# The RSPCA Told to Stop Trying to Prosecute Fox Hunters



## Centauress (2 October 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ethink-taking-animal-cruelty-cases-court.html

Thought Please?
Thanks


----------



## FairyLights (2 October 2014)

Fox hunting is vermin control. End of. People who disagree with it think nothing of poisoning rats if they are in their house.  RSPCA wasted huge amounts of money trying to prosecute hunters. Its definitely time they stopped.


----------



## Tea Drinker (2 October 2014)

Agree.
I see the RSPCA as a charity that should help out animals that are meant to be under human care, being ill-treated. So pets and such like.
I don't think it should focus on wild animals/vermin and how they are treated. They should be there as a safety net for where humans get it wrong with their pets. Those are the people that are more likely to be ignorant of what their pets need, not the hunting community (who collectively know pretty much all there is to know about looking after horses, hounds , foxes and such vermin/quarry in the most humane way possible).

RSPCA have defintely lost their way because of a few politically motiviated people at the top.  People on the street donate to help mistreated pets, not to fund anti-hunting political groups (there are other organsiations set up purely to tackle this).

Hopefully the RSPCA can use this report, taken on board the recommendations and get back to doing what they should be in this day and age : looking out for mistreated pets and ignore the political stuff!


----------



## Tea Drinker (2 October 2014)

£327k prosecuting a couple of people invovled in the life of ONE fox and then resultin in £30k of fines is utterly ridiculous. What a waste of £327k raised by the man on the street/donations. £327k that went to line the pockets of barristers. Imagine what real good that £327k had done if it had been used in a charitable way.


----------



## Moomin1 (2 October 2014)

Centauress said:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ethink-taking-animal-cruelty-cases-court.html

Thought Please?
Thanks
		
Click to expand...

My thoughts are that people should read the entire report, before ending up red faced from relying on information from a deeply flawed and biased newspaper, which has a political agenda of it's own. ;-)


----------



## wipeout (2 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			My thoughts are that people should read the entire report, before ending up red faced from relying on information from a deeply flawed and biased newspaper, which has a political agenda of it's own. ;-)
		
Click to expand...

Definitely, never believe anything you read in the newspaper, especially if that paper happens to be The Daily Mail. Here's the link to the full report:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf

 The RSPCA response to it: 

http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/RSPCAResponseToWoolerReview.pdf


----------



## Tea Drinker (2 October 2014)

Wipeout - think you have posted the same link twice.

£327k spent regarding the mistreatment of one fox.
Don't have to read any reports to know that this was a waste of money. Common sense went out of the window and RSPCA management got locked on to a hunt of their own.
£327,000!!! I can't believe that much was spent. CRAZY!!!


----------



## Moomin1 (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			Wipeout - think you have posted the same link twice.

£327k spent regarding the mistreatment of one fox.
Don't have to read any reports to know that this was a waste of money. Common sense went out of the window and RSPCA management got locked on to a hunt of their own.
£327,000!!! I can't believe that much was spent. CRAZY!!!
		
Click to expand...

I thought the thread was about the thoughts on the report?


----------



## ester (2 October 2014)

I think from discussions about it that it perhaps at least highlighted that the RSPCA are a bit between a rock and hard place, if they stop prosecuting can they be sure that the police will take up the animal welfare side of things? Obviously there is a risk that they won't and nobody would be happy with the RSPCA then. But, that there is however a precendent for similar organisations that used to prosecute (RSPB/NSPCC I think were mentioned) whose remit has now been transferred to the CPS as I think the RSPCA's side of things should be.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			Wipeout - think you have posted the same link twice.

£327k spent regarding the mistreatment of one fox.
Don't have to read any reports to know that this was a waste of money. Common sense went out of the window and RSPCA management got locked on to a hunt of their own.
£327,000!!! I can't believe that much was spent. CRAZY!!!
		
Click to expand...

The CPS decided to drop the case due to 'insufficent' evidence. The RSPCA therefore had to take the case and of course, there was sufficent evidence for a successful conviction.

Repeatedly, the CPS has declined to prosecute illegal fox hunting. Most of its (pitifully few) prosecutions for illegal hunting are aimed at hare coursing. The police say fox hunting crime is a low priority for them, which essentially means that some laws can be ignored.

Yes, it is highly unfair that the RSPCA in the 21st century is still having to prosecute animal cruelty cases and law breaking, I would rather that the CPS did the job they are paid to do and stop using a free service funded by a charity.


----------



## Tea Drinker (2 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			The CPS decided to drop the case due to 'insufficent' evidence. The RSPCA therefore had to take the case and of course, there was sufficent evidence for a successful conviction.
.....
Yes, it is highly unfair that the RSPCA in the 21st century is still having to prosecute animal cruelty cases and law breaking, I would rather that the CPS did the job they are paid to do and stop using a free service funded by a charity.
		
Click to expand...

Mmm yes, it's amazing how a prosecution can suddently become successful when back by £327,000 in funds! A lot of hotshot lawyers were brought in to secure that particular conviction. The CPS probably (rightly) thought that it was not in the public purse's interest to spend that kind of money on this kind of conviction.Looks like the public agree with the CPS insofar as RSPCA donations have droppped significantly in recent times which has been attributed to the handling of this case of the RSPCA.

I don't agree with the RSPCA using its funds to prosecute in general. I think it is better spent looking after the animals themselves and trying to lobby the government to take up the prosecution side of things. Let charities do charitable things and let politics take care of the political side of things. When you muddy the two up, you have often conflicting interests as happened in the case of the RSPCA and the Heythrop hunt prosection.


----------



## Moomin1 (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			Mmm yes, it's amazing how a prosecution can suddently become successful when back by £327,000 in funds! A lot of hotshot lawyers were brought in to secure that particular conviction. The CPS probably (rightly) thought that it was not in the public purse's interest to spend that kind of money on this kind of conviction.Looks like the public agree with the CPS insofar as RSPCA donations have droppped significantly in recent times which has been attributed to the handling of this case of the RSPCA.

