs he also asked if they were going to prosecute me which the reply was No
its up to the rspca if they can find anything . he has the whole conversation on tape !!
		
Click to expand...

Why are you posting a link about a totally unrelated incident....of which you only have a biased story? I don't need to look, it doesn't mean anything. 

I don't have buddies in the RSPCA...I actually avoid them like the plague but have had to work with them a few times, one very recently. I have no doubt that they can be incompetent, but that is them. 

My issue with you is that you have and continue to handle this whole thing extremely poorly. You came on here giving one version of events, while giving different information on the other forum (thread which has now either gone or become private). It has been your behaviour which has made me draw the conclusion that I don't trust what you say. That's not to say I don't believe that your story could potentially have some truth to it...just that you have posted and handled this is a way that I can't trust what you say to be true and with such disparity in your comments, I find it abhorrent to accept any donations, whether you've asked for them or not. 

I recently managed to force the RSPCA into action as another member on here can verify. You don't get what you need against organisations like this by posting crap all over the internet...you get results by being extremely careful, clever and considered in everything you do...ignoring all other stories and cases, just concentrating on your own. The moment you start to go on a hate campaign, you will be given about as much respect as snail poo. 

My advice, if this is all true...Take aboslutely everything offline. Ask the forum admins to remove all threads, close down the facebook page, close down donations and refund everyone that has donated so far. Work with your solicitor and make absolutely NO negative comments anywhere or to anyone about the organisations you are accusing. Be absolutely above reproach in how you handle this and if/when it goes to court, you will be able to show yourself to have been nothing but exemplary in your conduct. A judge faced with a person who has publicly condemned the opposition, solicited or accepted financial contribution etc. will NOT be impressed and will be far more likely to concentrate on your conduct when all they should be concentrating on is the welfare of the dogs/justice for the dog that died. 

Seriously...you are being your own worst enemy. You don't have to listen to me, you probably won't...but I have been successful on numerous occasions...you haven't...learn something from that.


----------



## dogatemysalad (26 June 2014)

dymented said:



			( A total of 13 officials turned up at 70-year-old John Spicer,s home )
70 year old and 13 turned up at a retired vets house was he an unsavory charter ???? 
link to the story here  
http://usecmagazine.usecnetwork.com/uk/?p=63906

you can post that to your buddies in the rspca 

under the 2006 animal welfare act they had a duty of care to to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the animals and have failed miserably 1 dog dead , 1 dog has been attacked and bitten about the head ,one dog emaciated , all the dogs seem to have lost fur in large patches the white dogs have urine stained legs now as stated Clive Rees is dealing with this matter of prosecuting the rspca 
I have never been questioned over dog fighting / i have never been questioned over badger bating 
as stated i did not own all the dogs. no one else has been questioned by the rspca or the police 
They have made a horrendous mistake and they know it ! they are now trying to cover there ass .
In a statement made to an investigator the rspca claim it was the police who seized the dogs and they had nothing to do with it they also claim that it was not at one of there kennels where it happened the kennel where it happened is ( http://www.rspca-lincseast.org.uk/catalog ) So the investigator called the police who state it was the rspca who advised them to size the dogs on there behalf and that they are looking after the dogs he also asked if they were going to prosecute me which the reply was No
its up to the rspca if they can find anything . he has the whole conversation on tape !!
		
Click to expand...

Thank goodness the RSPCA got the dogs out in the link you posted. One of the dogs has to be carried out on a board, it's too sick to walk and has most of its coat missing. 
How can you criticise the dog in such a pitiful state being taken ? Are you mad or just inhumane?


----------



## cptrayes (26 June 2014)

Well there more to the story you quote in your last post Dymented, isn't there?

1.  It is not normal for the Fire Brigade to attend. Why was it felt they were needed in that case?

2. It is not normal to climb a ladder and look in an upstairs window when seizing dogs. Why did it happen in that case?

3. It is not normal to do a dawn raid or break down the door for people felt to be no threat, who answer their door when it is knocked. Why did it happen in that case?

4. It IS normal for the RSPCA to attempt to work with owners before seizing dogs. They had previous contact with that old vet. Can you tell us what previous contact they had with you?

5. It is also completely normal for the Police not to charge these cases and leave it to the RSPCA, so I wish you and the person who wrote this article would get it into your heads that just because you have not been charged by the Poloce that you are in some way victims of an RSPCA vendetta.

Just because that man is seventy and an ex vet does not make him innocent. They have to become hardened to hurting animals to help them, and its easy to cross that line into cruelty, which clearly this man has done, given the state of the dog on the board.


----------



## PolarSkye (26 June 2014)

What I take away from this thread is that it takes an awful lot to rile GG . . . she is, without question, one of the most balanced, kind and rational posters on this board . . . if you were trying to garner support, the fact that GG finds it difficult to stomach the way you have gone about things speaks volumes to me.  

Oh, and I was sceptical before GG called you out . . . now I am doubly so.

P


----------



## FionaM12 (26 June 2014)

I think the OP has been listened to politely and reasonable questions asked. But their story's unconvincing and they refuse to answer questions fully. GG could not have been nicer or more tolerant yet is childishly accused of being a friend of the RSPCA. Bringing other anti- RSPCA stories in causes even more confusion.

Maybe the RSPCA did act badly, we'll probably never know as I don't believe a court case will follow and the OP had totally discredited themselves.


----------



## dymented (24 September 2014)

we now have a date in early October regarding prosecuting the rspca !!


----------



## joycec (24 September 2014)

dymented said:



			we now have a date in early October regarding prosecuting the rspca !!
		
Click to expand...

Prosecuting?  For a criminal offence?  Don't you mean suing, for a civil offence?

Whichever, this will be very interesting. Can you tell us which court please, if it's close I may even go and watch so I can finally make an informed view of you case, which I've been watching and bemused by since it started.


----------



## dymented (24 September 2014)

I am using the same procedure that the rspca do any any other member of the public can  its a criminal offence under the animal welfare act 2006 to cause unnecessary suffering and pain to a protected animal IE my sons dog that was in there care that was killed . If it happened in your or my care they would prosecute us  !!!


----------



## Fides (24 September 2014)

dymented said:



			I am using the same procedure that the rspca do any any other member of the public can  its a criminal offence under the animal welfare act 2006 to cause unnecessary suffering and pain to a protected animal IE my sons dog that was in there care that was killed . If it happened in your or my care they would prosecute us  !!!
		
Click to expand...

Has your solicitor informed you that if you do so the CPS can take over and stop the proceedings? I have a feeling you could soon be learning a very expensive lesson.


----------



## FionaM12 (24 September 2014)

joycec said:



			Can you tell us which court please, if it's close I may even go and watch so I can finally make an informed view of you case, which I've been watching and bemused by since it started.
		
Click to expand...

No answer to this question?


----------



## Alec Swan (24 September 2014)

Fides said:



			Has your solicitor informed you that if you do so the CPS can take over and stop the proceedings? &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Upon what grounds?  Though unusual,  private individuals can bring private prosecutions,  and I would have thought that the throwing out of a case would be at the discretion of a Judge,  and not the CPS who appear to have taken no interest in the matters under discussion.  The question is aside from the OP and their case.  I'd be genuinely interested to hear.

Alec.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (24 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Upon what grounds?  Though unusual,  private individuals can bring private prosecutions,  and I would have thought that the throwing out of a case would be at the discretion of a Judge,  and not the CPS who appear to have taken no interest in the matters under discussion.  The question is aside from the OP and their case.  I'd be genuinely interested to hear.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, The CPS can and does stop private prosecutions for various reasons, eg if it was malicious or vexatious, or if it interfered with other criminal proceedings.


----------



## Spudlet (24 September 2014)

Under section 6 of the Prosecutions of Offences Act 1985, the CPS can take over private prosecutions and continue or discontinue them. The circumstances under which they can do either of these things is outlined here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/private_prosecutions/#an05

Another watching with, erm, interest, if that's the right word!


----------



## Alec Swan (24 September 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Yes, The CPS can and does stop private prosecutions for various reasons, eg if it was malicious or vexatious, or if it interfered with other criminal proceedings.
		
Click to expand...

Aah,  so if the rspca are planning a prosecution,  then presumably the CPS can step in and prevent a counter measure,  am I right?  Mind you,  that still doesn't explain the rspca's handling of a dog which was killed,  by what would appear to be a neglect of duty and care.  As others,  and accepting that I'm not a fan of the charity in question,  I am nonetheless,  fence sitting!

Alec.


----------



## _GG_ (24 September 2014)

Dymented was given a court date for October on 16th September. His legal team have been given a copy of the warrant, which has apparently been found to be unlawful. 

The income from the charity auction and donations stood at £5,100 as of 16th July, with £4,200 paid to Clive Reese for the Section 20 and barristers cost. 

Magistrates Court was mentioned previously and Lincolnshire police, so I would imagine that the case will be heard in a local Magistrates Court. Shouldn't be hard to find out if anyone did want to go. I have no interest in going, but someone on here recently said they'd like to. It's public information and easy to obtain.

This thread has been quiet since June, but the Hunting Life forum has been updated regularly. Should anyone wish to look, here's the link again. 

http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/topic/320138-rspca/page-43

Dymented. I will again say, as I have all along that if the RSPCA have done wrong here, you will have my support and I hope they are made to pay, I have no problem apologising when I am wrong, but I still don't quite buy into it all. Not that I don't buy into some of it...but just not all and I maintain that taking donations from strangers is wrong when the information supplied is so very full of holes. 

Thank you for the update though. I fully understand you posting more on the other forum, you get a lot more support on there, but I will look forward to further updates on here.


----------



## FionaM12 (24 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			Dymented was given a court date for October on 16th September. His legal team have been given a copy of the warrant, which has apparently been found to be unlawful. 

The income from the charity auction and donations stood at £5,100 as of 16th July, with £4,200 paid to Clive Reese for the Section 20 and barristers cost. 

Magistrates Court was mentioned previously and Lincolnshire police, so I would imagine that the case will be heard in a local Magistrates Court. Shouldn't be hard to find out if anyone did want to go. I have no interest in going, but someone on here recently said they'd like to. It's public information and easy to obtain.

This thread has been quiet since June, but the Hunting Life forum has been updated regularly. Should anyone wish to look, here's the link again. 

http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/topic/320138-rspca/page-43

Dymented. I will again say, as I have all along that if the RSPCA have done wrong here, you will have my support and I hope they are made to pay, I have no problem apologising when I am wrong, but I still don't quite buy into it all. Not that I don't buy into some of it...but just not all and I maintain that taking donations from strangers is wrong when the information supplied is so very full of holes. 

Thank you for the update though. I fully understand you posting more on the other forum, you get a lot more support on there, but I will look forward to further updates on here.
		
Click to expand...

Hang on. The OP says HE is prosecuting the RSPCA. Your post reads as though it's them prosecuting him. Which way round is it please? :confused3:


----------



## _GG_ (24 September 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			Hang on. The OP says HE is prosecuting the RSPCA. Your post reads as though it's them prosecuting him. Which way round is it please? :confused3:
		
Click to expand...

I just took that from the other forum, where I do believe everything is posted that they are taking the RSPCA to court. If it came across the other way in my post...my apologies as I realise I said that Dymented was given a court date, I should have worded that better. As it's not Dymenteds dog that died, I would expect that it is his son that is actually taking the action, but I don't know???

Dymenteds post on 16th Sept said...

"We finally have a date in October. i cant understand why there dragging it out like this. They know full well there in the wrong unless its just to cause as much suffering as they can I will update more as i get more info Its take nearly two months just to get a date some justice system we have in the uk"


----------



## _GG_ (24 September 2014)

Also, I can't read the RSPCA statement, but apparently it states that it was the sons other dogs that killed the pregnant bitch, but that Dymenteds own vet report says that the injuries were cause by larger dogs. 

I infer nothing with that...just sharing it.


----------



## FionaM12 (24 September 2014)

Thanks GG, that's a bit clearer.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			Also, I can't read the RSPCA statement, but apparently it states that it was the sons other dogs that killed the pregnant bitch, but that Dymenteds own vet report says that the injuries were cause by larger dogs. 

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

How interesting.  There was,  so I understand,  a communication from the rspca,  or their representative (the contracted kennel owners?),  that states that the dog concerned was infact killed by dogs other than the owner's.  That said,  it's actually immaterial which dogs killed the dog concerned.  The dead dog was in the care of the rspca and it is they who are responsible.

As you and others,  I follow this with interest,  and an open mind.

Alec.


----------



## _GG_ (24 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			How interesting.  There was,  so I understand,  a communication from the rspca,  or their representative (the contracted kennel owners?),  that states that the dog concerned was infact killed by dogs other than the owner's.  That said,  it's actually immaterial which dogs killed the dog concerned.  The dead dog was in the care of the rspca and it is they who are responsible.

As you and others,  I follow this with interest,  and an open mind.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Um...I have a slight (read massive) issue with something and I would appreciate someone else taking a look to tell me what I am missing please. 

On the facebook page "RSPCA did this" the first post is another statement about what has happened with more detailed pictures of the dog after it had been returned to the OP/his son. *Warning* the photo's are very graphic. 

Now, I had some doubts, so looked through the page photo's to find the original picture of the dog in question, made up as a poster that says, "My name was Stella and I was 8 weeks pregnant when I was taken away..." and it shows a picture of the dog that Dymented says has been killed in the care of the RSPCA and please someone correct me if I am wrong, but Stella, as pictured and named in the original poster has four white feet. The pictures in the statement at the top of the page, again stating that they are pictures of the dog that was supposedly killed in the care of the RSPCA has four brown feet? There is a lot of blood in the pictures, granted, but that is brown fur, not stained white fur. Also, the carcass looks to have blue eyes and the original picture shows a dog with dark eyes. Finally, I am not at all convinced that the head of the carcass is that of the original dog pictured. The face and nose of a dog is essentially skin laid over bone, with little muscle or tissue to create disparity. In the original picture of the dog, where she is alive, the skull is iverted between the eyes, quite different to the shape of the close up picture of the carcass. I am more than willing to be proven wrong, but don't go and look if you don't have a strong stomach. It just doesn't look like the carcass matches the dog named Stella at all. 

Finally, in the comments on that post, the page manager posted this photograph, stating that they didn't want to post the full report as it was going to be used as evidence.

I find it very interesting that in highlighting the part that says, "The dog was found dead on the 18/03/14 in the kennel with blood on its throat"...a thick black line is drawn over the part that reads, "Vet check on 14/03/14 revealed a puncture wound to the left *????* and small scars to face but otherwise in good condition".

So, the dog, on seizure, according to this statement posted by the facebook page admin states that the dog had a puncture wound and scars on the face before being taken into RSPCA custody. 







I am feeling a little uneasy again. Someone please tell me I am wrong.


----------



## FionaM12 (24 September 2014)

GG, someone on the Facebook page has actually pointed out the feet are brown, not white "like the live dog", and admin of the page have "Liked" the comment! Totally confusing...


----------



## _GG_ (24 September 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			GG, someone on the Facebook page has actually pointed out the feet are brown, not white "like the live dog", and admin of the page have "Liked" the comment! Totally confusing...
		
Click to expand...

I just don't get it. A friend in Texas who is a very experienced taxidermist and has intimate knowledge of skeletal structures has looked at the photo's and said it is not the same dog. Skeletal structure, size and colours don't match the picture of Stella at all. 

I gave him no background information at all.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 September 2014)

I thought that I had my head around this!  So what are we saying?  Are we saying that the dog which was killed,  whilst in the care of the rspca wasn't the property of the complainant?  If so,  where is their dog?  This has the makings of a farce!

Alec.


----------



## FionaM12 (24 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I thought that I had my head around this!  So what are we saying?  Are we saying that the dog which was killed,  whilst in the care of the rspca wasn't the property of the complainant?  If so,  where is their dog?  This has the makings of a farce!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I think we're saying that the only evidence is the OP's word and his very confusing story, and some photos on a Facebook group. We don't know whether anything the OP has told us is true or whether any dog died in the hands of the RSPCA. I hope some details of the supposed court case do come out. Then we might have an idea of what went on.


----------



## _GG_ (24 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I thought that I had my head around this!  So what are we saying?  Are we saying that the dog which was killed,  whilst in the care of the rspca wasn't the property of the complainant?  If so,  where is their dog?  This has the makings of a farce!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Not saying anything like that Alec. I believe, with now very little doubt that the dog that Dymented has said was seized and killed in RSPCA care was not the dog in the photographs of the carcass he has been sharing. I do not believe that the dog was in perfect condition when she was seized either because the report that he himself has made public shows that the dog had a puncture wound somewhere and scars to the face. 

Apparently, as we have been told, national media has been interested in running the story yet, I have yet to speak to any media outlet that has even heard of it. 

I believe people are being defrauded out of money by donation for something that simply isn't true as it has been reported here, on the other forum or on the facebook page.


----------



## dymented (24 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			I just don't get it. A friend in Texas who is a very experienced taxidermist and has intimate knowledge of skeletal structures has looked at the photo's and said it is not the same dog. Skeletal structure, size and colours don't match the picture of Stella at all. 

I gave him no background information at all.
		
Click to expand...

the dogs feet are covered with blood still from being in a plastic bag they are in fact white  ! if your friend would like to put pen to paper i would love his expertise as our vet could not find her micro chip and we are still unsure if its my sons dog ! the mark on her face was done in rspca care ! because we have brought charges against them they have charges me with causing her pain and suffering due to having an infection on an internal organ bearing it in mind they did not pick anything up when they looked her over they day they took her It to hide the fact what has happened to my sons dog that is all
gg the photo of the report is from the rspca not my vet .the puncture wound they refer to in the report happened in there care not mine or my sons , the dog was used for ratting , rabbiting and did has small old scars on her nose from running through the under growth Nothing illegal there !!!


