# Petition to curb RSPCA prosecutions



## Fenris (6 January 2016)

The SHG has detailed how the RSPCA could be prevented from prosecuting 

https://shgpressreleases.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/rspca-says-business-as-usual/

Please sign and share if you agree that the RSPCA should be brought under control.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/109469

Remove the prosecution rights of the RSPCA

At the moment the RSPCA abuse their position to seize and prosecute innocent and vulnerable owners of animals, leading to extortionate costs. A number of these convictions are made on the evidence of lies by the RSPCA. It is wrong for the same organisation to investigate and prosecute.

To get a fair trial of the accused it would be better for the Crown Prosecution Services to take any prosecution forward


----------



## Yertis (6 January 2016)

Done


----------



## webble (6 January 2016)

No sorry I think they do a good job in general


----------



## planete (6 January 2016)

This is not about the good job they do in general though is it?  It is about them using their resources to carry on doing a good job rescuing but not wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on dubious court cases.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (6 January 2016)

No, will not sign. A court of law will decide if a case is dubious or not, not the general public.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (6 January 2016)

ChesnutsRoasting said:



			No, will not sign. A court of law will decide if a case is dubious or not, not the general public.
		
Click to expand...

And to add, the RSPCA are not perfect & some of their actions may be questionable but to wish to curb their powers to prosecute alleged perpetrators of cruelty &neglect is a step backwards for animal rights.


----------



## catroo (6 January 2016)

Sorry but no I wont sign

I dont agree with everything they do but regarding prosecutions, the fault lies with the government. They have handed over responsibility to a charity, they could quite easily take that responsibility back.

But that means tax payers footing the bill . . .


----------



## popsdosh (6 January 2016)

catroo said:



			Sorry but no I wont sign

I dont agree with everything they do but regarding prosecutions, the fault lies with the government. They have handed over responsibility to a charity, they could quite easily take that responsibility back.

But that means tax payers footing the bill . . .
		
Click to expand...

Its nothing to do with the government delegating them powers to prosecute ,they actually lobby hard to keep them so ask yourself why?
When the RSPCA prosecute a case the costs that are claimed back from defendants are so extortionate that it is a money raising activity for them . A lot of defendants in high profile cases are to frightened to fight the case as they risk losing their homes etc which is not normal in criminal cases.  The sooner the CPS takes back responsibility for prosecutions the better,it does not mean animals suffer more just there will be some checks and balances in the system to control the excesses. If you analyse a list of cases taken on by the RSPCA why is it scewed towards cases that have a political leaning than actual cases of cruelty.


----------



## popsdosh (6 January 2016)

ChesnutsRoasting said:



			And to add, the RSPCA are not perfect & some of their actions may be questionable but to wish to curb their powers to prosecute alleged perpetrators of cruelty &neglect is a step backwards for animal rights.
		
Click to expand...

Nobody wants to stop the perpetrators of cruelty being brought to justice , If they gather the evidence the CPS would then decide on prosecution that seems to work quite well with the rest of the legal system were the police or other agencies investigate illegal activity.


----------



## honetpot (6 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Nobody wants to stop the perpetrators of cruelty being brought to justice , If they gather the evidence the CPS would then decide on prosecution that seems to work quite well with the rest of the legal system were the police or other agencies investigate illegal activity.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly


----------



## Goldenstar (7 January 2016)

I have signed because  I think it's ridiculous that a charity is doing what the state should be doing .
Its bad for animal welfare which is shunted into a backwater as ' the RSPCA deals with that ' it bad for the RSPCA which is in an almighty mess and it's bad for the state which does not have to have any form of sensible policy for dealing with animal welfare .
Let the police investigate and the CPS prosecute .
It's wrong that the only route to justice in these cases is through a charity with it's own agenda .


----------



## chillipup (7 January 2016)

I will not be signing. There is already to be an investigation into the RSPCA by the Commons Select Committee, I will await their findings.

At the risk of repeating myself again, I list the following facts.

*Fact 1.* Everyone in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution against someone they believe has committed an offence. Section 6 (1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.            

This dates back to a time when laws were first introduced in the early 1820s. Your local Council, Trading Standards, Animal Health Officers Television Licensing, all do their own investigations and take private prosecutions to court, as do many other agencies, companies, and private individuals, not just the RSPCA. No one has to lobby the government for permission to do this. Everyone including you and I could bring a prosecution. It is law.            

*Fact 2.*  The CPS has never taken RSPCA prosecutions.

(Therefore CPS cannot take back the responsibility if they never had it in the first place)The Police submit their investigations to CPS. Other agencies investigate and bring their own prosecutions.         

*Fact 3.* The award of costs in any Court case is at the discretion of the Court. (Not the prosecution)

Costs are always applied for in most cases, including CPS cases, prior to the defence stating any mitigating circumstances. It would be an unprecedented decision for any court to award such costs as to make a defendant lose their home in an RSPCA prosecution. 

*Fact 4.* If you were to analyse each and every one of the prosecution cases brought by the Rspca, in any given year, you clearly see the vast majority of cases *are* taken for animal cruelty offences committed under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (or prior, the Protection of Animals Act 1911) and *none* show any political bias.