I don't agree with the RSPCA using its funds to prosecute in general. I think it is better spent looking after the animals themselves and trying to lobby the government to take up the prosecution side of things. Let charities do charitable things and let politics take care of the political side of things. When you muddy the two up, you have often conflicting interests as happened in the case of the RSPCA and the Heythrop hunt prosection.
		
Click to expand...

Have you read the full report?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			Mmm yes, it's amazing how a prosecution can suddently become successful when back by £327,000 in funds! A lot of hotshot lawyers were brought in to secure that particular conviction. The CPS probably (rightly) thought that it was not in the public purse's interest to spend that kind of money on this kind of conviction.Looks like the public agree with the CPS insofar as RSPCA donations have droppped significantly in recent times which has been attributed to the handling of this case of the RSPCA.

I don't agree with the RSPCA using its funds to prosecute in general. I think it is better spent looking after the animals themselves and trying to lobby the government to take up the prosecution side of things. Let charities do charitable things and let politics take care of the political side of things. When you muddy the two up, you have often conflicting interests as happened in the case of the RSPCA and the Heythrop hunt prosection.
		
Click to expand...

Ever thought that if the criminals in the Heythropecase had pleaded guilty, it might have saved everyone a lot of time and money ? Funny old world when criminals can waste court time and a charity's resources and no one bothers to question their morality ? 

Are the hunts allowed to break all laws or just the one's they don't like ? Can I chose which laws I'd like to break as well ?


----------



## TrasaM (2 October 2014)

Horsesforever1 said:



			Fox hunting is vermin control. End of. People who disagree with it think nothing of poisoning rats if they are in their house.  RSPCA wasted huge amounts of money trying to prosecute hunters. Its definitely time they stopped.
		
Click to expand...

Off subject I know but please, I wish that people would stop referring to hunting foxes as vermin control. It's a sport..a jolly fun time out or whatever. I'd suspect that far more foxes are killed on the roads each year than were ever killed by hunts and we don't refer to that as vermin control. By all means go and chase foxes until they get ripped to shreds by hounds but stop referring to it as vermin control .. Vermin control implies that it may be some sort of chore which must be done whereas it's patently obvious that hunting is fun. 

Regarding RSPCA . it was a waste of money which could have gone to improve shelters or prosecute many if the offenders who seem to be slipping through the net.


----------



## wipeout (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			Wipeout - think you have posted the same link twice.
		
Click to expand...

No I haven't. Perhaps you'd care to read the links. It might help to keep the thread on topic if you did.


----------



## ester (2 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Ever thought that if the criminals in the Heythropecase had pleaded guilty, it might have saved everyone a lot of time and money ? Funny old world when criminals can waste court time and a charity's resources and no one bothers to question their morality ? 

Are the hunts allowed to break all laws or just the one's they don't like ? Can I chose which laws I'd like to break as well ?
		
Click to expand...

No, everyone has the right to defend themselves. 
But I thought they did plead guilty?

The Heythrop Hunt Ltd and two of its members recently retired joint master Richard Sumner and former huntsman Julian Barnfield each pleaded guilty at Oxford Magistrates Court to four charges of illegally hunting foxes during the 2011/12 season. The case was prosecuted by the RSPCA and was the first time a hunt faced corporate charges. Extensive footage was supplied to the RSPCA by volunteer hunt monitors and after reviewing the evidence the RSPCA brought fifty two charges against the hunt and four of its members. Shortly  before the case was to be heard the hunt and two of its members offered to plead guilty to twelve charges which the RSPCA accepted. District Judge Tim Pattinson fined the hunt £4000, Sumner £1,800 and Barnfield £1,000. The hunt also had to pay £15,000 towards the RSPCA legal costs, Sumner £2,500 and Barnfield £2,000. Each defendant had to pay a £15 victim surcharge.


----------



## Tea Drinker (2 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Ever thought that if the criminals in the Heythropecase had pleaded guilty, it might have saved everyone a lot of time and money ? Funny old world when criminals can waste court time and a charity's resources and no one bothers to question their morality ?
		
Click to expand...

Oh Lordy. Guessing you've never given much thought to how court works then :-D


----------



## Moomin1 (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			Oh Lordy. Guessing you've never given much thought to how court works then :-D
		
Click to expand...

And how does court work then Tea Drinker?


----------



## Tea Drinker (2 October 2014)

wipeout said:



			Definitely, never believe anything you read in the newspaper, especially if that paper happens to be The Daily Mail. Here's the link to the full report:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf

 The RSPCA response to it: 

http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/RSPCAResponseToWoolerReview.pdf

Click to expand...

Seriously, Wipeout. Those two links take me to the SAME document.


----------



## Moomin1 (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			Seriously, Wipeout. Those two links take me to the SAME document.
		
Click to expand...

Errm, no it doesn't..


----------



## ester (2 October 2014)

The first one takes me to the review, the second to the rspca response to it.....


----------



## Tea Drinker (2 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			And how does court work then Tea Drinker?
		
Click to expand...

Well, it doesn't work on the expectation that anyone who is guilty, 'fesses up on day 1 and saves everyone time and money. It's more along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". Google it, why don't you? You'll find it's a fairly central theme to the British Justice system although in your opinion, that makes it a "funny old world".


----------



## Tea Drinker (2 October 2014)

ester said:



			The first one takes me to the review, the second to the rspca response to it.....
		
Click to expand...

Weird. I get taken to the same report each time. (Both being the RSPCA's response. )
Anyway, not massively important to this debate.  None of us hang out on HHO because we are computer specialists! (Clearly I am NOT!)