----------



## _GG_ (24 September 2014)

dymented said:



			the dogs feet are covered with blood still from being in a plastic bag they are in fact white  ! if your friend would like to put pen to paper i would love his expertise as our vet could not find her micro chip and we are still unsure if its my sons dog ! the mark on her face was done in rspca care ! because we have brought charges against them they have charges me with causing her pain and suffering due to having an infection on an internal organ bearing it in mind they did not pick anything up when they looked her over they day they took her It to hide the fact what has happened to my sons dog that is all
gg the photo of the report is from the rspca not my vet .the puncture wound they refer to in the report happened in there care not mine or my sons , the dog was used for ratting , rabbiting and did has small old scars on her nose from running through the under growth Nothing illegal there !!!
		
Click to expand...

I never said the photo was from anywhere...just that you posted it. I accept what you say about blood stained fur...I just don't buy it. I've seen it enough and I've never seen white fur, stained with blood, old or new, look like that, not does the carcass look to match. As I have said, I am happy be proven wrong and would support you if I felt you were telling us the truth.

Tell us the court date, allow one of us to be there if you have nothing to hide. It won't be me, I'm too far away but there is nothing to stop you telling us when and where. 

The picture of remains returned in a bag were the size of one page of a newspaper, so unless you have the world smallest doormat, it doesn't ring true. 

Report says vet check found puncture wound and scars on the day that it was seized. Are you now saying that the dog was attacked on the same day as seizure and again, fatally on the 18th....4 days later, not 24 hours later as you've said so many times?


----------



## dymented (24 September 2014)

the dog had old scars on her nose from running through cover they claim she had a puncture wound when they looked at her on the same day she did not have one here !! , Now the rspca say she was killed on the 18th they also rang my solicitor at the time and told him she had been killed on the Sunday but i can prove she had been killed on the Saturday they are doing there best to cover everything up ill comment after the day as clive has asked me not to comment any more you can read about it in the papers


----------



## FionaM12 (24 September 2014)

So, your solicitor Clive Rees had no problem with you writing about it, putting photos all over the net and begging for money to pay him for months, until now? Coincidentally just after GG asked for the court case date and time.


----------



## _GG_ (24 September 2014)

How many dogs were seized? Was it 9? That report only says 3?


----------



## Fides (24 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Aah,  so if the rspca are planning a prosecution,  then presumably the CPS can step in and prevent a counter measure,  am I right?  Mind you,  that still doesn't explain the rspca's handling of a dog which was killed,  by what would appear to be a neglect of duty and care.  As others,  and accepting that I'm not a fan of the charity in question,  I am nonetheless,  fence sitting!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

RSPCA have their own powers of prosecution issued by the state and cps cannot get involved - this annoys me no end


----------



## Claire-R (24 September 2014)

Can someone please Dumb this down for me because I'm quite confused.  The dog was attached by another dog whilst in the care of the RSPCA then sent back to the owners vets for an autopsy?  Why is this dog skinned and literally in bits? surely that's not the work of another dog?


----------



## _GG_ (24 September 2014)

Claire-R said:



			Can someone please Dumb this down for me because I'm quite confused.  The dog was attached by another dog whilst in the care of the RSPCA then sent back to the owners vets for an autopsy?  Why is this dog skinned and literally in bits? surely that's not the work of another dog?
		
Click to expand...

Part of assessing wounds/damage/fatal injuries is removing the skin. Not sure why the head would have been severed. The op believes it has been done, including the microchip removed to cover up wrongdoing.


----------



## Claire-R (24 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			Part of assessing wounds/damage/fatal injuries is removing the skin. Not sure why the head would have been severed. The op believes it has been done, including the microchip removed to cover up wrongdoing.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you! now I get the gist!


----------



## Spudlet (24 September 2014)

Fides said:



			RSPCA have their own powers of prosecution issued by the state and cps cannot get involved - this annoys me no end 

Click to expand...

No, this is entirely incorrect. The RSPCA undertakes private prosecutions.

The SSPCA does have some additional powers under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 I believe - but I can assure you that the RSPCA does not.


----------



## ester (24 September 2014)

I'd like to see the skin on the edge of one of the pics GG, I do think the photos are poss misleading and at least one of her hind feet looks white to me. I think it is hard to say re. the sizing from those pics too, if in fact all of her was in the plastic bag. If not known why the skinning would have been done to PM, apart from perhaps to look at bruising under the skin? I'm not sure, only ever been involved in illness PMs before.

Oh people posted while I typed!


----------



## ester (24 September 2014)

I'd imagine the microchip would have fallen out as opposed to removed, they should have kept it with the body though.


----------



## _GG_ (24 September 2014)

ester said:



			I'd like to see the skin on the edge of one of the pics GG, I do think the photos are poss misleading and at least one of her hind feet looks white to me. I think it is hard to say re. the sizing from those pics too, if in fact all of her was in the plastic bag. If not known why the skinning would have been done to PM, apart from perhaps to look at bruising under the skin? I'm not sure, only ever been involved in illness PMs before.

Oh people posted while I typed! 

Click to expand...

I have changed my mind. I'm not going to question this photograph any more. 

I'll explain why tomorrow.


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

I will welcome PM's off anyone that wants to know what I have discovered about the OP, all found quite easily through information he has been stupid enough to make public, but I won't post it publicly for legal reasons. 

Dymented. Quite a web you have weaved, congratulations, but you can go back under your rock now....or perhaps into your garden shed for a smoke!


----------



## MerrySherryRider (25 September 2014)

Can you pm me please. x


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Can you pm me please. x
		
Click to expand...

Yes x


----------



## Fides (25 September 2014)

After being 'dissed' by pm by the op I'd be interested too


----------



## MerrySherryRider (25 September 2014)

Fides said:



			RSPCA have their own powers of prosecution issued by the state and cps cannot get involved - this annoys me no end 

Click to expand...

As the poster above said, the RSPCA (like some other charities) brings private prosecutions. The CPS does prosecute animal cruelty cases but they do not have the specialist resources that the rspca  has and cases are often directed to the RSPCA. 
 It's a win-win for the CPS as they don't have to fund prosecutions against defendants in animal abuse trials.


----------



## Claire-R (25 September 2014)

I'd like to be nosey!


----------



## dymented (25 September 2014)

so what i was done for cannabis and got a fine dose that make it right for the rspca to have killed my sons dog ?? No Did it give the rspca the right to inflict horrendous pain and cruelty on her NO dose it give them them the right to neglect the rest of the dogs  No


----------



## ester (25 September 2014)

I don't think it is the cannabis that is the issue here, it was just an indication that facts are known but will not be publically stated, so we will wait for the court hearing and I have no wish to converse with you further on this thread or anywhere else.


----------



## Claire-R (25 September 2014)

Does


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

dymented said:



			so what i was done for cannabis and got a fine dose that make it right for the rspca to have killed my sons dog ?? No Did it give the rspca the right to inflict horrendous pain and cruelty on her NO dose it give them them the right to neglect the rest of the dogs  No
		
Click to expand...

No....Dymented, I believe that a dog seized from your house ended up dead whilst in the rspca/private kennel care. 

What I don't believe is that you cooperated so fully with officers on that day, yet have said all along that you never saw a warrant or got ant information for them. The two versions do not match and you have given enough detail that I know.

I know the truth and you know that you are on borrowed time trying to convince everyone of your version of things. I also posted on huntinglife. People on the thread there are supporting you, but people on there have PM'd me with their own concerns. 

You really need to learn when to stop. I couldn't give a stuff what you smoke and grow...but I do care about people taking money off others when the truth is not being told. I trust Clive Rees knows how his fees are being paid? I'm sure if he does then he'll be in a bit of trouble himself. 

Silly, silly man.


----------



## dymented (25 September 2014)

ester said:



			I don't think it is the cannabis that is the issue here, it was just an indication that facts are known but will not be publically stated, so we will wait for the court hearing and I have no wish to converse with you further on this thread or anywhere else.
		
Click to expand...

I agree The fact that the rspca allowed the dog to suffer  is wrong to have caused it neglect and pain is wrong


----------



## MerrySherryRider (25 September 2014)

dymented said:



			so what i was done for cannabis and got a fine dose that make it right for the rspca to have killed my sons dog ?? No Did it give the rspca the right to inflict horrendous pain and cruelty on her NO dose it give them them the right to neglect the rest of the dogs  No
		
Click to expand...

It was a bit unfortunate that the police discovered the cannabis production at your property when they attended with the RSPCA that day on the 14th March. Does that have anything to do with your crusade ?


----------



## dymented (25 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			No....Dymented, I believe that a dog seized from your house ended up dead whilst in the rspca/private kennel care. 

What I don't believe is that you cooperated so fully with officers on that day, yet have said all along that you never saw a warrant or got ant information for them. The two versions do not match and you have given enough detail that I know.

I know the truth and you know that you are on borrowed time trying to convince everyone of your version of things. I also posted on huntinglife. People on the thread there are supporting you, but people on there have PM'd me with their own concerns. 

You really need to learn when to stop. I couldn't give a stuff what you smoke and grow...but I do care about people taking money off others when the truth is not being told. I trust Clive Rees knows how his fees are being paid? I'm sure if he does then he'll be in a bit of trouble himself. 

Silly, silly man.
		
Click to expand...

The only time we saw a warrant is when Clive got it from them Fact they made two claims in writing and on tape to clive where they had supposable handed it to me I have worked all my life so clive dose know where his money is coming from i do not have to convince any one the news papers will do that


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

dymented said:



			I agree The fact that the rspca allowed the dog to suffer  is wrong to have caused it neglect and pain is wrong
		
Click to expand...

I agree with that. 

The RSPCA does have something to answer for and yes, it is wrong to cause neglect and pain. Interesting that you know that!


----------



## ester (25 September 2014)

deleted, forgot my own instructions.


----------



## FionaM12 (25 September 2014)

I thought the OP said (when asked something he didn't want to answer) that he had strict solicitor's instructions not to say anything else? 

So many lies Dymented. It's no surprise, your story never made sense.

Thank you GG for all your efforts in revealing the truth. 

I suggest this thread be allowed to die, and not give this unpleasant poster a platform for his deceit.


----------



## Alec Swan (25 September 2014)

Unrelated and previous convictions should have no bearing on this particular case.

This thread is degenerating in to a campaign and one where it's unlikely that there will be any resolve.  

Not judging,  just saying!

Alec.


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Unrelated and previous convictions should have no bearing on this particular case.

This thread is degenerating in to a campaign and one where it's unlikely that there will be any resolve.  

Not judging,  just saying!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec, I don't want it to be a campaign, but I also don't want people to continue donating.


----------



## ester (25 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Unrelated and previous convictions should have no bearing on this particular case.

This thread is degenerating in to a campaign and one where it's unlikely that there will be any resolve.  

Not judging,  just saying!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it is degenerating, and as I said, the only resolve will be court day, as it should be.


----------



## dymented (25 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			Alec, I don't want it to be a campaign, but I also don't want people to continue donating.
		
Click to expand...

_gg_ the donate button was for for months thl member's who believe that the rspca should not get away with what has happened to the poor dog I have never asked any one for a donation nor will i the fact i have been done for weed should have no bearing on what has happened to the poor dog 
_gg_ and if you was not interested at all in what was happening why would you have mentioned it to your taxidermist mate they to post his comments saying its not the same dog.  I am sure that you and your mates from the rspca will still convince the sheep to dig deep for your donations for the rspca


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

dymented said:



			_gg_ the donate button was for for months thl member's who believe that the rspca should not get away with what has happened to the poor dog I have never asked any one for a donation nor will i the fact i have been done for weed should have no bearing on what has happened to the poor dog 
_gg_ and if you was not interested at all in what was happening why would you have mentioned it to your taxidermist mate they to post his comments saying its not the same dog.  I am sure that you and your mates from the rspca will still convince the sheep to dig deep for your donations for the rspca
		
Click to expand...

It is you on a campaign. For the THIRD time, I will say that I have changed my mind about the photo's. For the umpteenth time I will say I have no mates in the RSPCA and I've never donated a penny to them. I don't know how many times today I have said that I agree that you should have answers for what happened to your dog. 

I just now know that you are not the victim you say you are and the truth will out. That's it.


----------



## Copperpot (25 September 2014)

I have read some of the posts in Hunting Life but not all. 

If this did happen the dog is the victim and someone needs to be held to account for what happened to it.

Regardless of any cannabis consumption!


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

Copperpot said:



			I have read some of the posts in Hunting Life but not all. 

If this did happen the dog is the victim and someone needs to be held to account for what happened to it.

Regardless of any cannabis consumption!
		
Click to expand...

I agree...I couldn't give a stuff about cannabis consumption, it was the date that was relevant. 

Dymented should get justice for the dog that was killed....I totally support that. I just maintain that the truth will out.


----------



## Fides (25 September 2014)

I didn't know anything about cannibis until you mentioned it OP. Regardless of that - your story doesn't ring true and has more holes in it than, well I can't think of an analogy that has that many holes in... The courts are going to tear you a new one for wasting their time. Also from the reports that have been posted of injuries prior to seizure - perhaps the dogs being seized was a good thing and I very much hope they have gone on to loving homes


----------



## dymented (25 September 2014)

Fides said:



			I didn't know anything about cannabis until you mentioned it OP. Regardless of that - your story doesn't ring true and has more holes in it than, well I can't think of an analogy that has that many holes in... The courts are going to tear you a new one for wasting their time. Also from the reports that have been posted of injuries prior to seizure - perhaps the dogs being seized was a good thing and I very much hope they have gone on to loving homes
		
Click to expand...

i think your mistaken as the dogs were all in perfect condition you must be refereeing to the dog with its face missing that is not one of our dogs it is some one else that is seeking legal action against the rspca as well as it happened in there care too, he posted his vet report as the vet had examined the dog 2 days prior to the so called accident and found the dog to be in good condition   , The rspca are getting away with un told atrocities things keep getting swept under the carpet
here are the dogs we own http://oi58.tinypic.com/9r4xa0.jpg


----------



## PolarSkye (25 September 2014)

dymented said:



			i think your mistaken as the dogs were all in perfect condition you must be refereeing to the dog with its face missing that is not one of our dogs it is some one else that is seeking legal action against the rspca as well as it happened in there care too, he posted his vet report as the vet had examined the dog 2 days prior to the so called accident and found the dog to be in good condition   , The rspca are getting away with un told atrocities things keep getting swept under the carpet
here are the dogs we own http://oi58.tinypic.com/9r4xa0.jpg

Click to expand...

Whose vet?  Yours?  The other owners?  How do you know what the vet report said?  Is the other owner a friend of yours?

P


----------



## Fides (25 September 2014)

dymented said:



			i think your mistaken as the dogs were all in perfect condition you must be refereeing to the dog with its face missing that is not one of our dogs it is some one else that is seeking legal action against the rspca as well as it happened in there care too, he posted his vet report as the vet had examined the dog 2 days prior to the so called accident and found the dog to be in good condition   , The rspca are getting away with un told atrocities things keep getting swept under the carpet
here are the dogs we own http://oi58.tinypic.com/9r4xa0.jpg

Click to expand...

Again - stop telling me what I must mean. I meant no such thing. I mean the vets report (that you posted) that states that there was a puncture wound to the face upon them taking the dog - prior to the attack.


----------



## dymented (25 September 2014)

its nothing to do with our vet. He has his own vet i only know the guy because of what has happened to his dog in rspca care he has published the vet report if you look you can see your self


----------



## Copperpot (25 September 2014)

These were working dogs though weren't they? So they will have old marks on their faces and small wounds. I know my jrt has many old battle scars. Doesn't mean he isn't well loved as he is. 

I find the whole thing very confusing tbh. I need to read it all from start to finish!!


----------



## Copperpot (25 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			I agree...I couldn't give a stuff about cannabis consumption, it was the date that was relevant. 

Dymented should get justice for the dog that was killed....I totally support that. I just maintain that the truth will out.
		
Click to expand...

When it eventually does make sure we all know &#128522; I'm nosy!!!


----------



## PolarSkye (25 September 2014)

dymented said:



			its nothing to do with our vet. He has his own vet i only know the guy because of what has happened to his dog in rspca care he has published the vet report if you look you can see your self
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I smell a rat . . . or, wait, is that a badger?

P


----------



## dymented (25 September 2014)

Fides said:



			Again - stop telling me what I must mean. I meant no such thing. I mean the vets report (that you posted) that states that there was a puncture wound to the face upon them taking the dog - prior to the attack.
		
Click to expand...

The puncture wound is there you are correct. it happened while they were sizing the dogs they have it on video that is why they have not claimed it happened in my care i did offer to stop the dog from fighting but was told to leave them to it its all on there video evidence which we have requested a copy of wonder if we will get it


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (25 September 2014)

Lets be straight. You have working dogs. Hunting rabbits & vermin is legit. Many people use their dogs this way - i know quite a few - their dogs haven't been seized, yours have. My advice, don't come on a public forum whinging & whining because your dogs have been seized due to you breaking the law, allegedly. Poor dogs. People who use their dogs for illegal purposes are scum & then to try to con members of the public - lower than low. I'm sure you'll have no problem getting more dogs to illegally hunt with & breed from but at least the authorities have got your number.


----------



## minesadouble (25 September 2014)

Even if the dogs in question have been used illegally - and only the OP knows the answer to that question - the dogs are not responsible. If a 'charity' has not ensured their welfare whilst in their care then that 'charity' should be held to account.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (25 September 2014)

minesadouble said:



			Even if the dogs in question have been used illegally - and only the OP knows the answer to that question - the dogs are not responsible. If a 'charity' has not ensured their welfare whilst in their care then that 'charity' should be held to account.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect the dogs death was due to other causes. But, if by some miracle the OP is telling the truth, the whole truth & nothing but...then, yes, the RSPCA should be brought to task.