----------



## Moomin1 (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			Well, it doesn't work on the expectation that anyone who is guilty, 'fesses up on day 1 and saves everyone time and money. It's more along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". Google it, why don't you? You'll find it's a fairly central theme to the British Justice system although in your opinion, that makes it a "funny old world".
		
Click to expand...

I don't need to - I attend court regularly.  I am just interested in your knowledge of it, which judging by your above comment, is very little.

Oh and by the way, it wasn't me who said it's a funny old world...

It appears you don't read things at all, or properly.


----------



## ester (2 October 2014)

That link I get not found. 

try again?

http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf


----------



## Alec Swan (2 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			I don't need to - I attend court regularly.  &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Excellent,  so could you advise us how the board of directors of the rspca are appointed,  by whom and which would be the best route to altering the self promoting and self enlargement of a group which have rather lost their way,  in the carefully considered opinions of many?

In short,  and whilst accepting that the ears of the rspca are firmly closed,  could you offer an opinion as to how the common man may assist the august body which you support,  and towards a realignment with an informed and concerned public opinion?

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (2 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Excellent,  so could you advise us how the board of directors of the rspca are appointed,  by whom and which would be the best route to altering the self promoting and self enlargement of a group which have rather lost their way,  in the carefully considered opinions of many?

In short,  and whilst accepting that the ears of the rspca are firmly closed,  could you offer an opinion as to how the common man may assist the august body which you support,  and towards a realignment with an informed and concerned public opinion?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

What have either of those points got to do with going to court and the way courts operate?  Absolutely nothing.

I suggest you direct your questions to someone within the board of directors of the RSPCA, and perhaps also read the second link, which is the RSPCA's response to the report.  You may find that their response shows they are not in any way closed to the suggestions made.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			What have either of those points got to do with going to court and the way courts operate?  Absolutely nothing.

I suggest you direct your questions to someone within the board of directors of the RSPCA, and perhaps also read the second link, which is the RSPCA's response to the report.  You may find that their response shows they are not in any way closed to the suggestions made.
		
Click to expand...

The way that the Courts operate seem to be curiously influenced by a charity which claims a level of expertise which it lacks.

I've been unable to source the opening report.  I'd be grateful if you could post it.  As Tea Drinker,  the report offerings are identical.

I've previously attempted to contact the Directors,  on several occasions,  and been ignored.  Perhaps there's another route to discussion.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (2 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			The way that the Courts operate seem to be curiously influenced by a charity which claims a level of expertise which it lacks.

I've been unable to source the opening report.  I'd be grateful if you could post it.  As Tea Drinker,  the report offerings are identical.

I've previously attempted to contact the Directors,  on several occasions,  and been ignored.  Perhaps there's another route to discussion.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Oh of course, the courts are corrupt now..Dear me Alec, really?  Next I imagine you and others will suggest (oh wait, it would appear that some already have out there!) that the report was biased and influenced by a pay off or something..

I haven't got time to find an alternative way to source the link I'm afraid as I have to head out to my horse.  

With regard another route into discussion - I have no idea.  I'm not sure why you would want to tbh.  Read the report in it's entirety and the RSPCA's response, and then just wait and see what transpires.  Not sure what the obsession with trying to continuously find fault is.  The anti RSPCA brigade called for an independent review, the RSPCA fully cooperated and one took place. You now all have the findings of that report, and the RSPCA response and proposals for a way forward.  If that isn't good enough, then what is?


----------



## MagicMelon (2 October 2014)

Horsesforever1 said:



			Fox hunting is vermin control. End of. People who disagree with it think nothing of poisoning rats if they are in their house.  RSPCA wasted huge amounts of money trying to prosecute hunters. Its definitely time they stopped.
		
Click to expand...

I believe one of the arguements is that fox hunting is not effective pest control anyway, and putting down rat poison (which I personally do not do as I don't like that either) isn't considered the same as the problem most of us have with fox hunting is that fun is had doing it. 

I really would not believe anything printed in the Daily Mail either...


----------



## MerrySherryRider (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			Oh Lordy. Guessing you've never given much thought to how court works then :-D
		
Click to expand...

If a defendent pleads guilty at the outset, then prosecution, court time and costs are decreased. However, the criminals of the Heythrop did not plead guilty until the RSPCA had mounted a huge case against them which of course cost the charity a huge amount of money. 

Better still, if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't have used up valuable police and court resources, let alone the RSPCA's. 


Why do you defend criminals rather than those who try to uphold the law ?  The law isn't optional, we all have to abide by it.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			Oh of course, the courts are corrupt now..Dear me Alec, really?  

Next I imagine you and others will suggest (oh wait, it would appear that some already have out there!) that the report was biased and influenced by a pay off or something..

With regard another route into discussion - I have no idea.  

I'm not sure why you would want to tbh.  

You now all have the findings of that report, and the RSPCA response and proposals for a way forward.  If that isn't good enough, then what is?
		
Click to expand...

Line 1. Where have I suggested that the Courts are corrupt?  Gullible,  I'll grant you and led by those with more of an interest in their own self promotion,  than justice OR animal welfare!  Creating a defence by distorting the words of the rspca critics,  does little to support your argument.

Line 2. Fending off future enquiries,  are we?

Line 3. Well you wouldn't have,  the route is closed.  The rspca will neither accept dialogue,  queries or doubt.  They deal with those who see them for what they are,  with the traditional approach of an ostrich.

Line 4. For the betterment of a 'Charity' which has failed the question of animal welfare on far more occasions than it has supported them.

Line 5. What would be better?  To listen to the everyday caring man who would have an animal welfare charity lead the way in welfare,  rather than their current and shameful course.  A PM from you will receive my e/mail address,  and it will be an address that you can pass on,  but we both know what the realities are,  don't we?!! 

Alec.