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

blazingsaddles said:



			I suspect the dogs death was due to other causes. But, if by some miracle the OP is telling the truth, the whole truth & nothing but...then, yes, the RSPCA should be brought to task.
		
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I will come to the OP's defence here, something he seems to find impossible to accept no matter how many times I have done it. There has been posted, as statement from the RSPCA stating that a dogs seized from the OP's address was found dead in the kennel under their care (a third party kennel, not an RSPCA facility). So, I do believe that the RSPCA have to answer for that, however it happened.

I have been suspended from the hunting life forum and can no longer see anything, which I was expecting. I have also been blocked from the facebook page which is odd as I haven't shared any of this on there but...an update for you all is that the OP has stated all along that he has never been questioned or charged...he has said on the other thread, this afternoon that after taking the RSPCA to court, they have pressed charges against him. So he needs to make his mind up. He can't say he has been charged and that he hasn't been charged. 

That is in the open now because he put it there, not me. His words, not mine. He is a defendant in a case being brought by the RSPCA. He didn't say questioned or arrested, he said charged. 

This has been my issue....the thought that money raised has gone towards his defence in some way. 

I've only taken my findings from what the OP himself has posted so any problems with that and he only has himself to blame. 

I say AGAIN....I support his action against the RSPCA in that I accept that a dog from his address died in their care and they need to answer for that. That is however, where my support ends.


----------



## Alec Swan (25 September 2014)

blazingsaddles said:



			I suspect the dogs death was due to other causes. But, if by some miracle the OP is telling the truth, the whole truth & nothing but...then, yes, the RSPCA should be brought to task.
		
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight;  The rspca with Police support confiscate a dog,  which whilst it's under the control and care of the rspca,  a bitch which at 8 weeks pregnant would have been quite clearly heavily pregnant,  and to anyone but a fool,  is killed by other dogs,  and there is any doubt at all who is responsible for the dog's death?  

I understand that there are those on here who will support the rspca at any given opportunity,  but supporting their case would call for a bit of imaginative argument! 

I'm NOT supporting the OP,  I just wonder if there aren't red herrings being offered by way of deflection.  The rspca are clearly culpable,  the OP has yet to be proven so.

Alec.


----------



## bonny (25 September 2014)

Is this all not going round in circles now and beginning to look a bit of a witchhunt ? Nobody other than the OP knows the whole truth so why not wait until the court case(s) and then comment on what actually happens rather than a lot of speculation ?


----------



## Alec Swan (25 September 2014)

^^^^ This.

Alec.


----------



## wipeout (25 September 2014)

If the dog died in a fight then I wonder if the private boarding kennels are also being investigated for their part in this. I suppose the RSPCA have their own kennels but once they are full then they have to use other "professional" establishments. 
I would say that both the kennels and the RSPCA have questions to answer.


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			So let me get this straight;  The rspca with Police support confiscate a dog,  which whilst it's under the control and care of the rspca,  a bitch which at 8 weeks pregnant would have been quite clearly heavily pregnant,  and to anyone but a fool,  is killed by other dogs,  and there is any doubt at all who is responsible for the dog's death?  

I understand that there are those on here who will support the rspca at any given opportunity,  but supporting their case would call for a bit of imaginative argument! 

I'm NOT supporting the OP,  I just wonder if there aren't red herrings being offered by way of deflection.  The rspca are clearly culpable,  the OP has yet to be proven so.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that....so is BS...people are saying the same thing, just in different ways. 

I do wonder the culpability of the RSPCA as I believe the dog was in a kennel facility not run by them when it happened, but under RSPCA instruction which is why I support the OP's desire to make them answer for that. 


bonny said:



			Is this all not going round in circles now and beginning to look a bit of a witchhunt ? Nobody other than the OP knows the whole truth so why not wait until the court case(s) and then comment on what actually happens rather than a lot of speculation ?
		
Click to expand...

Because money is being accepted when all the truths are not being told.


----------



## bonny (25 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			I'm with you on that....so is BS...people are saying the same thing, just in different ways. 

I do wonder the culpability of the RSPCA as I believe the dog was in a kennel facility not run by them when it happened, but under RSPCA instruction which is why I support the OP's desire to make them answer for that. 


Because money is being accepted when all the truths are not being told.
		
Click to expand...

If people want to donate money then is that not  up to them ? I don't get why you are playing detective over this ....I'm sure others can read between the lines as well.


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

bonny said:



			If people want to donate money then is that not  up to them ? I don't get why you are playing detective over this ....I'm sure others can read between the lines as well.
		
Click to expand...

I get that and will step back. It's not been playing detective, just concern and valid concern. You are right though, people can do what they want.


----------



## Spring Feather (25 September 2014)

Gosh it all sounds terribly involved.  Surely it's up to people if they wish to donate to someone or anyone for whatever they want?  If they're not interested enough to find out the truth then does it really matter to anyone else what they spend their money on?


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			Gosh it all sounds terribly involved.  Surely it's up to people if they wish to donate to someone or anyone for whatever they want?  If they're not interested enough to find out the truth then does it really matter to anyone else what they spend their money on?
		
Click to expand...

Accepted.


----------



## Juni141 (25 September 2014)

bonny said:



			If people want to donate money then is that not  up to them ? I don't get why you are playing detective over this ....I'm sure others can read between the lines as well.
		
Click to expand...

Hallelujah!! I have followed this thread with interest. GG I am sure your heart is in the right place but I think you have crossed a line. 

The only facts we have are that the OP's dog was killed through the RSPCA's negligence and the OP has received donations from consenting adults. I have seen absolutely no evidence of his 'campaigning' for money. 

So unless you are involved with the trial i.e. you are police, RSPCA, a witness, work for prosecuting or defending law firm or know Dymented personally I CANNOT fathom how you feel so qualified to state that you absolutely know he is lying/in the wrong??! If it is the case that you are any of the above it is completely wrong that you are publishing your views before the case is heard in court.

If the above is not the case and you are in no way linked to the case then I hardly feel a bit of internet snooping from inevitably biased sources (as almost all internet sources are) is enough evidence, and I use that term loosely, to persecute an individual that you do not know to the level you have. 

You keep saying that it will all come in court so why not leave it alone if you believe this so strongly?? This has got to the point where it feels like cyber bullying. 

Finally, if people want to donate their own money to Dymented's cause that is entirely their choice and not your place to tell them not to.


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

Juni141 said:



			Hallelujah!! I have followed this thread with interest. GG I am sure your heart is in the right place but I think you have crossed a line. 

The only facts we have are that the OP's dog was killed through the RSPCA's negligence and the OP has received donations from consenting adults. I have seen absolutely no evidence of his 'campaigning' for money. 

So unless you are involved with the trial i.e. you are police, RSPCA, a witness, work for prosecuting or defending law firm or know Dymented personally I CANNOT fathom how you feel so qualified to state that you absolutely know he is lying/in the wrong??! If it is the case that you are any of the above it is completely wrong that you are publishing your views before the case is heard in court.

If the above is not the case and you are in no way linked to the case then I hardly feel a bit of internet snooping from inevitably biased sources (as almost all internet sources are) is enough evidence, and I use that term loosely, to persecute an individual that you do not know to the level you have. 

You keep saying that it will all come in court so why not leave it alone if you believe this so strongly?? This has got to the point where it feels like cyber bullying. 

Finally, if people want to donate their own money to Dymented's cause that is entirely their choice and not your place to tell them not to.
		
Click to expand...

I accept that and I do see that I would have been better to show some restraint. I have no problem apologising or holding my hands up. 

For the record, I haven't searched the internet for anything about the OP. I was given information, I didn't ask for it. I'm not part of any authority. 

You are right, my heart is in the right place. I care about the welfare of animals and on a personal note I hate seeing people being lied to but you are right also, as is Bonny...what people do is up to them. There ya go.


----------



## bonny (25 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			I accept that and I do see that I would have been better to show some restraint. I have no problem apologising or holding my hands up. 

For the record, I haven't searched the internet for anything about the OP. I was given information, I didn't ask for it. I'm not part of any authority. 

You are right, my heart is in the right place. I care about the welfare of animals and on a personal note I hate seeing people being lied to but you are right also, as is Bonny...what people do is up to them. There ya go.
		
Click to expand...

Now I feel guilty ! That was an unexpected response, I never doubted you had good intentions, I just felt you were getting a bit carried away. Hopefully, all will be revealed in October and the truth will come out x


----------



## ester (25 September 2014)

GG does have unbiased sources that are nothing to do with the internet which have enabled her to state that she absolutely knows that the truth is not being told, but for obvious reasons has not been able to elaborate. I am sure that she only has concern that people's emotions might be abused at the very least (which to be frank we have already had plenty of issue with on this forum with faked accidents and alike), or money obtained and wanted to give as much of a heads up as possible/suggest acting with caution. I am surprised the OP is still posting but there we go. 

Most on here do know her as a lovely and helpful poster, definitely not one to spread cyber bullying. I suspect her concern for animal welfare has perhaps made her posting a little less measure than previously/it has meant it has been taken a bit the wrong way.

eta people posting while I was typing again!


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

bonny said:



			Now I feel guilty ! That was an unexpected response, I never doubted you had good intentions, I just felt you were getting a bit carried away. Hopefully, all will be revealed in October and the truth will come out x
		
Click to expand...

Let's just say I was brought to tears yesterday about it and had absolutely zero sleep last night, I felt compelled to share some of my knowledge as I'd have felt awful sitting on it if that makes sense. 

I could never intentionally bully, I just wanted to expose that the OP has lied to us all. You don't need to feel guilty Bonny, you made a valid point. I just have more time on my hands than should be allowed this week! Must learn to stop, lol.


----------



## joycec (25 September 2014)

Dymented, you said earlier that you have now been charged. What have you been charged with?  I know it will be on record somewhere, but it would be easier if you just tell us?


----------



## Juni141 (25 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			I accept that and I do see that I would have been better to show some restraint. I have no problem apologising or holding my hands up. 

For the record, I haven't searched the internet for anything about the OP. I was given information, I didn't ask for it. I'm not part of any authority. 

You are right, my heart is in the right place. I care about the welfare of animals and on a personal note I hate seeing people being lied to but you are right also, as is Bonny...what people do is up to them. There ya go.
		
Click to expand...

I just think you have to be so careful with such an emotive, subjective subject. I'm still struggling to understand why, if you are in no way involved, why you cannot share what it is you know. It just makes me suspicious and causes yet more speculation.

I don't doubt your dedication to animal welfare and I think the one thing we all unanimously agree on is that the poor terrier died a despicable, unnecessary death and the RSPCA should be held accountable.    



ester said:



			GG does have unbiased sources that are nothing to do with the internet which have enabled her to state that she absolutely knows that the truth is not being told, but for obvious reasons has not been able to elaborate. I am sure that she only has concern that people's emotions might be abused at the very least (which to be frank we have already had plenty of issue with on this forum with faked accidents and alike), or money obtained and wanted to give as much of a heads up as possible/suggest acting with caution. I am surprised the OP is still posting but there we go. 

Most on here do know her as a lovely and helpful poster, definitely not one to spread cyber bullying. I suspect her concern for animal welfare has perhaps made her posting a little less measure than previously/it has meant it has been taken a bit the wrong way.

eta people posting while I was typing again!
		
Click to expand...

What are her 'obvious reasons' for not posting these reasons?? In my simple view, if she believes what she has been told by another party (this is the only way I can think of her having this knowledge if she hasn't been on the internet) why can't she share it? The only reason I can come up with is that the source is directly related to the case. If this is the case, she should not be discussing it on a forum.

This is not an attack on you GG, merely my observations on what has been said.


----------



## _GG_ (25 September 2014)

Juni141 said:



			I just think you have to be so careful with such an emotive, subjective subject. I'm still struggling to understand why, if you are in no way involved, why you cannot share what it is you know. It just makes me suspicious and causes yet more speculation.

I don't doubt your dedication to animal welfare and I think the one thing we all unanimously agree on is that the poor terrier died a despicable, unnecessary death and the RSPCA should be held accountable.    



What are her 'obvious reasons' for not posting these reasons?? In my simple view, if she believes what she has been told by another party (this is the only way I can think of her having this knowledge if she hasn't been on the internet) why can't she share it? The only reason I can come up with is that the source is directly related to the case. If this is the case, she should not be discussing it on a forum.

This is not an attack on you GG, merely my observations on what has been said.
		
Click to expand...

I understand. I was told something. The op has now said that for himself. I didn't say what it was, he did. That's all. All I have discussed is what the OP has said himself. So, nothing to share, the OP has done it. 

You're right, it is very emotive, which is why I guess I have been drawn in to wanting to know more and I have held my hands up for that, but I haven't gone on a hunt for information. The obvious reasons for me not posting what I knew was that I didn't want to say anything that the OP hadn't said himself. I knew he was witholding the truth, if the person that told me that wants to say so, that's for them to do not me. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## dymented (26 September 2014)

_GG_ said:



			Believe it or not, I will come to the OP's defence here, something he seems to find impossible to accept no matter how many times I have done it. There has been posted, as statement from the RSPCA stating that a dogs seized from the OP's address was found dead in the kennel under their care (a third party kennel, not an RSPCA facility). So, I do believe that the RSPCA have to answer for that, however it happened.

I have been suspended from the hunting life forum and can no longer see anything, which I was expecting. I have also been blocked from the facebook page which is odd as I haven't shared any of this on there but...an update for you all is that the OP has stated all along that he has never been questioned or charged...he has said on the other thread, this afternoon that after taking the RSPCA to court, they have pressed charges against him. So he needs to make his mind up. He can't say he has been charged and that he hasn't been charged. 

That is in the open now because he put it there, not me. His words, not mine. He is a defendant in a case being brought by the RSPCA. He didn't say questioned or arrested, he said charged. 

This has been my issue....the thought that money raised has gone towards his defence in some way. 

I've only taken my findings from what the OP himself has posted so any problems with that and he only has himself to blame. 

I say AGAIN....I support his action against the RSPCA in that I accept that a dog from his address died in their care and they need to answer for that. That is however, where my support ends.
		
Click to expand...

_gg_ i got the charge Tuesday 24th ( causing pain and suffering to the dead dog , they day they took her they found no fault with her, they claim to have found an infection internally in the autopsy must be coincidence that they removed 95% of the internal organs including her pups be for sending her body back skinned and beheaded ) we had already gotten the date from the court on the 16th regarding the legal action we are taking against the rspca when i posted i had not been charged with any thing at the time i had not . by all means continue you your trolling the fact she was killed in the care of the rspca will still remain they kennel she was housed at is part of the rspca please don't confuse people _gg_


----------



## Fides (26 September 2014)

So what about the charges that you initially mentioned several times? The reason the dogs were taken in the first place. Frankly I do not believe you - you give no credible posts and contradict yourself frequently.


----------



## ester (26 September 2014)

Juni141 said:



			What are her 'obvious reasons' for not posting these reasons?? In my simple view, if she believes what she has been told by another party (this is the only way I can think of her having this knowledge if she hasn't been on the internet) why can't she share it? The only reason I can come up with is that the source is directly related to the case. If this is the case, she should not be discussing it on a forum.

This is not an attack on you GG, merely my observations on what has been said.
		
Click to expand...

by obvious reasons I just meant that there are court cases going on which usually means people have to be a bit careful what they say/can't explicitly type along the lines of 'well I have spoken to so and so and they said xyz' which is why I think it can perhaps come out a bit detectivey/cloaks and daggers when that isn't intended.


----------



## FionaM12 (26 September 2014)

Dymented whatever the truth of this story, I'm sure everyone here know _GG_ is no troll and that her motivation is concern for others, animal welfare and wanting to know the truth.

Accusing her of trolling isn't likely to get you any credibility here.


----------



## dymented (26 September 2014)

Fides said:



			So what about the charges that you initially mentioned several times? The reason the dogs were taken in the first place. Frankly I do not believe you - you give no credible posts and contradict yourself frequently.
		
Click to expand...

they claim i was badger bating I have never been questioned over badger bating i have not been charged with anything to do with badgers  the claim i was dog fighting No i have not been questioned regarding dog fighting or charged with anything to do with dogfighting . Its a common thing that the rspca say so it looks good on them , They sad the same things about a genital man 20 miles away the rspca vet was screaming the dogs tail has been bitten off ( was a patch of fur missing ) there neglected its all on tape he recorded it for his own protection ! they made allegation of badger bating dog fighting ect they had the police size his dogs and property ( which the rspc took the property home with them) 5 month later here are your dogs back and all your property we are sorry for the inconvenience now if anything had happened to his dogs in the care of the rspca i bet her would have a fabricated charge to justify what they had done . Now the guy is perfectly innocent of any crimes but every one in his neighbourhood saw the 6 rspca vans and all the police cars he is making formal complaints to the ipcc over the actions of the police and rspca they lied to get a warrant ! they lied to have the police size his dogs and property !


----------



## webble (26 September 2014)

dymented said:



			they claim i was badger bating I have never been questioned over badger bating i have not been charged with anything to do with badgers  the claim i was dog fighting No i have not been questioned regarding dog fighting or charged with anything to do with dogfighting . Its a common thing that the rspca say so it looks good on them , They sad the same things about a genital man 20 miles away the rspca vet was screaming the dogs tail has been bitten off ( was a patch of fur missing ) there neglected its all on tape he recorded it for his own protection ! they made allegation of badger bating dog fighting ect they had the police size his dogs and property ( which the rspc took the property home with them) 5 month later here are your dogs back and all your property we are sorry for the inconvenience now if anything had happened to his dogs in the care of the rspca i bet her would have a fabricated charge to justify what they had done . Now the guy is perfectly innocent of any crimes but every one in his neighbourhood saw the 6 rspca vans and all the police cars he is making formal complaints to the ipcc over the actions of the police and rspca they lied to get a warrant ! they lied to have the police size his dogs and property !
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but the majority of your posts don't make any sense


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 September 2014)

So what have you been charged with ?


----------



## {97702} (26 September 2014)

Can someone do a synopsis of all this please?  Cos I have tried reading some of it and I cannot made head nor tail of it!


----------



## _GG_ (26 September 2014)

Dymented, I'm done. You have, again, refused point blank to even acknowledge that I have repeatedly offered you support in YOUR case against the RSPCA for what happened to your sons dogs. I think I have repeated that 30 times since yesterday, yet you blissfully ignore that only to pick apart other parts of my posts. 

People want the truth, here's the truth...

There is Dymenteds version of the truth, there is the RSPCA & Police version of the truth. 

Finally, there is the actual truth, which will be discovered in court and I will wait for BOTH cases to come out in the press because if Dymenteds case against the RSPCA gets the press coverage he has eluded to, you can bet your left tit that the RSPCA case against him will get the same, if not more coverage.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 September 2014)

dymented said:



			they claim i was badger bating I have never been questioned over badger bating i have not been charged with anything to do with badgers  the claim i was dog fighting No i have not been questioned regarding dog fighting or charged with anything to do with dogfighting . Its a common thing that the rspca say so it looks good on them , They sad the same things about a genital man 20 miles away the rspca vet was screaming the dogs tail has been bitten off ( was a patch of fur missing ) there neglected its all on tape he recorded it for his own protection ! they made allegation of badger bating dog fighting ect they had the police size his dogs and property ( which the rspc took the property home with them) 5 month later here are your dogs back and all your property we are sorry for the inconvenience now if anything had happened to his dogs in the care of the rspca i bet her would have a fabricated charge to justify what they had done . Now the guy is perfectly innocent of any crimes but every one in his neighbourhood saw the 6 rspca vans and all the police cars he is making formal complaints to the ipcc over the actions of the police and rspca they lied to get a warrant ! they lied to have the police size his dogs and property !
		
Click to expand...




webble said:



			Sorry but the majority of your posts don't make any sense
		
Click to expand...

It's true that the majority of Dymented's posts are difficult to follow,  but that's because of his inabilities to explain himself clearly.  The inabilities of the OP shouldn't in any way bar him from his rights.

By focusing on the facts,  it would seem that not for the first time the rspca have persuaded the Police to offer support when there was no case to answer and when the charity under discussion have been forced to return the property of others,  so there has been barely even an apology.

The problem which the Police have,  in their defence,  is that they are totally reliant upon a collection of clowns and barely qualified to contradict them.

I'm still studiously fence-sitting,  and acting as an intermediary!

Alec.


----------



## webble (26 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			It's true that the majority of Dymented's posts are difficult to follow,  but that's because of his inabilities to explain himself clearly.  The inabilities of the OP shouldn't in any way bar him from his rights.

By focusing on the facts,  it would seem that not for the first time the rspca have persuaded the Police to offer support when there was no case to answer and when the charity under discussion have been forced to return the property of others,  so there has been barely even an apology.

The problem which the Police have,  in their defence,  is that they are totally reliant upon a collection of clowns and barely qualified to contradict them.

I'm still studiously fence-sitting,  and acting as an intermediary!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

No they shouldn't but if he expects people on here to follow and understand then it is a factor

We don't have the facts, we have what the op has unclearly told us


----------



## PolarSkye (26 September 2014)

dymented said:



			they claim i was badger bating I have never been questioned over badger bating i have not been charged with anything to do with badgers  the claim i was dog fighting No i have not been questioned regarding dog fighting or charged with anything to do with dogfighting . Its a common thing that the rspca say so it looks good on them , They sad the same things about a genital man 20 miles away the rspca vet was screaming the dogs tail has been bitten off ( was a patch of fur missing ) there neglected its all on tape he recorded it for his own protection ! they made allegation of badger bating dog fighting ect they had the police size his dogs and property ( which the rspc took the property home with them) 5 month later here are your dogs back and all your property we are sorry for the inconvenience now if anything had happened to his dogs in the care of the rspca i bet her would have a fabricated charge to justify what they had done . Now the guy is perfectly innocent of any crimes but every one in his neighbourhood saw the 6 rspca vans and all the police cars he is making formal complaints to the ipcc over the actions of the police and rspca they lied to get a warrant ! they lied to have the police size his dogs and property !
		
Click to expand...

If this had been written in English, I might be able to read it and have some idea of what's actually happening from your point of view.  As it stands, this is unintelligible and nonsensical.  

P


----------



## Fides (26 September 2014)

Lévrier;12630814 said:
			
		


			Can someone do a synopsis of all this please?  Cos I have tried reading some of it and I cannot made head nor tail of it!
		
Click to expand...

Dymented stated that the dogs were seized for 'inciting a fight with a wild animal', repeatedly he claimed it was not for badger baiting but now claims it is, but is in fact being charged for causing injuries that he claimed the RSPCA committed. It's all a total nonsense and the OP does live up to their name - they are demented.

Regardless of opinion it will all be out for the public record once the case has been brought to court so the truth will out...


----------



## {97702} (26 September 2014)

Fides said:



			Dymented stated that the dogs were seized for 'inciting a fight with a wild animal', repeatedly he claimed it was not for badger baiting but now claims it is, but is in fact being charged for causing injuries that he claimed the RSPCA committed. It's all a total nonsense and the OP does live up to their name - they are demented.

Regardless of opinion it will all be out for the public record once the case has been brought to court so the truth will out...
		
Click to expand...

Thank you thank you thank you Fides!  That makes everything clear now, I really appreciate it  

Poor dogs


----------



## Alec Swan (26 September 2014)

Fides said:



			Dymented stated that the dogs were seized for 'inciting a fight with a wild animal', repeatedly he claimed it was not for badger baiting but now claims it is, but is in fact being charged for causing injuries that he claimed the RSPCA committed. It's all a total nonsense and the OP does live up to their name - they are demented.

.. ...
		
Click to expand...

So 'everything's clear',  is it?   I somehow doubt it.  However others may sit around the guillotine,  knitting,  I can assure you that the realities are other than they imagine.

The rspca originally confiscated the dogs,  and persuaded the Police that the charge was,  'inciting a fight with a wild animal'.  That would be an interesting charge,  and relatively easy to defend.  My dogs are encouraged to engage rats,  rabbits and foxes,  on a regular basis.  It is not a criminal act,  and they are scarred in the process.

The rspca NOW,  whilst recognising that they are on rocky ground,  seem to have accused the OP of badger baiting but with only the evidence of dogs with scars,  and no evidence of any contact with badgers.  Had they evidence of contact with badgers then that accusation would have formed the opening charge.

I remain sitting on the fence,  but while watching the proceedings with interest.

Alec.


----------



## Fides (26 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			The rspca NOW,  whilst recognising that they are on rocky ground,  seem to have accused the OP of badger baiting but with only the evidence of dogs with scars,  and no evidence of any contact with badgers.  Had they evidence of contact with badgers then that accusation would have formed the opening charge.

I remain sitting on the fence,  but while watching the proceedings with interest.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Do you have information we don't? As far as I can work out that is pure speculation...


----------



## FionaM12 (26 September 2014)

Fides said:



			Do you have information we don't? As far as I can work out that is pure speculation...
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. It does appear that Alec is accepting the OP's account as accurate, when in fact the whole thing including the poor dog which allegedly died could have been made up.

Unless, Alec, you have a reliable source of information which we don't know about of course.

You don't appear to be fence-sitting at all to me. :confused3:


----------



## wiltshireguy (26 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			My dogs are encouraged to engage rats, rabbits and foxes on a regular basis.
		
Click to expand...

Don't you mean _flush out_ in relation to foxes?


----------



## honetpot (26 September 2014)

I have dipped in and out of this and I can not understand why you can not grasp what this man is trying to say as it's perfectly understandable to me.
 I have worked for a large organisation where if you question policy, competency or their discions making they try and find fault with you. As I see it if any of this mans allegations are true the only way the RCPCA can defend its self his to make him look the baddy, as PR exercise they have far more to lose than him in donations and with bad publicity.
  Just because the OP may come across as a bit shrill and sometimes his method of writing a bit incoherent its not that difficult to follow the plot and because he is not as literate or articulate as you does not make him a liar. 
   We have only to look at the mess the BBC, Social Services, police and the NHS have got themselves into to see that large organisations make mistakes and managers are very adept at covering their a***s, and you have to look at their and his motivation. 
   So hopefully everyone will have their day in court as a percentage of their income I know who is going to have to pay the most.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 September 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

You don't appear to be fence-sitting at all to me. :confused3:
		
Click to expand...

By fence-sitting,  I am there to be convinced either way.  I have no vested interest in the story,  just an interest in the outcome,  be the man guilty of cruelty,  or the rspca guilty of wanton neglect.  Currently,  I'm of the view that the rspca have a great deal to answer for,  but then as everyone on here,  it's just an opinion!

Alec.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (26 September 2014)

He's been accused of badger baiting? Yet it's ok for incompetent idiots with guns to go out and maim badgers and set snares for them so they die slowly or are just horribly injured and suffer until discovered? Ok, then.


----------



## PolarSkye (26 September 2014)

If badger baiting is the worst of his crimes he is still a despicable human being . . . sadly, I think I doesn't end there . . . something about this whole thing stinks to me - too many inconsistencies, too much back tracking, too much confusion.  

P


----------



## dymented (26 September 2014)

when the rspca and police came they claimed dog fighting and badger baiting !!
 i have never been questioned regarding dog fighting or badger bating i have never been charged with any thing relating to dog fighting or badger bating 
 the charge they are making came after we started legal action over the neglect and cruelty to my sons dog two weeks after we got a date to take them to court 
 ( the charge is causing pain and suffering to my sons dog ,they claim they found something wrong in the autopsy 95% of the dogs insides are missing) I hope this is clear enough


----------



## milo'n'molly (26 September 2014)

So, please correct me on anything that I have got confused but this is how I have read it.

RSPCA claim op has been fighting wildlife with his dogs.

RSPCA persuade police to seize his dogs and happen to find him growing cannabis (besides the main issue)

During the seizure of the dogs the now dead dog was involved in a dog fight  whilst under the supervision of the RSPCA and this is how the dog got scratches and puncture wounds noted on the vet report.

The dog was killed by larger dogs whilst in the care of the RSPCA two days after being seized.

The op was not told that the dog had been killed for 8 weeks

The RSPCA did not bring any charges against the op for the original claim of fighting wild animals

After the op brought criminal charges against against the RSPCA for the death of the dog the RSPCA have brought charges against the op because they found the bitch had a water infection upon postmortem

As far as I can tell the RSPCA need to be held accountable for the death of the dog under their care and the op hasn't explained himself very well here, I am not sure if that is the reason why it all seems so confusing or if there is something the op is hiding. 
It seems strange to me that they would seize the dogs in the first place if the op was totally innocent but it would seem they haven't brought the original charge against him so who knows? Guess the facts will out in good time.
I can see why GG would be concerned that the op hasn't been very clear and that donations people have made to the op intended for the purpose of making the RSPCA accountable for the dead dog could actually be used to defend someone who may themselves be guilty of animal cruelty.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (26 September 2014)

wiltshireguy said:



			Don't you mean _flush out_ in relation to foxes?
		
Click to expand...

Quite right. What type of dog do you use to 'flush out foxes, Alec?


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (26 September 2014)

PolarSkye said:



			If badger baiting is the worst of his crimes he is still a despicable human being . . . sadly, I think I doesn't end there . . . something about this whole thing stinks to me - too many inconsistencies, too much back tracking, too much confusion.  

P
		
Click to expand...

It's all BS. From BS.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (26 September 2014)

honetpot said:



			I have dipped in and out of this and I can not understand why you can not grasp what this man is trying to say as it's perfectly understandable to me.
 I have worked for a large organisation where if you question policy, competency or their discions making they try and find fault with you. As I see it if any of this mans allegations are true the only way the RCPCA can defend its self his to make him look the baddy, as PR exercise they have far more to lose than him in donations and with bad publicity.
  Just because the OP may come across as a bit shrill and sometimes his method of writing a bit incoherent its not that difficult to follow the plot and because he is not as literate or articulate as you does not make him a liar. 
   We have only to look at the mess the BBC, Social Services, police and the NHS have got themselves into to see that large organisations make mistakes and managers are very adept at covering their a***s, and you have to look at their and his motivation. 
   So hopefully everyone will have their day in court as a percentage of their income I know who is going to have to pay the most.
		
Click to expand...

Naivety is not a crime. Badger baiting is.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 September 2014)

blazingsaddles said:



			Quite right. What type of dog do you use to 'flush out foxes, Alec?
		
Click to expand...

What ever I have to hand,  would be the answer.

Alec.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (26 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			What ever I have to hand,  would be the answer.

Alec.[/

Thats not an answer.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Fides (26 September 2014)

milo'n'molly said:



			After the op brought criminal charges against against the RSPCA for the death of the dog the RSPCA have brought charges against the op because they found the bitch had a water infection upon postmortem.
		
Click to expand...

I missed this... That doesn't ring true either - you cannot determine any animal has a urine infection on post mortem.

I still don't think we are getting the whole, or true story. So much is just a nonsense. If it is true then demented I am very sorry they have treated you this way.


----------



## dymented (26 September 2014)

ill say it again for the last time i have never been questioned or charged with any thing to do with fighting dogs or badger bating


----------



## dymented (26 September 2014)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/schedule/1   the law on using dogs as of today


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (26 September 2014)

dymented said:



			ill say it again for the last time i have never been questioned or charged with any thing to do with fighting dogs or badger bating
		
Click to expand...

Well you wouldn't have, they're your sons dogs. Has he ever been charged?


----------



## dymented (26 September 2014)

hes never been question by ether rspca or the police hes never been charged with anything


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (26 September 2014)

dymented said:



			hes never been question by ether rspca or the police hes never been charged with anything
		
Click to expand...

Ok. No previous with the Authorities, yet they manage to get a warrant for the seizure of his dogs. Can you tell me what could have precipitated this warrant?


----------



## honetpot (26 September 2014)

blazingsaddles said:



			Naivety is not a crime. Badger baiting is.
		
Click to expand...

 I have followed this right from the start on FB before it was ever on here. He has said right from the first the dogs were not confiscated because of badger baiting, I am a bit of FB stalker and I saw nothing that would lead me to suspect these dogs were the sorts that would be used for baiting and he may have an older son but his son didn't look that old
 Looking at the pictures of what was left of the dog it doesn't look like a controlled post mortem carried out to gain evidence that would stand up in court and it would be interesting to see the PM photos to see if  there is evidence of baiting. If nothing else it was insensitive to return a family pet in such a state.
 Then why come on here the home of the middle aged and middle class Waitrose shopper,( I know not all) to plead your case?
  I have a lurcher, live in a prefab bungalow and have a caravan parked outside, people make assumptions and they are wrong. The post lady can be quite snooty. If there is a law that says you can not own multiple dogs of a certain type, fine but a lot of us have broken it. It will be up to both sides to prove their case with evidence not supposition.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 September 2014)

blazingsaddles said:





Alec Swan said:



			What ever I have to hand,  would be the answer.

Alec.[/

Thats not an answer.
		
Click to expand...

It is an answer,  and the only one which you're getting! 

Alec. 

Click to expand...


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (26 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:





blazingsaddles said:



			It is an answer,  and the only one which you're getting! 

Alec. 

Click to expand...

Okey doke.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (26 September 2014)

honetpot said:



			I have followed this right from the start on FB before it was ever on here. He has said right from the first the dogs were not confiscated because of badger baiting, I am a bit of FB stalker and I saw nothing that would lead me to suspect these dogs were the sorts that would be used for baiting and he may have an older son but his son didn't look that old
 Looking at the pictures of what was left of the dog it doesn't look like a controlled post mortem carried out to gain evidence that would stand up in court and it would be interesting to see the PM photos to see if  there is evidence of baiting. If nothing else it was insensitive to return a family pet in such a state.
 Then why come on here the home of the middle aged and middle class Waitrose shopper,( I know not all) to plead your case?
  I have a lurcher, live in a prefab bungalow and have a caravan parked outside, people make assumptions and they are wrong. The post lady can be quite snooty. If there is a law that says you can not own multiple dogs of a certain type, fine but a lot of us have broken it. It will be up to both sides to prove their case with evidence not supposition.
		
Click to expand...

Look, i've got five lurchers. MIL has eight. I couldn't give a monkeys where you live or what you do for a living. I have a nose that can smell bullshit from a 100 yards & this case stinks. He has bull crosses, if you knew anything about lurchers you would know what they are used for & it isn't rabbits.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 September 2014)

honetpot,  a good post.  Should the rspca's planned for prosecution reaches its final stage,  and it will surprise me if it does,  it will make for interesting reading!

Alec.


----------



## Copperpot (26 September 2014)

blazingsaddles said:



			Look, i've got five lurchers. MIL has eight. I couldn't give a monkeys where you live or what you do for a living. I have a nose that can smell bullshit from a 100 yards & this case stinks. He has bull crosses, if you knew anything about lurchers you would know what they are used for & it isn't rabbits.
		
Click to expand...

Deer??? Not always badgers.