----------



## Tea Drinker (2 October 2014)

I'm not defending criminals.
I'm pointing out that our judicial system is based on a presumption of innocence and it is up to the prosecutors to prove otherwise. This is at odds with your suggestion that guilty parties should just 'fess up early on to save on the prosecutors' (et al) fees. It's a lovely (if somewhat utopian) idea but it's just not how it is.

Defendants may well view themselves as innocent parties (rightly or wrongly) hence getting their day in court to confirm/disprove this - but the onus on prosecution to prosecute remains the same - innocent until proven otherwise.


----------



## ester (2 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			The way that the Courts operate seem to be curiously influenced by a charity which claims a level of expertise which it lacks.

I've been unable to source the opening report.  I'd be grateful if you could post it.  As Tea Drinker,  the report offerings are identical.

I've previously attempted to contact the Directors,  on several occasions,  and been ignored.  Perhaps there's another route to discussion.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec, I have added a link too, please try that one.


----------



## joycec (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			Well, it doesn't work on the expectation that anyone who is guilty, 'fesses up on day 1 and saves everyone time and money. It's more along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". Google it, why don't you? You'll find it's a fairly central theme to the British Justice system although in your opinion, that makes it a "funny old world".
		
Click to expand...

It does, actually. You get a third off your sentence of you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. And much, much lower  costs


----------



## MerrySherryRider (2 October 2014)

Tea Drinker said:



			I'm not defending criminals.
I'm pointing out that our judicial system is based on a presumption of innocence and it is up to the prosecutors to prove otherwise. This is at odds with your suggestion that guilty parties should just 'fess up early on to save on the prosecutors' (et al) fees. It's a lovely (if somewhat utopian) idea but it's just not how it is.

Defendants may well view themselves as innocent parties (rightly or wrongly) hence getting their day in court to confirm/disprove this - but the onus on prosecution to prosecute remains the same - innocent until proven otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

We're not talking about proving innocence here though. They should have plead guilty when they were charged, rather than at the 11th hour  in order to save prosecution and court costs. 

Don't forget that other knife carrying criminal Otis Ferry, who in his latest court appearance for attacking 2 women, was heavily criticised by the judge for his persistent denials, along with his fellow assailant, Deutsch, for dragging the civil case on for 4 years after the criminal case had been concluded. 

I just don't get how certain fox hunts and supporters think the law is something they can ignore and outrageously criticise those who seek to uphold the law.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 October 2014)

ester said:



			That link I get not found. 

try again?

http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf

Click to expand...

How interesting,  and thank you.  I haven't read the whole report,  but will.  From the opening lines,  two points stand out clearly;  

Firstly,  The report is claimed as being 'Independent'.  and, ..

Secondly, The writer is profuse in his gratitude to the rspca for their assistance,  and specifically to the lady employee of the body under scrutiny,  who kindly typed out the transcript.  How thoughtful,  and how 'Independent' too!!

The word 'Independent' seems to have taken on a rather watered down stance!!

I'll read the remainder of the report,  later.

Alec.


----------



## Fenris (2 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			Oh of course, the courts are corrupt now..Dear me Alec, really?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps a little too eager to believe the worst of people.

http://the-shg.org/Penny Darbyshire.htm


----------



## Fenris (2 October 2014)

Please everyone, read the report.  There are some serious criticisms of the RSPCA and they have been offered a poisone chalice in that a position as prosecutor comes with proper oversight and openness.  They have also been told that they should involve specialist groups in order to protect vulerable people such and children when making deisions to proecute.  Other suggestions are to move whole sectors of animal keeping such as sanctuaries to other specialist regullation and prosecution via a system of licensing.  Many of the criticisms raised by the SHG over the years are mentioned in the report - you really must read it.


----------



## joycec (2 October 2014)

Fenris said:



			Perhaps a little too eager to believe the worst of people.

http://the-shg.org/Penny Darbyshire.htm

Click to expand...

How old is that report? It reads like it's ancient, certainly some of it is no longer correct.


----------



## Dangerous Brian (2 October 2014)

I'm getting very confused as I can't seem to find the full report (not the 11 page RSPCA response) anywhere, all the links on this post take me to the response, search of RSPCA website brings up only their response, google hasn't found it and links from other online articles all take me to the response.  Has the RSPCA taken the full report off their website leaving only their response in the public domain????


----------



## Fenris (2 October 2014)

joycec said:



			How old is that report? It reads like it's ancient, certainly some of it is no longer correct.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is old.  How much of the attitudes do you think have changed?


----------



## joycec (2 October 2014)

Fenris said:



			Yes it is old.  How much of the attitudes do you think have changed?
		
Click to expand...

Massively. No Magistrates automatically believe police officers in court any longer. Look at the paedophile teacher who killed himself. The JPs wouldn't sign the search warrant. They are also fully aware of the need for a guilty verdict to be beyond reasonable doubt. And clerks now do have to be legally qualified. Those are just the ones that struck me from a brief glimpse, I could probably find more.

Magistrate selection and training changed beyond recognition, as did sentencing guidelines, since that report was written.


----------



## Fenris (2 October 2014)

joycec said:



			Massively. No Magistrates automatically believe police officers in court any longer. Look at the paedophile teacher who killed himself. The JPs wouldn't sign the search warrant. They are also fully aware of the need for a guilty verdict to be beyond reasonable doubt. And clerks now do have to be legally qualified. Those are just the ones that struck me from a brief glimpse, I could probably find more.

Magistrate selection and training changed beyond recognition, as did sentencing guidelines, since that report was written.
		
Click to expand...

Take a look at the Shg submission to the Wooler Inquiry.  

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

The courts are not a sufficient safeguard.


----------



## ester (2 October 2014)

I'm still getting the full report full code is:


to stop hho adding url thingys-http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf- ends here


----------



## joycec (2 October 2014)

Fenris said:



			Take a look at the Shg submission to the Wooler Inquiry.  