----------



## dymented (26 September 2014)

blazingsaddles said:



			Look, i've got five lurchers. MIL has eight. I couldn't give a monkeys where you live or what you do for a living. I have a nose that can smell bullshit from a 100 yards & this case stinks. He has bull crosses, if you knew anything about lurchers you would know what they are used for & it isn't rabbits.
		
Click to expand...

 never heard so much rubbish 
One is a dalmatian x greyhound the other is a hound x deer hound x grey hound ( so if i was out with a shot gun  would that mean i am a crazed gum man ?) you cant see the sun shining because its so far up the rspcas XXXX


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (26 September 2014)

dymented said:



			never heard so much rubbish 
One is a dalmatian x greyhound the other is a hound x deer hound x grey hound ( so if i was out with a shot gun  would that mean i am a crazed gum man ?) you cant see the sun shining because its so far up the rspcas XXXX[/

Keep digging that hole - you should be more than capable.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## doriangrey (26 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			honetpot,  a good post.  Should the rspca's planned for prosecution reaches its final stage,  and it will surprise me if it does,  it will make for interesting reading!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec, could you make room for me on your fence?  Here's a question someone may be able to answer - if I owned a dog (I don't) and someone reported me for badger baiting, or hare coursing or anything deemed to be illegal (don't know what is or isn't) what happens?  I guess I'm asking what can the rspca do in the event that a member of public reports that this kind of activity is taking place?  Can they just seize the animal because it has been reported that it might be involved or do they have to have more information to hand?


----------



## honetpot (26 September 2014)

doriangrey said:



			Alec, could you make room for me on your fence?  Here's a question someone may be able to answer - if I owned a dog (I don't) and someone reported me for badger baiting, or hare coursing or anything deemed to be illegal (don't know what is or isn't) what happens?  I guess I'm asking what can the rspca do in the event that a member of public reports that this kind of activity is taking place?  Can they just seize the animal because it has been reported that it might be involved or do they have to have more information to hand?
		
Click to expand...

  I do not know about this but surely there should be a chain of evidence? The dog would have to be swabbed for badger DNA, photos taken of injuries, cars and equipment swabbed and confiscated. What few county type programmes I watch on the TV, they seem to stake out baiters so they can catch them in the act so the evidence is wriggle proof, not wait till they wash up and go home. How do you prove the dog has not been out for a walk in the woods and gone down a set? Injuries themselves are not evidence of baiting.
 A chap broke in to our house with an axe and the depth of the witness statements was incredible in case he denied it even though he was found outside with the axe sat outside our house.(Mentally ill off his meds it turns out at a later date)


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 September 2014)

dymented said:



			( the charge is causing pain and suffering to my sons dog ,they claim they found something wrong in the autopsy 95% of the dogs insides are missing) I hope this is clear enough
		
Click to expand...

Didn't they find the dog had an internal infection when it died ? This could not have happened after its death, could it ? 
Why have you been charged and not the dog's owner, your son ? 
Your story has more holes than a sieve.


----------



## honetpot (26 September 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Didn't they find the dog had an internal infection when it died ? This could not have happened after its death, could it ? 
Why have you been charged and not the dog's owner, your son ? 
Your story has more holes than a sieve.
		
Click to expand...

 The point being they (RSPCA)are claiming there was an infection, which caused the dogs death I suppose because of neglect(?)  but as the body is incomplete when it was returned to the owners how are they able to mount a defence? I would want my own autopsy and expert witness, a bit difficult if half the evidence is missing. 
 Just an interested bystander, trying to understand where the holes are. It could be funny but its someones life.


----------



## doriangrey (26 September 2014)

honetpot said:



			I do not know about this but surely there should be a chain of evidence? The dog would have to be swabbed for badger DNA, photos taken of injuries, cars and equipment swabbed and confiscated. What few county type programmes I watch on the TV, they seem to stake out baiters so they can catch them in the act so the evidence is wriggle proof, not wait till they wash up and go home. How do you prove the dog has not been out for a walk in the woods and gone down a set? Injuries themselves are not evidence of baiting.
 A chap broke in to our house with an axe and the depth of the witness statements was incredible in case he denied it even though he was found outside with the axe sat outside our house.(Mentally ill off his meds it turns out at a later date)
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for that   i mean I don't have a dog anymore - Just cats (verminexeterminators), but what if I had a dog with scars - can someone with an axe to grind just say you are baiting and then rspca can come in and remove them?  Is that so now?


----------



## Alec Swan (26 September 2014)

honetpot said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

 Just an interested bystander, trying to understand where the holes are. It could be funny but its someones life.
		
Click to expand...

Of course,  and it also raises the point that if those canine experts,  the rspca and the inspecting vet upon the dog being taken in to care,  failed to notice a minor uterine infection,  then how could the owner have been expected to notice it?

I'd strongly suggest that the sieve is currently being carried by the rspca.  If in fact the rspca are to charge the OP with neglect,  then I fail to see how they can charge the man when they would be equally at fault and equally as neglectful.  The other point,  of course is that if the rspca claim that they didn't notice the dog with a uterine infection,  because the infection didn't exist when they confiscated the dog,  then again I fail to see how any Court can find the owner culpable.  Stands to reason,  when you think about it. 

As a disclaimer,  all of the above is of course assuming that the OP is telling the truth,  and if the fact that the dog had a uterine infection is the mainstay of the rspca's case.  Personally it would surprise me,  as even the rspca aren't 'that' stupid,  surely!

Alec.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 September 2014)

honetpot said:



			The point being they (RSPCA)are claiming there was an infection, which caused the dogs death I suppose because of neglect(?)  but as the body is incomplete when it was returned to the owners how are they able to mount a defence? I would want my own autopsy and expert witness, a bit difficult if half the evidence is missing. 
 Just an interested bystander, trying to understand where the holes are. It could be funny but its someones life.
		
Click to expand...

We know that the dog had a puncture wound and scars when it was seized from the OP's property. OP says the post mortem revealed an internal (not uterine) infection. 
We know that the OP has been charged with causing pain and suffering to the dog. 

Those are the verifiable facts that the OP has told us.


----------



## ribbons (27 September 2014)

I am amazed (actually not that amazed) that some people here have the OP found guilty and convicted of cruelty, neglect, badger baiting and lying. All based on nothing more than the fact that his command of the written English language is not brilliant.
Some of you are alluding to inside knowledge and voicing points as if you have full knowledge of the case, when in fact it is nothing more than your opinion based on what you've read.

The OP could in fact be a nasty piece of work, keeping dogs in awful conditions and using them for badger baiting and other illegal pursuits. I don't know that and neither do you.

Equally, The RSPCA could  have dropped a major clanger, and everything OP claims be absolutely true, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

Like Alec, I'm keeping an open mind at the moment, however, I'm finding it very unlikely  the OP is telling a pack of lies. To accuse an organisation as big as RSPCA of the things he has, so loudly and so publicly would be suicide if there was no truth in it

There is of course a third option, the events didn't take place at all, the OP is not known in real life by anyone on the forums he uses and is making the whole thing up for a bit of entertainment.

I, like the rest of you, just don't know. My gut feeling however is option two. Based on my experience of the numerous cock ups the RSPCA are more than capable of.
 It is only my feeling though.

I would also congratulate the OP on his behaviour on this thread, given the very unpleasant things others have posted, he has done well in the main to keep to the facts as he sees them.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (27 September 2014)

ribbons said:



			I am amazed (actually not that amazed) that some people here have the OP found guilty and convicted of cruelty, neglect, badger baiting and lying. All based on nothing more than the fact that his command of the written English language is not brilliant.
Some of you are alluding to inside knowledge and voicing points as if you have full knowledge of the case, when in fact it is nothing more than your opinion based on what you've read.

The OP could in fact be a nasty piece of work, keeping dogs in awful conditions and using them for badger baiting and other illegal pursuits. I don't know that and neither do you.

Equally, The RSPCA could  have dropped a major clanger, and everything OP claims be absolutely true, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

Like Alec, I'm keeping an open mind at the moment, however, I'm finding it very unlikely  the OP is telling a pack of lies. To accuse an organisation as big as RSPCA of the things he has, so loudly and so publicly would be suicide if there was no truth in it

There is of course a third option, the events didn't take place at all, the OP is not known in real life by anyone on the forums he uses and is making the whole thing up for a bit of entertainment.

I, like the rest of you, just don't know. My gut feeling however is option two. Based on my experience of the numerous cock ups the RSPCA are more than capable of.
 It is only my feeling though.

I would also congratulate the OP on his behaviour on this thread, given the very unpleasant things others have posted, he has done well in the main to keep to the facts as he sees them.
		
Click to expand...

That's the problem, his facts don't add up. Which is why some posters are questioning his account of the matter. The fact that nine dogs were seized with considerable assistance from the police suggests good cause. I'm still not sure who owns the dogs, as the OP & his/her son is also implicated. If their dog died due to the negligence of the RSPCA then they need to be held accountable. Sloppy housekeeping by a professional organisation should be held accountable.  But, the fact the dogs were seized in the first place,  strongly suggests the welfare of the dogs was of serious concern. I don't care if someone can spell or not, if they can't string two coherent sentences together. But I have the ability to read between the lines & also realise that if 2+2=5, that something doesn't add up. I really hope I'm wrong re the OP, because if my suspicions are proven then god only knows how many animals have suffered.


----------



## FionaM12 (27 September 2014)

blazingsaddles said:



			That's the problem, his facts don't add up. Which is why some posters are questioning his account of the matter. The fact that nine dogs were seized with considerable assistance from the police suggests good cause. I'm still not sure who owns the dogs, as the OP & his/her son is also implicated. If their dog died due to the negligence of the RSPCA then they need to be held accountable. Sloppy housekeeping by a professional organisation should be held accountable.  But, the fact the dogs were seized in the first place,  strongly suggests the welfare of the dogs was of serious concern. I don't care if someone can spell or not, if they can't string two coherent sentences together. But I have the ability to read between the lines & also realise that if 2+2=5, that something doesn't add up. I really hope I'm wrong re the OP, because if my suspicions are proven then god only knows how many animals have suffered.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. His story kept changing and he seemed unwilling to answer key questions. I don't give a damn about anyone's writing skills, it has nothing to do with that.

If the dog did indeed die in RSPCA care they ought to explain how this happened, however I find it very hard to believe that they'd return the dog hacked into pieces, skinned and with its brain (and unborn puppies) missing, as in the Facebook photos.

https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog

I do hope the truth comes out in the press, whoever is at fault.


----------



## dymented (28 September 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			Agreed. His story kept changing and he seemed unwilling to answer key questions. I don't give a damn about anyone's writing skills, it has nothing to do with that.

If the dog did indeed die in RSPCA care they ought to explain how this happened, however I find it very hard to believe that they'd return the dog hacked into pieces, skinned and with its brain (and unborn puppies) missing, as in the Facebook photos.

https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog

I do hope the truth comes out in the press, whoever is at fault.
		
Click to expand...

The dog did indeed die in rspca care , the photos you refer to are the contents of the plastic bag that they returned . I have never changed my story the claims they made of dog fighting badger bating are totally fabricated . I have never been questioned regarding dog fighting or badger bating or charged with them , blazingsaddles seems to think because they turn up mob handed your guilty please listen to the interview on radio 4
 then tell me the rspca would never do anything like that ( www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037v4fp ) listen to the full interview 
MerrySherryRider the rspca or police have never spoken to my son who is over 21 even when told who owns what dog , Also there welfare was never an issue all pens (10ft x 5ft) were clean with clean water and bedding and were water tight


----------



## Alec Swan (28 September 2014)

dymented,

a couple of questions,  do you have a date for the hearings of either your case or theirs yet,  and if you do,  where will they be heard?  Assuming that you are being truthful,  I will predict that neither case will go ahead,  which will be a shame as you are as entitled to your day and to be heard,  as they are.  

Thankfully,  the Courts no longer rely on the 'suspicions' of others,  or a 'nose for bullshit',  or as far as I'm aware a 'woman's intuition'!  A reliance upon such 'evidence' was abandoned when we gave up setting light to witches!

I shall follow your case with interest,  and if you are proven to be guilty as charged,  you will receive the rounded judgement of not just the Courts,  but this forum )),  and if the charges against you are dropped,  then you will be seen to have 'got away with it',  for a lack of evidence.  It can be a relatively simple matter to prove Guilt with a supply of evidence,  but innocence is an entirely different matter.

Alec.


----------



## ribbons (28 September 2014)

Exactly right Alec.

It seems some feel that the ability to read between the lines and smell bullshit is evidence enough. 

I'm not sure about the truth behind demented's claims and neither is blazingsaddles or any other poster. We all have our opinions, but to try and state them as fact at this stage is some what arrogant.


----------



## Sleighfarer (28 September 2014)

I have read all of this thread and also the thread on the Hunting Life forum and am inclined towards the Alec/Ribbons school of thought. 

Although I can see why people might be confused by the story, it is actually not contradictory - you do have to concentrate, though! 

When the OP said the RSPCA contacted his solicitor 8 weeks after the initial incident he meant that this was their official response to what had happened - not that this was the first he had heard of it, which is how some people have read it.

He was taking them to court and they retaliated by taking him to court - but this came much later, which also has caused confusion of the 'well, which is it?' variety. 

The people on the Hunting Life forum are strongly behind the OP - who has made more than 4000 posts on that forum - though I can't say whether any of them know him in real life. 

The Hunting Life folk started a fund (through an auction) to help OP fight his case. A poster from H&H popped up to tell them they were being scammed. She also informed them that she had reported the OP to the police. They made it clear that they didn't give two hoots about her allegations and have banned her from their forum. 

The OP was convicted of a drugs charge, which was information that he withheld in the original posts on both forums. I think this is understandable, but not helpful. 

Some people questioned whether it was the same dog on the grounds that its legs were a different colour, but if you look closely I think you can see the white through the blood. 

I do not know the truth of what happened to the little dog or during the police/RSPCA visit and neither does anybody else unconnected with case. 

I too look forward to information about the court case.


----------



## Spring Feather (28 September 2014)

Sleighfarer said:



			I have read all of this thread and also the thread on the Hunting Life forum and am inclined towards the Alec/Ribbons school of thought. 

Although I can see why people might be confused by the story, it is actually not contradictory ...
		
Click to expand...

Same here and I also didn't think it contradictory, just a bit jumbled, but not difficult to understand.


----------



## ester (28 September 2014)

I do feel I need to say that it isn't a lack of understanding which made people suspicious (which rather makes it sound like people just aren't putting in the effort to read it properly). I understand what dymented is suggesting perfectly well, it doesn't mean that I am necessarily inclined to believe their side of the story.


----------



## FionaM12 (28 September 2014)

I'll be very interested to see whether the OP provides dates, location and times of hearings. He's been asked several times now.


----------



## Goldenstar (28 September 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			I'll be very interested to see whether the OP provides dates, location and times of hearings. He's been asked several times now.
		
Click to expand...

No reason for him to do so if he chooses not to.
I agree the story is jumbled , but then you might well be jumbled in that situation.
I can understand why in the stress of the situation you might not demand the warrant if the RSPCA and the police arrived mob handed .
It's easy to know what to after the event .
If the dead dog was killed in the care of an agent keeping up dogs for the RSPCA will they be liable not sure about that .
Just like the everyone else I don't know the truth of this, time will tell.
It's peculiar story.


----------



## _GG_ (29 September 2014)

I am just popping back on to kind of stick up for Dymented a bit here. 

I am aware how rich that may seem given my feelings about the situation, but I have given my support for his fight in getting justice for Stella and I have apologised for getting a bit carried away. Emotion has a lot to answer for. My thoughts have only been for the animals and I forgot for a while that there is also a person at the centre of this.

What I will say though is that Dymented offered to give me the date for his hearing and I declined. I don't want to know and don't feel Dymented should have to tell anyone. It is of course up to him if he furnishes those who have asked with that information, but I don't think any reluctance to do so should reflect on him in any way.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 September 2014)

A post of humility _GG_,  and well said.

We will,  as you say,  await the outcome,  and if it can be proven that the OP has taken part in illegal activities,  then I will lead his critics.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 September 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

I can understand why in the stress of the situation you might not demand the warrant if the RSPCA and the police arrived mob handed .

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

An interesting point.  Would any of us,  barring those with professional expertise,  know how to react and in our own best interests,  when out of the blue,  we're raided?  I certainly wouldn't and am wondering exactly how we 'should' react to best defend ourselves.  Does anyone know?

The argument that 'If you have nothing to hide,  you have nothing to fear' would have a rather hollow ring to it,  especially with those bodies such as the rspca who have no moral or actual compunction placed upon them to work for the good of the State.

Alec.


----------



## honetpot (29 September 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			An interesting point.  Would any of us,  barring those with professional expertise,  know how to react and in our own best interests,  when out of the blue,  we're raided?  I certainly wouldn't and am wondering exactly how we 'should' react to best defend ourselves.  Does anyone know?

The argument that 'If you have nothing to hide,  you have nothing to fear' would have a rather hollow ring to it,  especially with those bodies such as the rspca who have no moral or actual compunction placed upon them to work for the good of the State.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Basic advice
http://the-shg.org/Basic legal advice for pet owners.htm
http://the-shg.org/


----------



## Alec Swan (29 September 2014)

Thank you honetpot.

I've done a bit of research,  and it now seems that if the rspca,  backed by Police support,  succeed in confiscating dogs,  then regardless of whether a criminal prosecution follows,  or not,  and if they do,  then whether it's successful,  or not,  then the rspca have a legal right to keep the dogs.  It seems that the owner,  once deprived of his property,  looses all right of ownership and regardless of the outcomes of any prosecutions.  Surely this can't be right.  Does anyone know,  for certain?

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 September 2014)

Having made further enquiries it seems that the OP is not alone with his problems.  So I understand there are 3 serious investigations currently in place and all are enquiring in to the major mistreatment of dogs which have been 'confiscated' by the rspca and whilst in their care.

Regarding my last post,  I'm now advised that the rspca often ask the owners of the animals which they are taking,  to sign a document,  and all so often the document which they sign is effectively gifting the animal to the rspca.  My understanding is that if the Police are hoodwinked in to insisting upon an animal's removal,  then ownership is actually 'suspended' following the decision of a Court.

The rspca have no powers at all,  barring the ability to apply to a Court and to prosecute.  The rspca have no rights of entry,  or to confiscate any animals.  It's high time that the Police woke up to the fact that they are all so often being used.

Alec.


----------



## dymented (10 October 2014)

On the first day in Court the Police claimed that it was the RSPCA that took the dogs and they were not responsible stating they have powers issued by the council as inspectors,  the court found that the RSPCA are charity workers who have no powers what so ever,  and that the Police were responsible for seizing the dogs and the RSPCA are agents who were supposedly looking after the dogs. Then they argued that I am in court regarding matters involving the dogs, so the Court decided to adjourn the matter to a later date. This means we can now ask that both the Police and RSPCA explain to the Court,  firstly the evidence which they had to bring charges in the first place,  and secondly how they are jointly responsible for the seized dogs,  and their dereliction of a duty of care.


----------



## _GG_ (10 October 2014)

dymented said:



			On the first day in Court the Police claimed that it was the RSPCA that took the dogs and they were not responsible stating they have powers issued by the council as inspectors,  the court found that the RSPCA are charity workers who have no powers what so ever,  and that the Police were responsible for seizing the dogs and the RSPCA are agents who were supposedly looking after the dogs. Then they argued that I am in court regarding matters involving the dogs, so the Court decided to adjourn the matter to a later date. This means we can now ask that both the Police and RSPCA explain to the Court,  firstly the evidence which they had to bring charges in the first place,  and secondly how they are jointly responsible for the seized dogs,  and their dereliction of a duty of care.
		
Click to expand...

I am pleased every time a court states that the RSPCA have no powers as it serves to educate the general public in that matter a bit more. Regards the dereliction of a duty of care, I hope for Stella's sake that it gets sorted out. Did it seem to you that the police and RSPCA were opposing each other? That could be very telling in your case against them.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 October 2014)

I would suggest that if it becomes evident that the charges brought by the rspca are without substance,  and if it becomes obvious to the Court that the Police have been mislead in to acting as the confiscating body,  then the Police will,  in turn,  be a little more circumspect in future,  regarding the level of support that they give.  It will be a sad day if the rspca are found wanting,  and if the Police are forced in to evaluating the evidence for themselves rather than accepting the word of the charity.  

I wonder,  especially in canine cases,  if Police Dog Handlers shouldn't have at least some input,  from the viewpoint of suitable arrests.  They would certainly be in a better position to judge than an rspca inspector,  I would have thought.

Alec.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (10 October 2014)

Surely the police were present to prevent a breech of the peace in much the same way that they attend when bailiff's have reason to believe there may be trouble ? Every  employee has the right to be protected against the threat of abuse and physical assault whilst carrying out their duties. 

If there is reasonable cause to believe that a law has been broken, the police would  rightly be called to attend. They do not need to know the person is guilty. That's what the courts are for. 

Interestingly, the NSPCC inspectors have more powers to remove children from their parents than the rspca has to remove animals from risk. Strange how those who criticise the RSPCA aren't equally concerned about children. 
Or is animal welfare something we, like the CPS,  just give lip service to ?


----------



## _GG_ (10 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Surely the police were present to prevent a breech of the peace in much the same way that they attend when bailiff's have reason to believe there may be trouble ? Every  employee has the right to be protected against the threat of abuse and physical assault whilst carrying out their duties. 

If there is reasonable cause to believe that a law has been broken, the police would  rightly be called to attend. They do not need to know the person is guilty. That's what the courts are for. 

Interestingly, the NSPCC inspectors have more powers to remove children from their parents than the rspca has to remove animals from risk. Strange how those who criticise the RSPCA aren't equally concerned about children. 
Or is animal welfare something we, like the CPS,  just give lip service to ?
		
Click to expand...

In the equine cases I have been involved in, without exception, there has been a need for 1 police officer to attend as it is they and not the RSPCA who have the right to remove the animal(s). Basically, it is usually done over a period of time between the RSPCA and a local vet, monitoring the state of the horses and on the planned day of seizure, a police officer is present who hears what the vet says and either agrees or disagrees. To be honest, I have never known a police officer disagree with a vet. The last seizure I was present at involved an owner who had made serious threats and physically struck a member of public who had previously assisted at an RSPCA visit, so there were two officers present on the day of seizure in case the owner turned up. That's not reflection on any other cases, just pointing out that one officer needs to be present for seizure to go ahead, without them, there are no rights to do so.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. . Strange how those who criticise the RSPCA aren't equally concerned about children. 

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

An explanation of how you managed to arrive at that gem should be interesting!! 

Alec.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (10 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			An explanation of how you managed to arrive at that gem should be interesting!! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It was your sentence, Alec. - [ I wonder, especially in canine cases, if Police Dog Handlers shouldn't have at least some input, from the viewpoint of suitable arrests. They would certainly be in a better position to judge than an rspca inspector, I would have thought.]

I was interested by your opinion that RSPCA inspectors, who are trained and animal welfare professionals where not as well able to judge animal cruelty cases than police dog handlers, who have no training or experience in animal welfare. Can just imagine a police dog handler turning up to decide if my dog, cat, chicken, snake or horse was neglected. 

If your lack of confidence in the training of RSPCA inspectors is due to them being a charity, then why not question the expertise of the NSPCC, another charity but with considerably more power, particularly when we have social workers to protect children. Who do we have apart from charity animal welfare organisations to protect animals from abuse ?


----------



## dymented (10 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			It was your sentence, Alec. - [ I wonder, especially in canine cases, if Police Dog Handlers shouldn't have at least some input, from the viewpoint of suitable arrests. They would certainly be in a better position to judge than an rspca inspector, I would have thought.]

I was interested by your opinion that RSPCA inspectors, who are trained and animal welfare professionals where not as well able to judge animal cruelty cases than police dog handlers, who have no training or experience in animal welfare. Can just imagine a police dog handler turning up to decide if my dog, cat, chicken, snake or horse was neglected. 

If your lack of confidence in the training of RSPCA inspectors is due to them being a charity, then why not question the expertise of the NSPCC, another charity but with considerably more power, particularly when we have social workers to protect children. Who do we have apart from charity animal welfare organisations to protect animals from abuse ?
		
Click to expand...

I do believe the NSPCC have no previous records of fabricating evidence ,bribing,lying ,intimidation, are not anti anything and have no political interest or financial gain what so ever also they have a governing body to answer to if anything goes wrong


----------



## Luci07 (11 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			It was your sentence, Alec. - [ I wonder, especially in canine cases, if Police Dog Handlers shouldn't have at least some input, from the viewpoint of suitable arrests. They would certainly be in a better position to judge than an rspca inspector, I would have thought.]

I was interested by your opinion that RSPCA inspectors, who are trained and animal welfare professionals where not as well able to judge animal cruelty cases than police dog handlers, who have no training or experience in animal welfare. Can just imagine a police dog handler turning up to decide if my dog, cat, chicken, snake or horse was neglected. 

If your lack of confidence in the training of RSPCA inspectors is due to them being a charity, then why not question the expertise of the NSPCC, another charity but with considerably more power, particularly when we have social workers to protect children. Who do we have apart from charity animal welfare organisations to protect animals from abuse ?
		
Click to expand...

Actually, it is my experience that  the RSPCA are not trained to the level of expertise which seems to be inferred. I did help years ago with 2 abandoned Shetlands and the RSPCA officer had a very basic understanding of equine care. While I am not a fan of the RSPCA I don't expect them to have the level of knowledge of all animals. I would suggest the NSPCC has different issues to work with as well.

Fascinating, although sad post though. I am learning a lot from reading this.


----------



## honetpot (11 October 2014)

You can not compare the workings of the NSPCC and the RSPCA. The government has put in place Safe Guarding Children, where even if sometimes it doesn't work as well as it should, Social workers, Family courts etc, are there protect the interests and welfare of children, https://www.gov.uk/childrens-services/safeguarding-children. They have rights and responsibilities and their actions are scrutinised, the NSPCC can not just turn up at house and demand a child and where social workers make mistakes they are held to account. The whole ethos of the NSPCC is about prevention and helping families not dragging parents through the courts  whilst the RSPCA  waits for an animal to be a deaths door before they will provide help, in fact they see providing help to an animal and its owner as a hindrance to prosecution.


----------



## Goldenstar (11 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Thank you honetpot.

I've done a bit of research,  and it now seems that if the rspca,  backed by Police support,  succeed in confiscating dogs,  then regardless of whether a criminal prosecution follows,  or not,  and if they do,  then whether it's successful,  or not,  then the rspca have a legal right to keep the dogs.  It seems that the owner,  once deprived of his property,  looses all right of ownership and regardless of the outcomes of any prosecutions.  Surely this can't be right.  Does anyone know,  for certain?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It was certainly not the case with horses when I was involved .


----------



## honetpot (13 October 2014)

Don't believe all I read in the newspapers but there are quotes from reports and the sums paid to barristers huge, and more than the normal going rate for the types of prosecution.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...utions-lawyers-pocketing-1-200-dog-cases.html.


----------



## FionaM12 (13 October 2014)

honetpot said:



			Don't believe all I read in the newspapers.
		
Click to expand...

And certainly not anything in the Daily Mail....


----------



## honetpot (13 October 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			And certainly not anything in the Daily Mail....
		
Click to expand...

If you would like to read it here's the full report,
http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf
But if you go to the RSPCA website its almost impossible to find, they have buried it.


----------



## FionaM12 (28 October 2014)

Here's some press coverage of the OP's case

http://www.louthleader.co.uk/news/l...ourt-to-face-animal-cruelty-charges-1-6358321

It says he was the defendant in the case, not the RSPCA. It doesn't say the outcome, sadly. It seems he's been charged for several counts of dog fighting, cruelty to a dog (allegedly throwing over a fence) and failing to provide veterinary care for dogs.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			Here's some press coverage of the OP's case

http://www.louthleader.co.uk/news/l...ourt-to-face-animal-cruelty-charges-1-6358321

It says he was the defendant in the case, not the RSPCA. It doesn't say the outcome, sadly. It seems he's been charged for several counts of dog fighting, cruelty to a dog (allegedly throwing over a fence) and failing to provide veterinary care for dogs.
		
Click to expand...

Well there's a surprise, not.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (28 October 2014)

My, my, he is having a busy year at Boston Magistrates Court.


----------



## PolarSkye (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Well there's a surprise, not.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Waits for all the RSPCA bashers to excuse/justify this somehow . . . 

P


----------



## Alec Swan (28 October 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

http://www.louthleader.co.uk/news/l...ourt-to-face-animal-cruelty-charges-1-6358321

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

What a strange report,  considering that it's a fortnight old,  and that no resolve,  or sentence was reached!  I wonder if the charges were considered to be beyond the abilities of simple Magistrates,  and should be heard by the Crown Courts.

How I would love to see the evidence that the prosecuting body are to put before the Court.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			What a strange report,  considering that it's a fortnight old,  and that no resolve,  or sentence was reached!  I wonder if the charges were considered to be beyond the abilities of simple Magistrates,  and should be heard by the Crown Courts.

How I would love to see the evidence that the prosecuting body are to put before the Court.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It is normal to defer sentencing after conviction for three weeks pending probation reports.  And to defer to combine cases held on different days with like offences.

However in this case, all that has happened is that the charges have been put to him and he has probably entered a plea, though he may not have done.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (28 October 2014)

Even stranger is that he posts on HL on the 9th October that his court case is being heard but does not give details of where or what the case is. He then does not give further updates. It is possible to check current and past court cases on line by anyone interested enough.


----------



## dymented (28 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			My, my, he is having a busy year at Boston Magistrates Court.
		
Click to expand...

its a shame you didn't attend the Grantham hearing before the Boston one as ive sad before no one has been questioned regarding dog fighting or cruelty They charged me with some fabricated stuff as soon as we served them the court papers the rspca were ridiculed by the court because of what has happened they tried to pass it off on the police and the police tried to pass it off on the rspca  it got adjourned i cant go in to detail as its now an active case but the charges they have brought are unfounded and untrue and only there to cover up the death and cruelty charges were served on them ( strangely not one of the dogs seized had been or needed treatment from the rspcas vet )


----------



## Alec Swan (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			It is normal to defer sentencing after conviction for three weeks pending probation reports.  &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

That would be so providing that the accused had been found guilty,  as you of all people should know.  He has been charged with offences to which he has pleaded Not Guilty.  The case has been deferred until mid November,  and as you will also know,  there is little that can be reliably deduced until those who preside over the hearing reach a decision!

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			That would be so providing that the accused had been found guilty,  as you of all people should know.  He has been charged with offences to which he has pleaded Not Guilty.  The case has been deferred until mid November,  and as you will also know,  there is little that can be reliably deduced until those who preside over the hearing reach a decision!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Oh I think we can be reasonably certain that the RSPCA have got the evidence to convict, Alec, they have a 98 per cent conviction rate, after all


----------



## ester (28 October 2014)

So adjourned for case management and setting of a trial date then which would be normal for a no plea/not guilty plea? So nothing to report really currently except OP has pleaded not guilty/witheld. 

The alternative would be adjourned before sentencing so we wouldn't know anything yet either way.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

dymented said:



			its a shame you didn't attend the Grantham hearing before the Boston one as ive sad before no one has been questioned regarding dog fighting or cruelty They charged me with some fabricated stuff as soon as we served them the court papers the rspca were ridiculed by the court because of what has happened they tried to pass it off on the police and the police tried to pass it off on the rspca  it got adjourned i cant go in to detail as its now an active case but the charges they have brought are unfounded and untrue and only there to cover up the death and cruelty charges were served on them ( strangely not one of the dogs seized had been or needed treatment from the rspcas vet )
		
Click to expand...

I was innocent, gov!

Of course you could always have timed your own case against the RSPCA to try to muddy the waters in their multiple cases of animal cruelty against you?

I think we all, you included, need to wait to hear the evidence now the case is so close to being heard.


----------



## dymented (28 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Even stranger is that he posts on HL on the 9th October that his court case is being heard but does not give details of where or what the case is. He then does not give further updates. It is possible to check current and past court cases on line by anyone interested enough.
		
Click to expand...

 That is because there is no date yet it was adjourned so they can decide how many days they will need in court as different people have holidays booked  i do not have any dates as of yet . if you want ill pretend im an rspca inspector and make them up there good at that sort of thing but you will no all about that


----------



## MerrySherryRider (28 October 2014)

dymented said:



			its a shame you didn't attend the Grantham hearing before the Boston one as ive sad before no one has been questioned regarding dog fighting or cruelty They charged me with some fabricated stuff as soon as we served them the court papers the rspca were ridiculed by the court because of what has happened they tried to pass it off on the police and the police tried to pass it off on the rspca  it got adjourned i cant go in to detail as its now an active case but the charges they have brought are unfounded and untrue and only there to cover up the death and cruelty charges were served on them ( strangely not one of the dogs seized had been or needed treatment from the rspcas vet )
		
Click to expand...

But you were the defendant charged with a list of  cruelty and neglect charges on different occasions. Your case was at Boston MC on 15th October. Are you referring to  proceedings that you mentioned on the HL forum on the 9th October  where alledgedly the RSPCA are being prosecuted by yourself ? 

Your posts are evasive and vague at the best of times.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (28 October 2014)

dymented said:



			That is because there is no date yet it was adjourned so they can decide how many days they will need in court as different people have holidays booked  i do not have any dates as of yet . if you want ill pretend im an rspca inspector and make them up there good at that sort of thing but you will no all about that
		
Click to expand...

Ok. So nothing has happened with your 'prosecution'.


----------



## ester (28 October 2014)

so both cases are adjourned (with you as defendent in one and accuser in the other) waiting for court dates?


----------



## dymented (28 October 2014)

We had served them with the paperwork and got a date to take them to court . The day before the court date i received in the post a list of fabricated charges both cases have been adjourned i do not have a date as of yet but when i do ill send you a message and or pay your bus fair so you can attend if you so wish so until i get a call or letter for the next date you no as much as me


----------



## FionaM12 (28 October 2014)

So the RSPCA threw together a list of totally fabricated charges in response to your case against them? And they've gone to court with not a scrap of evidence? 

Should be interesting.


----------



## dymented (28 October 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			So the RSPCA threw together a list of totally fabricated charges in response to your case against them? And they've gone to court with not a scrap of evidence? 

Should be interesting.
		
Click to expand...

they have no evidence only what they have fabricated to cover the death and neglect of the dog they took if the dog had not been killed i would have them back and no charges would have been fabricated its a well known fact the rspca lie , bribe and fabricate evidence use google it you will see


----------



## FionaM12 (28 October 2014)

dymented said:



			they have no evidence only what they have fabricated to cover the death and neglect of the dog they took if the dog had not been killed i would have them back and no charges would have been fabricated its a well known fact the rspca lie , bribe and fabricate evidence use google it you will see
		
Click to expand...

They must be very stupid and will obviously lose the case with no evidence. What do you think they hoped to gain by wasting the court's time in this way?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (28 October 2014)

dymented said:



			they have no evidence only what they have fabricated to cover the death and neglect of the dog they took if the dog had not been killed i would have them back and no charges would have been fabricated its a well known fact the rspca lie , bribe and fabricate evidence use google it you will see
		
Click to expand...