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

The courts are not a sufficient safeguard.
		
Click to expand...

I am not happy that a charity has become the animal police.

I am also not happy about the widespread illegal hunting of fox and the difficulty and expense of prosecuting those who are ignoring the hunting law, bringing the law in general into disrepute and showing contempt for the will of Parliament.


----------



## TrasaM (2 October 2014)

joycec said:



			I am not happy that a charity has become the animal police.

I am also not happy about the widespread illegal hunting of fox and the difficulty and expense of prosecuting those who are ignoring the hunting law, bringing the law in general into disrepute and showing contempt for the will of Parliament.
		
Click to expand...

Agree. How ridiculous is it to make animal mistreatment a criminal offence and then have a charitable origination policing it and responsible for prosecuting offenders. No wonder the whole thing is a farce.


----------



## Goldenstar (3 October 2014)

TrasaM said:



			Agree. How ridiculous is it to make animal mistreatment a criminal offence and then have a charitable origination policing it and responsible for prosecuting offenders. No wonder the whole thing is a farce.
		
Click to expand...

It is and it's wrong .
It's the duty of the state to do this .
The CPC decides to take forward a prosecution based on the many thing part of which is the case in the public interest one of things considered is the cost of bringing the case.
The RSPCA can take forward a case based on whatever it likes .
It's not a good situation for the public the RSPCA or the law.


----------



## Alec Swan (3 October 2014)

joycec said:



			..

I am also not happy about the widespread illegal hunting of fox and the difficulty and expense of prosecuting those who are ignoring the hunting law, bringing the law in general into disrepute and showing contempt for the will of Parliament.
		
Click to expand...

How do you feel about British troops being sent out to invade other countries and in to wars which are none of our concern?  How to you feel about Guantanamo Bay and the inmates,  just about all of whom have never been charged with any offence,  and how do you feel about OUR collusion in Operation Rendition and did you and do you agree with the decisions of Parliament?  If you don't agree with Parliament,  did you feel strongly enough to march on London and voice your protest?

The CLA and many of its members marched on London to protest at the curtailing of our civil liberties and the removal of our freedom of choice.  Parliament didn't listen and still won't.  There's nothing that we can do about the decision made which takes us to war,  but there is against an unjust and a perceived class centred law.  We ignore it.  It's called civil disobedience.  There's nothing that we can do to prevent our troops being sent to foreign lands,  but there is about biased and deceitful legislation.

Those who've brought the Law in to disrepute are those who used it to curtail the rights and the freedoms of the everyday man.  The Law,  in the case of hunting is unworkable and largely unenforceable,  and that's because Society,  in general has no appetite to pursue those who resent having their freedoms curtailed for no other reason than to appease a few crack-pots.

Alec.


----------



## joycec (3 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			How do you feel about British troops being sent out to invade other countries and in to wars which are none of our concern?  How to you feel about Guantanamo Bay and the inmates,  just about all of whom have never been charged with any offence,  and how do you feel about OUR collusion in Operation Rendition and did you and do you agree with the decisions of Parliament?  If you don't agree with Parliament,  did you feel strongly enough to march on London and voice your protest?

The CLA and many of its members marched on London to protest at the curtailing of our civil liberties and the removal of our freedom of choice.  Parliament didn't listen and still won't.  There's nothing that we can do about the decision made which takes us to war,  but there is against an unjust and a perceived class centred law.  We ignore it.  It's called civil disobedience.  There's nothing that we can do to prevent our troops being sent to foreign lands,  but there is about biased and deceitful legislation.

Those who've brought the Law in to disrepute are those who used it to curtail the rights and the freedoms of the everyday man.  The Law,  in the case of hunting is unworkable and largely unenforceable,  and that's because Society,  in general has no appetite to pursue those who resent having their freedoms curtailed for no other reason than to appease a few crack-pots.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


No, Alec, we live in a democracy. Not everyone gets what they want.  You cannot pick and choose what laws you are going to abide by and what laws you are not.

Well you can, but it is completely unreasonable to complain about being prosecuted if you do and are caught.

You insult millions of people who disagree with hunting fox with hounds followed by a group of riders on horses by calling them crack pots.


----------



## Alec Swan (3 October 2014)

joycec said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

You insult millions of people who disagree with hunting fox with hounds followed by a group of riders on horses by calling them crack pots.
		
Click to expand...

Tough.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (3 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			an [perceived] unjust and a perceived class centred law. We ignore it. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...



I am  pleased that you are finally admitting that illegal hunting is widely happening. Now perhaps all the people who have accused me of lying about it every time I have posted saying it is happening will apologise?

And pigs might fly.


----------



## Alec Swan (3 October 2014)

The use of the word 'We' was as one might be a Royal!  I speak only for myself,  and not for others.  I'm also none too sure that others have accused you of lying,  being consistently mistaken and refusing to accept reason,  possibly,  but not lying.

Alec.


----------



## Penny Less (3 October 2014)

Teadrinker, the RSPCA stands for Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to  ANIMALS, not PETS. Do you truly believe that wild animals should not have protection from the cruelty of humans ?


----------



## TrasaM (3 October 2014)

It's the insistence that they are providing a public service in ridding the world of foxes that gets to me! 
CPT. I had a very scary time last week as I found myself trying to get past the hounds who were in a copse alongside the footpath and I was directly in their path. 
I had both dogs with me and could hear the whips cracking. I admit that I panicked. I guess they were hunting fog!