You mean like the dog put in a washing machine, the dog with a cross bolt in its head, the kitten with its face burnt off, the dog beaten to death, the dogs and cats abandoned and left to starve. All owners found guilty in court. Were these all lies by the RSPCA and police too ? 

You have been charged with some very serious offences, so don't be surprised if some of us don't take you at face value.


----------



## dymented (28 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			You mean like the dog put in a washing machine, the dog with a cross bolt in its head, the kitten with its face burnt off, the dog beaten to death, the dogs and cats abandoned and left to starve. All owners found guilty in court. Were these all lies by the RSPCA and police too ? 

You have been charged with some very serious offences, so don't be surprised if some of us don't take you at face value.
		
Click to expand...

I had no idea what they were going to try and charge me or if they were !! But it seems that every charge we laid against the rspca they have counter charged me with something relating to the offence we charged them with i can not go in to detail but here is one ( illegally seizing the 9 dogs ) now i have been charged with keeping 9 dogs for dog fighting yet not one received or required any treatment. i just hope the shoe is never on your foot merrysherryrider and i too could post 100s of reports about what the rspca have done wrong, look at claud the cat or the 87 year old that was forced to stand out side in the rain while they ransacked her house and seized all her animals  putting 4 cats down right away due to neglect and cruelty they charged her with  ( only to be found were in perfect health after an autopsy requested by her council ) They cocked up and they no it . They need to save face but that's in my opinion, Can you see them saying im sorry for what has happened to your sons dogs i do hope you wont take us to court we promises it wont happen to any one else


----------



## MerrySherryRider (28 October 2014)

Read the local press. Even I know what you're charged with. 
 Don't worry about the police and rspca needing to raid my property with vans and back up for the immediate removal of my animals. I don't.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 October 2014)

dymented,  listen carefully to me;

This Forum is not a Court.  The Court to which you will either apply,  or face,  will be the arbitrator,  should you release or reveal information which will either assist your accusers or damage your own claim,  then you will only have yourself to blame.

There are those who will goad you.  For your own safety,  you should ignore them.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Oh I think we can be reasonably certain that the RSPCA have got the evidence to convict, Alec, they have a 98 per cent conviction rate, after all 

Click to expand...

I wonder what the overall success rate is of the CPS.  I wonder if the Courts accept at face value,  the evidence offered by the Police.  I wonder if those same Courts,  considering such a high success rate,  accept the evidence offered by a group of people who have no established authority and who have no more than the rights of the common man and who,  apart from a self proclaiming level of knowledge and experience,  have little in the way of worthwhile contribution.  

It's an interesting observation that when contradicted by those professionals who's opinion a Court would be more likely to accept,  then the rspca become strangely quiet!  I would find it worrying,  from the standpoint of justice,  if any Magistrate accepted the word or opinion of unqualified laymen,  and simply because their thoughts were utterances.  In fact,  I would find it unthinkable that any Magistrate could be so reliant or have such a preformed notion of honesty.  Would you agree?

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (29 October 2014)

CPS conviction rate is more like 50 per cent I think. 

Magistrates are trained to evaluate evidence. Where the evidence presented is one word against another, they have to make a judgement as to whose word is to be believed.  In RSPCA cases, though, there are usually photographs and or reports from vets and/or experienced animal trainers.

I can assure you that unless they are able to provide corroborated evidence of the charges against Dymented, he will be found not guilty. They believe they have evidence of him being involved in dog fighting. I look forward to finding out what that evidence is.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			CPS conviction rate is more like 50 per cent I think. 

&#8230;&#8230;.. . I look forward to finding out what that evidence is.
		
Click to expand...

That's an interesting Stat.  I would be surprised to learn that the rspca are any more diligent,  or have greater resources than the Police in sourcing and presenting evidence,  which must lead us to the conclusion that where the question of 'balance' occurs,  the evidence from a charity would,  again 'on balance',  be accepted before that of an accepted authority.  I can't see any other reason.  

That's all by the by.  I too look forward to seeing the evidence,  and whilst I remain sitting on the fence,  I've viewed the photographs which have been displayed by the rspca,  and can assure you that with the possible exception of what would appear to be a Patterdale Terrier,  NOT ONE of the dogs,  most of which were elderly,  could ever be considered as being a 'working' dog.  Dog fight contestants are purpose bred and sourced 'types' if not breeds,  and the OP's dogs simply don't fall in to this category.  The rspca will be very well aware of the 'types' of dogs used as they probably have more experience of this revolting practice,  than most,  so claiming that those dogs which they've confiscated,  would be suitable,  is nonsense.  Even the Patterdale,  though clearly a work bred dog,  simply wouldn't last five minutes amongst such creatures.  Perhaps there are other dogs,  dogs which none of us are aware of.  Presumably the evidence includes irrefutable film,  or those who having taken an oath,  witnessed the event.  

If the OP has been less than honest in his denial of the charges,  then I will lead the charge of those who would condemn him.  As you say,  we'll have to wait and see!

Alec.


----------



## Sleighfarer (29 October 2014)

I was just about to post saying exactly what Alec has said about the dogs in question. 

It's all a bit of a puzzle and I too will be most interested to hear the evidence of the RSPCA.

I am also a little confused because the report posted by Fiona doesn't actually mention dog fighting - it talks of animal fighting. I am not at all clear what the charges actually mean.


----------



## dymented (29 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Oh I think we can be reasonably certain that the RSPCA have got the evidence to convict, Alec, they have a 98 per cent conviction rate, after all 

Click to expand...

i could spend all day looking for information on how the rspca fabricate stuff or blow things well out of proportion here are 4 convictions all over turned after they found out the rspca well erm i ll leave it for you to read as a judge isn't as  gullible 
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/dad-attacks-rspca-cruelty-conviction-2340833

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...n-overturned/story-16363900-detail/story.html

http://www.wigantoday.net/news/local/six-cleared-of-badger-hunt-1-164842

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/10149908/The-RSPCA-made-US-feel-like-criminals.html


----------



## MerrySherryRider (29 October 2014)

Just looked at your first link regarding Jess. Poor dog was indeed returned to her owners after being photographed repeatedly hurling the dog into the sea. Her owners have recently been back in court because of Jess's repeated attacks on other dogs. Tell me,do you think, are these the sort of people who should own any animal ?   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ones-caught-throwing-pet-dog-sea-Exmouth.htmlhttp://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/mob..._dog_to_be_muzzled_in_public_places_1_3728649http://jack-russells.net/magistrates-order-dog-to-be-muzzled-in-public-places


----------



## MerrySherryRider (29 October 2014)

Ah, then there's your second link. One of the terriers used that night has never been found, and one of the gang of eight men didn't contest his conviction as he was already in prison for assaulting his partner. Nice.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (29 October 2014)

Just looked at your 3rd link and picked out the first example. Have you seen the pictures of the GS ? After the dog suffered an allergic reaction to shampoo for fleas, she then repeated the treatment some time after and two weeks later had still not taken the dog to a vet. It has open sores all over it's back,it must have been in agony. 

Any more links of suffering animals you want to post, Dymented ?


----------



## ester (29 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Just looked at your 3rd link and picked out the first example. Have you seen the pictures of the GS ? After the dog suffered an allergic reaction to shampoo for fleas, she then repeated the treatment some time after and two weeks later had still not taken the dog to a vet. It has open sores all over it's back,it must have been in agony. 

Any more links of suffering animals you want to post, Dymented ?
		
Click to expand...

Two weeks after the second wash :eek3: awful


----------



## FionaM12 (29 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			dymented,  listen carefully to me;

This Forum is not a Court.  The Court to which you will either apply,  or face,  will be the arbitrator,  should you release or reveal information which will either assist your accusers or damage your own claim,  then you will only have yourself to blame.
		
Click to expand...

Dymented, I seriously back up Alec's advice to be very careful what you say. You've mentioned several times that your solicitor has asked you not to discuss the case and I think it's very unwise to carry on posting.

I think it was foolish to start this thread in the first place, as is the whole of your internet campaign against the RSPCA considering that you're involved in ongoing court cases. However, now the thread exists other people here will want to discuss what's been said so far, and appears in the press, but if I were you I'd keep out of the thread. 

Posting random links to other newspaper stories where people allege the RSPCA acted badly doesn't actually say anything about your situation, or your or the RSPCA's guilt. Also when the links show stories about people (see MerrySherryRider's comments) who appear to be animal abusers, you do yourself no favours.

You can't do any good posting on this thread, and it could backfire on you by jeopardizing your case, as Alec says. If you win your cases (which you surely will if the RSPCA have, as you say, no evidence), you are welcome to come and tell all you told us so. Until then, you'd be well advised to step back from the keyboard, for your own good.


----------



## dymented (29 October 2014)

I do apologise i wont post any more unless i have news the links i posted were to show that the convictions were over turned because of the rspca misleading and fabricated evidence some still believe they don't do that sort of thing


----------



## FionaM12 (29 October 2014)

dymented said:



			I do apologise i wont post any more unless i have news
		
Click to expand...

No need to apologize, it's in your own interests not to post.


----------



## milo'n'molly (17 March 2015)

I didn't post anything at the time because as others said,I didn't think it wise to be discussing an ongoing case but I would think that it should have been sorted now. Does anybody know the outcome?


----------



## dymented (17 March 2015)

Nothing new there still dragging there feet as soon as anything happens ill post it


----------



## Alec Swan (18 March 2015)

Assuming that the dogs under discussion are still being held by the rspca,  they'll have died of old age before there's an outcome!

Alec.


----------



## Equi (18 March 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Assuming that the dogs under discussion are still being held by the rspca,  they'll have died of old age before there's an outcome!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Think sometimes thats what they want, then they can say something the owner did caused the death.


----------



## Dobiegirl (18 March 2015)

http://www.petforums.co.uk/pet-news/394051-armley-vets-30-animals-removed.html#post1064087821


Thought you would find this interesting reading and how the RSPCA operate.


----------



## dymented (25 June 2015)

Well with any luck ill update the chuggers with some news good or bad soon


----------



## dymented (27 June 2015)

as your all fully aware of what i have posted before ill keep it short and to the point 
in march 2014 i was raided by the police and rspca they seized 9 dogs with alleged allegations of cruelty, dog fighting and badger bating they even posted a statement on the rspca website stating the above its still there today !!!
now after one day my sons dog was killed and returned to us skinned and beheaded ,numerous other things have happened to all the rest of the dogs while in rspca care ie the snapped the tail of one of the other dogs in half by trapping or slamming it in a door ,another fight one has a chest infection they claim they have done tests but its proving to be expensive and asked me to foot the bill they have all suffered fur loss and bites
We are taking legal action against them for all the atrocities they have done to the animals !!!

The rspca charges were as follows 
keeping 9 dogs for animal fighting
being present at an animal fight 
causing an animal fight
cruelty to a dog
causing suffering to a dog ( the one that was killed )
failing to seek veterinary assistance 

I have never ever been charged with anything to do with badgers or convicted of anything to do with badgers

keeping 9 dogs for animal fighting thrown out no evidence
being present at an animal fight thrown out no evidence
causing an animal fight thrown out no evidence
cruelty to a dog thrown out no evidence
causing suffering to a dog ( the one that was killed in rspca care) thrown out no evidence
I was found guilty of not seeking a vet 
the rspca wanted 17k in court costs 3k in kennelling and a ban 
If the other charges were not thrown out it would have been £160.000 and a life time ban
the judge said no !!
the judge gave me the minimum fine he possibly could so he says  to cover costs of the court but he also gave me
NO Animal BAN and a conditional discharge for not seeking a vet he ordered the dogs to be retuned
Now we submitted all our statements of evidence and witnesses for the charity workers to agree or disagree on ect 
on the morning of the 4th day (last day of the trial) they refuse to accept my vets statement with out him being present 
which was impossible that late in the day so i believe that it why i was found guilty of the latter charge no one to back me up

I thought about appealing but it will cost me ten times more than the fine and you never no if the judge on the day likes the charity workers lies and fabricated evidance
I am hoping the charity workers appeal to the high court about everything getting kicked out that way i get a free defence
there were lots off technical issues ect that were brought up by my defence team

i am glad the judge decided not to kick the other charged out on a technicality  but kicked them out dew to being no evidence !!!!

Now i can press forward with there charges as the dogs should not have been in there care and they inflicted terrible things of them
why because they believe all forms of hunting is illegal and there total against it
More updates on https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog 
I am sure the other chuggers who slated me say I was telling lies will have something to say about there much loved rspca that would never send a dead dog skinned and beheaded back to its owner


----------



## Alec Swan (27 June 2015)

Considering the previous statements which you made,  and assuming them to be truthful,  I'm staggered that the rspca persevered with your case.  The sad thing of course,  is that they are in a win-win situation.  Should they be stupid enough to appeal the decision which has been handed down,  then they will continue to use their failures as a path to the gathering in of further funds via the donations route.  Win-win!!

Well done you.  In your shoes and considering that your in-court support was diminished,  I'd be tempted to appeal the existing decision,  and apply for the judgement to be overturned,  no matter how lenient it may have 'appeared' to be.

Alec.


----------



## dymented (27 June 2015)

I might do that yet Alec its been a really long  draining 15 months , This just goes to show how bad the charity is if there lies had been believed they would have made me sell everything ie house cars ect to pay there bill they charge a lot of people that hunt under the awa act not the hunting act the awa act  carries a far stiffer penalty  a 20k fine per charge the hunting act its far less ect not 100% but they mad reference to it (£250) per charge now if that's not profit mongering i don no what is They have shown in my case they do not care one bit about animals or the would not have kept then in a kennel for 15 months ( they do not exercise working dogs ) and all the injures they have received whilst in there care when asked by me after the case about things I got a shrug of shoulders Its not just me things like this happen to it happens to an awful lot of people yet they still get away with it Why ? because people with head in butts will say its not true they would never do a thing like that there brilliant look at what they do on tv They are not like what you see on tv in reality They like to spread lies about people ect how do people react when they see stories of man accused of badger baiting ????? There only form of evidence regarding hunting in my case was a photo of a dog retrieving a shot fox not one single illegal activity was found in the photos on anything they took This could happen to any one on here


----------



## honetpot (27 June 2015)

I think you now need to get the media involved, its been to court and unless they appeal you can have your say. I would put all the evidence you have together have a google and find out which TV programs would be interested in your story, you have done an amazing job at defending yourself.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 June 2015)

There's also the contentious point that the only charge which the judge moved on,  was the question of failing to seek veterinary advice for a dog which was injured.  Had your Vet been present at the hearing,  and had he confirmed that your own treatment was satisfactory,  then that charge would have been thrown out too!  It is not an offence to fail to seek veterinary advice in the case of injury,  providing that the owner's treatment is considered to be satisfactory.  

I'm left wondering if those posters who had you guilty and banned from keeping dogs,  and before the case,  are about to post and accept that they were wrong!  You never know, you may even get an apology or two,  but I wouldn't hold your breath! 

Alec.


----------



## _GG_ (27 June 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			There's also the contentious point that the only charge which the judge moved on,  was the question of failing to seek veterinary advice for a dog which was injured.  Had your Vet been present at the hearing,  and had he confirmed that your own treatment was satisfactory,  then that charge would have been thrown out too!  It is not an offence to fail to seek veterinary advice in the case of injury,  providing that the owner's treatment is considered to be satisfactory.  

I'm left wondering if those posters who had you guilty and banned from keeping dogs,  and before the case,  are about to post and accept that they were wrong!  You never know, you may even get an apology or two,  but I wouldn't hold your breath! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

That last bit might not help some people that may be thinking about apologising! 

Dymented, I said from the start that if I was wrong, I'd hold my hands up and apologise, so I am. Animal cruelty is an emotive subject and as I've said before in here, I got a bit carried away. I'm glad you had a good result in court and that you'll be getting your dogs back and I wish you luck in your own case.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 June 2015)

Well said _GG_,  all of it! 

Alec.


----------



## dymented (27 June 2015)

_GG_ said:



			That last bit might not help some people that may be thinking about apologising! 

Dymented, I said from the start that if I was wrong, I'd hold my hands up and apologise, so I am. Animal cruelty is an emotive subject and as I've said before in here, I got a bit carried away. I'm glad you had a good result in court and that you'll be getting your dogs back and I wish you luck in your own case.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you there's no need to apologise I just want people to no what the charity workers are capable of doing ,The lies they tell ,trying to fabricate evidence ect They always go in gun blazing Not just with me with every one they raid I am just so glad its all over having it hang over your head for 15 month ect people talking behind your back after reading the false allegations and information the rspca have on there website Mud sticks people always think the worst in you The charity workers a far from nice people and are defiantly not like what you see on TV Its there policy to get the police to seize every animal they can if your accused of any hunting offence as they are totally against it whether innocent or guilty which can not be right if the judge had not seen through everything they would have put a claim in for all costs which were £160.000 and had an order put on my house for me so i would have had to sell to pay for them telling lies and fabricating evidence , Blood samples they took at the time of the raid from various things ect were asked about in court there reply was it was to expensive to proses so they did not After the court when i asked the charity worker he freely admitted it was rabbit blood but its not there policy to help the person there prosecuting


----------



## Dobiegirl (27 June 2015)

I never commented on this thread but did keep abreast of it, its terrifying how a so called charity can behave and persecute  people, ive never had any time for the RSPCA on the odd occasions Ive rung them in the past they have been found wanting.

I found a prone comatose badger in our hayshed and called the RSPCA because if we had despatched it we might have been liable for prosecution, the officer who came out fired 4 or 5 shots to the skull and then took it away in a bin bag. I asked him if he would test it for TB and he said" do badgers get TB", I did a double take and he was serious.