----------



## honetpot (3 October 2014)

Whilst foxhunting is illegal anyone can bring a prosecution against the anyone they think is carrying out that activity. The RSPCA think foxhunting is cruel , but in the scale of things there very few people that carry it out yet they continue to spend large amounts of money on it, yet there is far more every cruelty and lack of animal care that goes on that the RSPCA says they can do nothing about.
  In their title they are founded to prevent cruelty, so why are they not spending more of their funds on education, monitoring and promotion of farm welfare standards and feeding starving animals who ever they belong too? The CPS has to justify what its spends and how it spends it, it is accountable to us, they are paid out of the public purse. The RSPCA is funded by donations which from the advertising they use comes from people wanting them to look after starving dogs and the I suggest the average donor has no idea how it is spent and has little power in any case to direct spending. Perhaps the charities commission will finally call them to account.

 Whilst the RSPCA is a charity it is also a business, it has a large staff which want to be paid and were ever you get an unaccountable business with a lack of scrutiny you get  middle management and upper management empire building and I am afraid I always look at these headline cases and wonder who is up for adding to their unit, up for promotion, adding to their CV and looking for the next job. Yes I am a cynic, but you only have to look at scandals in public office to see that people who start off with the best intentions can often be misdirected.


----------



## Centauress (3 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			My thoughts are that people should read the entire report, before ending up red faced from relying on information from a deeply flawed and biased newspaper, which has a political agenda of it's own. ;-)
		
Click to expand...

And My Thoughts Moomin is That You Should Stop Being SO Rude to People!


----------



## honetpot (3 October 2014)

For people with time on their hands, this is the link to the full report off the RSPCA website in a pdf format.
http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf


----------



## honetpot (3 October 2014)

honetpot said:



			For people with time on their hands, this is the link to the full report off the RSPCA website in a pdf format.
http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf

Click to expand...

 I have quickly skimmed read it but its seems to raise some of the points that lots of us have thought should be addressed.


----------



## Moomin1 (3 October 2014)

Centauress said:



			And My Thoughts Moomin is That You Should Stop Being SO Rude to People!
		
Click to expand...

HAHA!  How on earth is that quote remotely rude?


----------



## Centauress (3 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			HAHA!  How on earth is that quote remotely rude?
		
Click to expand...

You are Rude in General....

What about That Thread about the Owner Asking if She thought Her Pony? Was Overweight and You Put Yes Disgusting... 

And You have Been Rude to Me before when asking Questions about My Book......


----------



## Moomin1 (3 October 2014)

Centauress said:



			You are Rude in General....

What about That Thread about the Owner Asking if She thought Her Pony? Was Overweight and You Put Yes Disgusting... 

And You have Been Rude to Me before when asking Questions about My Book......
		
Click to expand...

Err, have no idea what you are on about.


----------



## Centauress (3 October 2014)

This One...

https://forums-secure.horseandhound...good-enough-to-show&highlight=Shetland+Ponies


----------



## Moomin1 (3 October 2014)

Centauress said:



			This One...

https://forums-secure.horseandhound...good-enough-to-show&highlight=Shetland+Ponies

Click to expand...

Oh yes, that one.  It was disgustingly obese.


----------



## Goldenstar (3 October 2014)

Evening all, having fun ?


----------



## Luci07 (4 October 2014)

I am going to toddle off to find and read both links.. While no great fan of the Daily Mail, the actual article surprisingly, seemed well balanced.

Lots of conversation about the Heythrop. I can't find the thread but I am sure I read on here, from someone who knew the men concerned, that they eventually opted to plead guilty because they would have been personally liable for all costs had they lost. These are men on pretty low salaries. 

I want the RSPCA to go back to being the charity it used to be. It's all too hit and miss and when I see their ads now, the sceptic in me is wondering how much of the donations go to where they should.


----------



## Centauress (4 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			Oh yes, that one.  It was disgustingly obese.
		
Click to expand...

I REST My Case!


----------



## millikins (4 October 2014)

I can think of no other situation in this country where the police tolerate vigilante groups enforcing the law. That though is what hunt "monitors" are. The majority of hunts are obeying the law, hence the tiny number of successful prosecutions, thus large numbers of law abiding people are having their activities disrupted and being intimidated by balaclava wearing, unidentifiable activists. In what other walk of life would this be acceptable?


----------



## Alec Swan (5 October 2014)

millikins said:



			I can think of no other situation in this country where the police tolerate vigilante groups enforcing the law. That though is what hunt "monitors" are. The majority of hunts are obeying the law, hence the tiny number of successful prosecutions, thus large numbers of law abiding people are having their activities disrupted and being intimidated by balaclava wearing, unidentifiable activists. In what other walk of life would this be acceptable?
		
Click to expand...

An interesting point.  I also wonder how Courts accept evidence which has been obtained by trespass and with only the corroboration of what generally appears to be a baying mob.  Almost one pack pursuing another,  it seems!!

There was also a programme on the telly the other night which centred around a guy who was obtaining evidence of paedophiles,  and the Police were at the stage or writing to him and attempting to dissuade him from his path.  Strange that!  Perhaps it shows how seriously the Police and the Courts take the 'crime' of hunting,  when offered up against the far more serious aspects of their work.

Alec.


----------



## joycec (5 October 2014)

I don't know why you put crime in inverted commas Alec. Illegal hunting is a criminal offence, full stop.

I think we'd all be upset if the Police put equal resources into stopping hunting as they do into stopping paedophiles. The same is true for many other offences, which are only prosecuted if they happen to be seen.

That doesn't make it right for you to choose to break the law.


----------



## joycec (5 October 2014)

millikins said:



			I can think of no other situation in this country where the police tolerate vigilante groups enforcing the law. That though is what hunt "monitors" are. The majority of hunts are obeying the law, hence the tiny number of successful prosecutions, thus large numbers of law abiding people are having their activities disrupted and being intimidated by balaclava wearing, unidentifiable activists. In what other walk of life would this be acceptable?
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if your own hunt is genuinely hunting within the law and your sport is being disrupted.

But the report makes it clear that the law is widely being flouted, and uses the expression 'business as usual'.

Since this is happening, then I can understand why you are being targeted, and I think your solution is the same as a football club or night club which attracts unwanted behaviour, to arrange your own stewarding and pay for a Police  presence.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect the Police to put the resources into protecting your minority sport when as Alec points out, there are paedophiles to be caught.


----------



## Alec Swan (5 October 2014)

joycec said:



			..

That does not make it right for you to choose to break the law.
		
Click to expand...

Are you old enough to remember when the large Chain-Stores decided to 'Test' the Sunday Trading Laws,  and in direct contravention of the said Law,  opened their doors on a Sunday?  Were there any repercussions?  Were there any prosecutions?  A ridiculous Law was 'Tested' and found to be wanting.  Were it not for a minority of rabid antis,  then the Courts and those who police this country would be equally disregarding of the 'crime' in question.

It's a Law with which I don't agree and so I ignore it.  Right,  I have things to do before I whip my pack in to shape,  and go and draw the wood at the top of our lane!

Alec.


----------



## millikins (5 October 2014)

joycec said:



			I'm sorry if your own hunt is genuinely hunting within the law and your sport is being disrupted.

But the report makes it clear that the law is widely being flouted, and uses the expression 'business as usual'.

Since this is happening, then I can understand why you are being targeted, and I think your solution is the same as a football club or night club which attracts unwanted behaviour, to arrange your own stewarding and pay for a Police  presence.
At no point did I say that I either hunt, consider it sport or belong to a hunt, please do not make assumptions. The Government was warned by all enforcing authorities that the law against hunting was pretty much unenforcible yet continued to railroad bad legislation through Parliament using the Guillotine Act. It is not acceptable to harass large numbers of probably law abiding citizens in the hope of catching them doing something wrong, by people without accountability and with no identification. There are a lot of dodgy second hand car salesmen, that wouldn't make it o.k to photograph, trespass on property, intimidate every second hand car salesman in order to find a wrong 'un. If it is the law of the land, it should be enforced by a recognisable, accountable body, be that the Police or i.d. carrying RSPCA inspectors, if that is not possible, the law needs review or repeal.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## joycec (5 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Are you old enough to remember when the large Chain-Stores decided to 'Test' the Sunday Trading Laws,  and in direct contravention of the said Law,  opened their doors on a Sunday?  Were there any repercussions?  Were there any prosecutions?  A ridiculous Law was 'Tested' and found to be wanting.  Were it not for a minority of rabid antis,  then the Courts and those who police this country would be equally disregarding of the 'crime' in question.

It's a Law with which I don't agree and so I ignore it.  Right,  I have things to do before I whip my pack in to shape,  and go and draw the wood at the top of our lane!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


No, I don't remember that. But I don't see how one day of action during which no animal or human was harmed compares with hunting week after week through the autumn, winter and spring. 

If it happened, it was done to show the support of the public for Sunday opening as part of a decades long campaign to have the law changed. The shops still want complete liberalisation of Sunday trading hours, but they respect the law while they lobby to achieve that.

Fox hunters should be acting to get the law changed if you can, not routinely breaking it.  As part of that, it will help if you can show that millions of the public actively support you in that aim, as those shops did. But you can't. Because they don't. And furthermore, in spite of the fact that you persistently dismiss their views, millions of the public are actively AGAINST you breaking this law.

Your signature at the bottom of your post is really funny Alec. What I wish for you when you eventually pop your clogs is to spend a period in a place where everyone only obeys the laws they want to obey.


----------



## joycec (5 October 2014)

millikins said:





joycec said:



			I'm sorry if your own hunt is genuinely hunting within the law and your sport is being disrupted.

But the report makes it clear that the law is widely being flouted, and uses the expression 'business as usual'.

Since this is happening, then I can understand why you are being targeted, and I think your solution is the same as a football club or night club which attracts unwanted behaviour, to arrange your own stewarding and pay for a Police  presence.
At no point did I say that I either hunt, consider it sport or belong to a hunt, please do not make assumptions. The Government was warned by all enforcing authorities that the law against hunting was pretty much unenforcible yet continued to railroad bad legislation through Parliament using the Guillotine Act. It is not acceptable to harass large numbers of probably law abiding citizens in the hope of catching them doing something wrong, by people without accountability and with no identification. There are a lot of dodgy second hand car salesmen, that wouldn't make it o.k to photograph, trespass on property, intimidate every second hand car salesman in order to find a wrong 'un. If it is the law of the land, it should be enforced by a recognisable, accountable body, be that the Police or i.d. carrying RSPCA inspectors, if that is not possible, the law needs review or repeal.
		
Click to expand...



Is the law against using a mobile phone at the wheel wrong because it is largely unenforceable?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (5 October 2014)

joycec said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. What I wish for you when you eventually pop your clogs is to spend a period in a place where everyone only obeys the laws they want to obey.
		
Click to expand...

"Heaven will be what me most love on earth",  someone once said.  Quite clearly,  I'm already in paradise!

The signature is a reflection upon my once-upon-a-time struggle to understand women.  I'll admit that as others,  I've rather given up.  They are,  I'm sure that you'll agree,  rather strange creatures.  I've done my best with them,  and I've tried,  trust me there have been countless attempts,  but I've yet to meet one which could be considered to be normal.

'The shops still want complete liberalisation of Sunday trading hours, but they respect the law while they lobby to achieve that'.  Your words,  not mine.  How is 'Testing the Law'  by breaking it,  showing respect?

Alec.


----------



## joycec (5 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:
			
		


			.

'The shops still want complete liberalisation of Sunday trading hours, but they respect the law while they lobby to achieve that'.  Your words,  not mine.  How is 'Testing the Law'  by breaking it,  showing respect?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It isn't. The reference to respecting the law was to the current day. In addition,  it was a one off, not a week after week breaking of the law.It does not compare, as you tried to make it,  with the wilful refusal to stop fox hunting, a law whose principles are supported by millions in this country.