Im glad you cleared your name OP, no one should have to go through what youve been through, I hope the RSPCA are held accountable as they do seem to think they are fireproof.

Please get this out into the wider public, it might stop someone else less fortunate than yourself having to go through this.


----------



## Dry Rot (27 June 2015)

I'm another who has been sitting on the side lines not knowing what to think. I am absolutely delighted that the OP has got justice. So often it goes the other way for want of the defendant being able to afford the best lawyers, etc. to match the opposition.  I believe it is also a major triumph for British justice. David and Goliath. Yes, the media are going to be interested in this. If I was in the OP's situation, I'd be getting myself an agent and seeking the advice of organisations like the Countryside Alliance before running to the Press. It is also a major victory for field sports and the freedom of the individual.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 June 2015)

Dobiegirl said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Please get this out into the wider public, it might stop someone else less fortunate than yourself having to go through this.
		
Click to expand...

Amongst other well authenticated reports,  I'd suggest that those with an interest google 'The truth about Mr. Pig'.  It's an article from The Telegraph.  I particularly liked the story of the girl who kept a ferret and went rabbeting with it.  She was prosecuted by the rspca and when the case was thrown out,  the Magistrate concerned advised the girl that she was free to continue with her activities,  as she'd broken no Laws.  This is just one example of the shameful treatment meted out,  by the rspca and to those who whilst often ill advised are not uncaring members of the public.  The examples which are available by the simple expedient of Google,  are staggering.

The problem with the charity concerned having the power of prosecution is that very few Courts will be in a position to contradict the often deceitful and certainly biased 'evidence' which is placed before them.  Indeed,  the Courts would reasonably expect that any prosecuting counsel to be factual and truthful,  which is rarely the case.

The odd thing,  or so it seems to me,  is that through all the valid and accurate criticisms of the charity concerned,  they continue with a display of supreme arrogance,  on their own sweet way and never that I've read,  offer any explanations,  apologies or justifications.

We need an rspca,  of that there's no question,  just not the fraudulent and shameful organisation and one which is run by the current incumbents.  It's time for a change of management and direction,  but with board members voting themselves and their equally corrupt colleagues in to positions of power,  then nothing will change.  I'm really not sure how change can be affected,  it certainly won't be by reason.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 June 2015)

dymented said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. 

I was found guilty of not seeking a vet 

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




Dry Rot said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. . I am absolutely delighted that the OP has got justice. &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

The OP's Vet gave a written statement to the effect that the treatment given by the OP was satisfactory and that no undue suffering had been caused.  

The prosecuting (rspca) counsel agreed that there would be no need for the OP's Vet to attend the hearing as they would accept his written statement.

On the morning of the trial,  the said prosecuting counsel changed their minds,  and said that they would wish to cross-examine the Vet.  When the Vet was frantically called by 'phone,  he was in surgery with a waiting list and couldn't attend the hearing.

The Judge ruled that the written statement was then inadmissible,  as the prosecuting counsel had the right to cross-examine the witness,  and that friends,  was how the only charge which stuck was achieved.  It would only be the truly gullible who would consider that in their apparent search for justice,  that the rspca have any possible concept of morality.

Justice?  Had the Vet attended,  then the whole case would have been dismissed.  The cynics amongst us may wonder at the motives behind the prosecuting counsel's motives.  Me?  I see the case as being weak to the point where the only way of achieving any sort of result was by being dishonest and by bringing a Court of Law in to disrepute.

My advice to the OP would be that he appeals the decision.  Should the case be overturned,  then there will be no need to take a private prosecution against the rspca for the simple reason that with a Not Guilty verdict,  over the whole case,  they (even they) aren't that stupid.

Alec.


----------



## dymented (28 June 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			The OP's Vet gave a written statement to the effect that the treatment given by the OP was satisfactory and that no undue suffering had been caused.  

The prosecuting (rspca) counsel agreed that there would be no need for the OP's Vet to attend the hearing as they would accept his written statement.

On the morning of the trial,  the said prosecuting counsel changed their minds,  and said that they would wish to cross-examine the Vet.  When the Vet was frantically called by 'phone,  he was in surgery with a waiting list and couldn't attend the hearing.

The Judge ruled that the written statement was then inadmissible,  as the prosecuting counsel had the right to cross-examine the witness,  and that friends,  was how the only charge which stuck was achieved.  It would only be the truly gullible who would consider that in their apparent search for justice,  that the rspca have any possible concept of morality.

Justice?  Had the Vet attended,  then the whole case would have been dismissed.  The cynics amongst us may wonder at the motives behind the prosecuting counsel's motives.  Me?  I see the case as being weak to the point where the only way of achieving any sort of result was by being dishonest and by bringing a Court of Law in to disrepute.

My advice to the OP would be that he appeals the decision.  Should the case be overturned,  then there will be no need to take a private prosecution against the rspca for the simple reason that with a Not Guilty verdict,  over the whole case,  they (even they) aren't that stupid.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

The private prosecution against the rspca is for the neglect and cruelty they have inflicted on the poor dogs whilst in there care IE one dog being killed torn to bits , one dog having his tail snapped in half , one dog being mauled , failing to treat a dog that had a chest infection. the emaciation of a dog ,as well as numerous other things relating to the dogs


----------



## dymented (23 August 2015)

All the dogs are now safely back at home away from the abuse and neglect that the rspca inflicted on them . They were returned in a very poor state
all the dogs had bites to there legs and side's as well as massive fur loss , and were under weight ,that's the caring charity workers for you
 The ball is now firmly rolling and legal action against the rspca and police is well under way !! ,They kept the dogs for no other reason than the fact they do not agree with any form of hunting ,they broke numerous laws and regulations , they allowed one dog who was 8 weeks pregnant to be torn to pieces,(Then returned her skinned and beheaded ) they broke the tail of anther dog twice in a door , they refused to treat a dog with a chest infection as it was to costly (but said I could pay to have the treatment  done ) anther dog got mauled , they forgot to feed one dog for a week so he lost 5 kg in body weight ,all the dogs have puncture wounds on there legs and massive fur loss. That is the rspcas care for you  P.S it cost the charity over £160,000 to fabricate and lie to get me to court only for the district judge to say there was no evidence of any crimes had ever been committed The shocking thing is that its nothing new for the rspca as they will do and say anything to try to cover up there cock ups  Its unreal i wonder how many innocent people have been stitched up by the despicable charty with there lies !!!


----------



## dymented (14 January 2016)

I am still awaiting reports and paper work They certainly are dragging there feet , so we can move forward with a case against the charity
[video=youtube_share;pPX54Kbo7Yw]http://youtu.be/pPX54Kbo7Yw[/video]


----------



## MerrySherryRider (14 January 2016)

A civil case against both the police and the RSPCA is out of the financial reach of most ordinary taxpayers. Who is funding your case ? The donations you received, though kindly intended, aren't more than a drop in a bucket.


----------



## dymented (14 January 2016)

MerrySherryRider said:



			A civil case against both the police and the RSPCA is out of the financial reach of most ordinary taxpayers. Who is funding your case ? The donations you received, though kindly intended, aren't more than a drop in a bucket.
		
Click to expand...

They will be brought to justice for the cruelty and neglect the put the poor dogs through I have never asked for anything but did receive 110% in support from THL members ,I will carry on  and not stop till I do , one dog killed , one dog lost 4kg in two weeks , anther dog got mauled , one dog had his tail broken twice in a door in there care , they wrote asking me to pay for treatment on one dog as it was proving to costly to carry on with , all dogs had massive fur loss and bite marks all over there bodys  all from a charity that claims to no what is best for animals and is supposed to care for animals. But thank you for your concerns  MerrySherry


----------



## Alec Swan (14 January 2016)

MerrySherryRider said:



			A civil case against both the police and the RSPCA is out of the financial reach of most ordinary taxpayers. Who is funding your case ? The donations you received, though kindly intended, aren't more than a drop in a bucket.
		
Click to expand...

As we are regularly assured on here,  that when the rspca take out a *criminal* prosecution,  they are doing so under the facility afforded to any ordinary member of the public,  then it would follow that dymented is entitled to follow the very same path,  I'd have thought.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 January 2016)

dymented said:



			They will be brought to justice for the cruelty and neglect the put the poor dogs through I have never asked for anything but did receive 110% in support from THL members ,I will carry on  and not stop till I do , one dog killed , one dog lost 4kg in two weeks , anther dog got mauled , one dog had his tail broken twice in a door in there care , they wrote asking me to pay for treatment on one dog as it was proving to costly to carry on with , all dogs had massive fur loss and bite marks all over there bodys  all from a charity that claims to no what is best for animals and is supposed to care for animals. But thank you for your concerns  MerrySherry
		
Click to expand...

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,  and whilst in their charge and care,  they permit a catalogues of abuse?  Those who offer 'evidence' to the Court quite clearly offer perjured evidence,  and there are STILL those who would defend the charity concerned and their conduct?

Well Done dymented,  power to you arm!

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 January 2016)

I do wonder,  dymented, if there are grounds for your Counsel to request a judicial revue of your case,  and consider the reasons why the Judge on the day dismissed just about every aspect of the evidence offered,  and rather than the dubious support claimed by a worthwhile charity,  the simple facts of perjury aren't considered.  It seems that it wasn't just the rspca staff who are at fault,  but serving Police Officers too.

Were you or I to offer a Court perjured statements then we would have to face up to our dishonesty and the consequences.  How come the established bodies are treated in a different fashion,  and treated in a lenient fashion,  I wonder.

Alec.


----------



## EQUIDAE (14 January 2016)

Dymented - I questioned why you had the dogs removed in the first place, but how the dogs were treated by the RSPCA was beyond disgraceful. Do you have legal counsel? If not I would like to donate my solicitor hubby for advice - he is appalled at the behaviour of the RSPCA recently.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (14 January 2016)

So you do have unlimited funds for taking out a private prosecution then ? I thought you were just an ordinary member of the public with a couple of past convictions. Or are you still seeking donations from the public ?


----------



## Alec Swan (14 January 2016)

Perhaps some of those who previously donated to the rspca would care to redirect their charitable efforts to a man who,  as his accusers,  hasn't always lived a pure or perfect life!  It's a thought! 

Alec.


----------



## dymented (14 January 2016)

Thank you EQUIDAE  for your kind offer I have a great counsel on the go at the moment But thank you any way


----------



## dymented (14 January 2016)

MerrySherryRider said:



			So you do have unlimited funds for taking out a private prosecution then ? I thought you were just an ordinary member of the public with a couple of past convictions. Or are you still seeking donations from the public ?
		
Click to expand...

Dear MerrySherryRider humble pie must taste great 
I work long and hard to earn my money , I have never ever asked for any donations ! My counsel has been paid for in full, But thank you for your concerns , You would be amazed at the amount of people who come from all walks of life that have been persecuted by the charity workers .


----------



## Dry Rot (15 January 2016)

Dymented, I take my hat off to you, I really do!

I once took on The Kennel Club but found a lawyer who would do it _pro bono_ (that's for free for those who don't speak latin!) and got them to change their competition rules. Can't say it did me or anyone else much good though because the KC are relentless in their pursuit of power and money and, like the RSPCA, care nothing for dogs. (I gather HM The Queen takes advantage of 'my' rule change, so perhaps someone has benefitted!). I know a similar case in the greyhound world where an ordinary dog owner took on the authorities but had to sell his house to pay the legal fees. Some care about justice enough to do that and it isn't only those who can spell and talk proper who think it is worthwhile.

Sir Arthur Conon Doyle is quoted as saying, "If you take on the authorities, the ranks of the establishment will be drawn against you". He made that quote when taking on the case of an obviously innocent man who was wrongfully imprisoned. It just wasn't convenient for the authorities to admit that they'd made a mistake. So nothing new then.


----------



## Dobiegirl (22 January 2016)

https://www.facebook.com/Helpsavebullseye/

This dog was seized after it attacked some Shetland ponies from what I can gather, this is the condition of the dog after it was returned to the owner.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 January 2016)

Assuming that I've seen the same pics as you Dg,  they look to me rather like bed sores,  gained by sleeping on bare wooden boards.

Alec.


----------



## Dobiegirl (22 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Assuming that I've seen the same pics as you Dg,  they look to me rather like bed sores,  gained by sleeping on bare wooden boards.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

That doesnt explain the dogs ear or its tail, I think there is a degree of self mutilation going on as well.


----------



## EQUIDAE (22 January 2016)

Dobiegirl said:



			That doesnt explain the dogs ear or its tail, I think there is a degree of self mutilation going on as well.
		
Click to expand...

Tail looks like the poor thing has been stood wagging it's tail against the wall


----------



## Alec Swan (22 January 2016)

Dobiegirl said:



			That doesnt explain the dogs ear or its tail, I think there is a degree of self mutilation going on as well.
		
Click to expand...

Dogs,  as humans who are deeply disturbed by their immediate environment will often self harm.  I didn't see the pic of the tail,  so I'll go and have another look.  The ear?  Could it be a form of skin complaint?  I'm unsure.  Certainly the (bed?) sores looked to be chronic and well established.

I also couldn't see any reference to the story.  Was the dog in question taken by the rspca from his owner?

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (23 January 2016)

Having now looked at all the other pics on offer,  and obviously I'm not a vet,  but I would strongly suspect that the injuries are indeed bedsores which have been worsened by an infection which hasn't been treated,  AT ALL.  Looking at his belly skin and that around his scrotum,  it does appear to be inflamed,  doesn't it?

The poor chap can't have been too comfortable.

Alec.


----------



## Dobiegirl (23 January 2016)

If you go to the fb page and scroll down you will see the story, this dog escaped with a recently acquired bitch and got into a field with some Shetlands which were savaged. The dogs were seized by the police and the owner has set up a fb page to get this dog released, whether the dog was passed on to the RSPCA or went into kennels I dont know but I do know of other cases where dogs have been returned in less than mint condition.

The thing is if anyone of us allowed our dogs to get into this state we would be liable to prosecution but the authorities seem to be exempt from this.


----------



## Dobiegirl (23 January 2016)

https://www.facebook.com/notes/emma-semple/teddys-tale-the-truth/10153242528093990


Another case of a dog in police care who again got less then adequate care, this particular case is almost laughable except for the fact this little dog was so close to losing his life and shows how careful we all have to be with our dogs.


----------



## Alec Swan (23 January 2016)

Dg,  I'll admit that I wandered through the blog with my opinions swinging backwards and forwards,  but then came to the conclusion that the whole argument was around humans arguing with each other,  rather than considering what was right for the dog,  and that wouldn't be a 'first',  would it?! 

I tend to take the view that there is always an answer to every dog's behaviour problems,  and though it's dependent upon the abilities of those who have the care and control of the animal,  should there be a shortage of those who can listen to the dog,  read it's body language and who can actually 'Speak Dog',  then the answer is all so often to send the poor little sod off to heaven.  The woman who put her face down to the dog and got her nose nipped may be better off with a dog which comes from the same arcade as the one where we can buy the kiss-me-quick hats.  It would be unusual for anyone to be able to step in to a relationship with any dog and assume any immediate intimacy,  certainly not an idiot.

Considering the 'authorities',  and sadly,  their level of self importance often seems to take precedence over the principles of their remit in that few are truly fit for purpose.  I remain of the opinion that there are many dogs which rather than have fools inflicted on them would be better off PTS.

Teddy looks to be a bonny little man,  and from the fulsome description,  one who I could probably get along with quite well. 

Alec.


----------



## dymented (3 August 2017)

Advance warning, next Thursday's Panorama is on the RSPCA... a little bird tells me (or would that be if it was about the RSPB?) that this programme has attracted a record number of legal letters - this is a programme that they definitely don't want aired !

We're disappointed to learn that BBC Panorama will broadcast a programme about the RSPCA on Thursday 3 August 2017.
We understand that the programme will seek to portray an RSPCA that would not be recognised by its staff, volunteers, supporters or the many thousands of animals and people helped each year
https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/latest/details/-/articleName/2017_08_02_Panorma


----------



## RunToEarth (3 August 2017)

It's tonight not next Thursday? Really hope that it prompts the public to raise questions on the RSPCA's practices and indeed it's motivation.


----------



## Alec Swan (3 August 2017)

Thanks dymented.  I shall watch with interest.  It's on at 20:00 tonight.  The resume has the rspca less than pleased.  We'll see.

Did you ever get any sort of final resolve to your case?

Alec.


----------



## tim_ (3 August 2017)

Thanks for the heads up. I've mixed feelings about the RSPCA, they certainly do some good work but there are a number of bad reports about things as well.


----------



## dymented (3 August 2017)

Still in the process Alec the charity wont give the solicitor any info he asks for hes having to fight for everything they are trying to drag it out as long as they can the solicitor i am using is in the episode tonight as well


----------



## Alec Swan (5 August 2017)

I watched the programme and wondered why the makers bothered.  The main focus was on the reporter's dog it seemed.  The programme didn't properly address the insidious modus operandi employed by the council of their club-like approach to the appointment of other council members and so their onward march where outside comment and criticism are roundly ignored.  The programme achieved nothing if the intent was to expose the level of political bias and the apparently megalomanic approach to public opinion.

I'm not sure what happened to Kipling's Cat but I suppose that it died eventually.

Alec.


----------



## ester (5 August 2017)

I had similar thoughts Alec, 
It is difficult to try and say they were wrong on any case where the prosection was successful, I didn't think the cat woman brought anything 'against' the RSPCA at all. - the convinction was approved by the CPS and later upheld at appeal in the crown court. I cannot believe they struggled to find cases which much better demonstarted the problem?


----------