----------



## Lizzie66 (5 October 2014)

joycec said:



			It isn't. The reference to respecting the law was to the current day. In addition,  it was a one off, not a week after week breaking of the law.It does not compare, as you tried to make it,  with the wilful refusal to stop fox hunting, a law whose principles are supported by millions in this country.
		
Click to expand...

There are at least as many in favour of it that oppose it, with the significant majority being pretty much not bothered either way. However despite the report saying the evidence reviewed shows the law is largely ignored there is actually very little evidence to support this. There might be a lot of anecdotal opinions from the likes of LACS, POWA who are biased in the extreme and who did contribute to the report, I would like to see what actual evidence there is to say the hunts are regularly breaking the law. They are doing there best to stay within the ridiculousness that is this law.


----------



## millikins (5 October 2014)

joycec said:





millikins said:



			Is the law against using a mobile phone at the wheel wrong because it is largely unenforceable?
		
Click to expand...

But it isn't unenforcable. The POLICE stop and fine those that are seen and phone records are checked in any accident and insurance is invalid if phone was in use.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## millikins (5 October 2014)

The smoking ban is more relevant. That is almost impossible to police, it only works because smokers are prepared to comply with it probably not because of fear of the consequences but because most smokers are pleased with anything that makes them smoke a bit less.


----------



## Alec Swan (5 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

'The shops still want complete liberalisation of Sunday trading hours, but they respect the law while they lobby to achieve that'.  Your words,  not mine.  How is 'Testing the Law'  by breaking it,  showing respect?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...




joycec said:



			It isn't. The reference to respecting the law was to the current day. In addition,  it was a one off, not a week after week breaking of the law.It does not compare, as you tried to make it,  with the wilful refusal to stop fox hunting, a law whose principles are supported by millions in this country.
		
Click to expand...

Ah,  Now I'm starting to understand.  So breaking the Law 'then'  was a more acceptable practice than it would be now?  Further,  so you think that a 'one off' disregard for the Law is acceptable,  but that the current practice isn't acceptable.

I'm sorry joycec,  but you have a curious form of logic. 

Alec.


----------



## joycec (5 October 2014)

millikins said:



			But it isn't unenforcable. The POLICE stop and fine those that are seen and phone records aresoughtied in any accident and insurance is invalid if phone was in use.
		
Click to expand...


It was largely unenforceable because there had to be an accident or they had to be seen by the police. 

You know as well as I do, if you have sight, that there is a widespread disregard for the law by more people than are illegally hunting fox. On Alec' s rules, that means that law should be repealed.

At the moment, increasing numbers of prosecutions of mobile phone usage are taking place using evidence from car and cycle and passer by cameras - vigilantes, in other words. Why should fox hunting not be be policed the same way?


----------



## joycec (5 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Ah,  Now I'm starting to understand.  So breaking the Law 'then'  was a more acceptable practice than it would be now?  Further,  so you think that a 'one off' disregard for the Law is acceptable,  but that the current practice isn't acceptable.

I'm sorry joycec,  but you have a curious form of logic. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


I said that it wasn't comparable, not that it was acceptable.


----------



## millikins (5 October 2014)

joycec said:



			It was largely unenforceable because there had to be an accident or they had to be seen by the police. 

You know as well as I do, if you have sight, that there is a widespread disregard for the law by more people than are illegally hunting fox. On Alec' s rules, that means that law should be repealed.

At the moment, increasing numbers of prosecutions of mobile phone usage are taking place using evidence from car and cycle and passer 
by cameras - vigilantes, in other words. Why should fox hunting not be be policed the same way?
		
Click to expand...

Is there? I was unaware of that. I thought you just told us it was unenforceable.


----------



## RunToEarth (20 October 2014)

Centauress said:



			You are Rude in General....

What about That Thread about the Owner Asking if She thought Her Pony? Was Overweight and You Put Yes Disgusting... 

And You have Been Rude to Me before when asking Questions about My Book......
		
Click to expand...

Completely off topic but can I just ask why you have randomly capitalised words in your post? It actually makes it quite difficult to read?


----------



## Centauress (20 October 2014)

RunToEarth said:



			Completely off topic but can I just ask why you have randomly capitalised words in your post? It actually makes it quite difficult to read?
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't Look Right as I'm Dislexic... If that makes Sense....


----------



## Regandal (22 October 2014)

Centauress said:



			Doesn't Look Right as I'm Dislexic... If that makes Sense....
		
Click to expand...

That's ok.   Capitals in random places don't bother me.  It's the flippen !!!! that get put in!   after every 3 words!  It's driving me mad!  Why do people do this!  Arrrrrgh!     Sorry OP.


----------



## Alec Swan (9 November 2014)

Centauress said:



			Doesn't Look Right as I'm Dislexic... If that makes Sense....
		
Click to expand...

That mikes prefect snees,  think you.

Alec.


----------



## FairyLights (21 November 2014)

OL Alec. 
hee-hee


----------



## FairyLights (21 November 2014)

I havent read all the thread but I'm very pleased that the RSPCA have been told to stop prosecuting hunts, time to repeal the Act!


----------



## Alec Swan (21 November 2014)

Horsesforever1 said:



			I havent read all the thread but I'm very pleased that the RSPCA have been told to stop **'prosecuting'** hunts, time to repeal the Act!
		
Click to expand...

Not being picky,  but the word used is 'persecuting'.  There's a subtle distinction!  That said,  I agree with you,  those who would concentrate on those who Hunt seem,  to me anyway,  to be focused on the criminal,  rather than the crime.  The rspca could better spend their gifted monies on the Prevention of Cruelty,  rather than hounding those who,  in reality,  contribute more to the welfare of our wildlife,  certainly than the previously august charity,  who seem to have rather lost their way.

Alec.


----------