Does anyone truly believe the Police have the manpower, time, finances or even knowledge of animal law/animal welfare (without further training) to take over the role of the RSPCA and investigate over 150,000 complaints of animal cruelty annually? Especially when their budget is being cut year on year. Good grief, the poor beggars are battling on a daily basis in an attempt to stay ahead of the game, how on earth are they expected to take on even more, with even less?...


----------



## Sussexbythesea (7 January 2016)

I agree with you Chillipup. I won't be signing. Whilst they are not perfect there is currently nothing else. I suspect most of the non-supporters have their own agendas mainly about hunting and frankly I think it's disgusting that that should be used as a reason to undermine the only organisation that has the means and balls to prosecute. It's still our legal system that decides who is found guilty and what the punishment should be.


----------



## JillA (7 January 2016)

This is really a bad cause for the reasons stated above. A better one would be to open them to more scrutiny (other than the Charity Commissioners who have a limited remit) and feedback. I haven't checked recently but a couple of years ago there was absolutely no way of feeding back to them how we, the donating public, think they are performing, and flagging up when they have got it wrong.
They prosecuted a couple who left several morbidly obese horses crippled with laminits near here and the other thing is the penalties for genuine cruelty/neglect cases are woefully inadequate. A few years ban from keeping horses and a derisory fine was all, although it was well publicised and their reputations suffered.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

chillipup said:



			I will not be signing. There is already to be an investigation into the RSPCA by the Commons Select Committee, I will await their findings.

At the risk of repeating myself again, I list the following facts.

*Fact 1.* Everyone in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution against someone they believe has committed an offence. Section 6 (1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.            

This dates back to a time when laws were first introduced in the early 1820s. Your local Council, Trading Standards, Animal Health Officers Television Licensing, all do their own investigations and take private prosecutions to court, as do many other agencies, companies, and private individuals, not just the RSPCA. No one has to lobby the government for permission to do this. Everyone including you and I could bring a prosecution. It is law.            

*Fact 2.*  The CPS has never taken RSPCA prosecutions.

(Therefore CPS cannot take back the responsibility if they never had it in the first place)The Police submit their investigations to CPS. Other agencies investigate and bring their own prosecutions.         

*Fact 3.* The award of costs in any Court case is at the discretion of the Court. (Not the prosecution)

Costs are always applied for in most cases, including CPS cases, prior to the defence stating any mitigating circumstances. It would be an unprecedented decision for any court to award such costs as to make a defendant lose their home in an RSPCA prosecution. 

*Fact 4.* If you were to analyse each and every one of the prosecution cases brought by the Rspca, in any given year, you clearly see the vast majority of cases *are* taken for animal cruelty offences committed under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (or prior, the Protection of Animals Act 1911) and *none* show any political bias.


Does anyone truly believe the Police have the manpower, time, finances or even knowledge of animal law/animal welfare (without further training) to take over the role of the RSPCA and investigate over 150,000 complaints of animal cruelty annually? Especially when their budget is being cut year on year. Good grief, the poor beggars are battling on a daily basis in an attempt to stay ahead of the game, how on earth are they expected to take on even more, with even less?...
		
Click to expand...

I agree with absolutely every word of your argument chillipup.

BUT I have signed because I want the Commons Select Committee to understand the strength of feeling about some of the recent behaviours of the RSPCA, because I do believe that it is beginning to act unfairly and I want that to stop.  It is wrong that a charity became the animal police in this country, and although you are right that it can't be changed because of what it would cost, I want the Commons Select Committee to look very seriously at how it might be possible to separate investigation from prosecution, as with the vast majority of other criminal prosecution on this country.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Its nothing to do with the government delegating them powers to prosecute ,they actually lobby hard to keep them so ask yourself why?
When the RSPCA prosecute a case the costs that are claimed back from defendants are so extortionate that it is a money raising activity for them . A lot of defendants in high profile cases are to frightened to fight the case as they risk losing their homes etc which is not normal in criminal cases.
		
Click to expand...

This is absolutely untrue. Costs are always made proportionate to the ability to pay and often refused altogether. The treatment of costs in RSPCA cases is the same as in all criminal cases.



(With the exception of the new 'contribution to court running costs', which are nothing to do with the RSPCA)


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			If you analyse a list of cases taken on by the RSPCA why is it scewed towards cases that have a political leaning than actual cases of cruelty.
		
Click to expand...


It isn't.

Not even  by the slightest, teeniest, weeniest amount or the hugest gigantickest stretch of the imagination.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			It isn't.

Not even  by the slightest, teeniest, weeniest amount or the hugest gigantickest stretch of the imagination.
		
Click to expand...

Thats your opinion look at the facts ! Why do you think the commons are having to look at this .
And yes on the costs because RSPCA cases are treated as private prosecutions the costs are way out of line of those within the normal court system and legal aid is not so readily available to defendants in these cases.


----------



## zaminda (7 January 2016)

I would certainly like to see a charity ombudsman, and not just for the RSPCA, there have been some dubious little charities over the years, I seem to remember one getting to the point where all its horses needed rescuing?
I don't like seeing them prosecute either, there have been some very dubious cases. From people who have had dealings with them,, they are more threatening than the police. (please note not from personal experience, but I do know someone who they came to because of a neighbour dispute!)


----------



## minesadouble (7 January 2016)

And they the courts often do decide RSPCA cases are futile - usually by which point the RSPCA have have spent vast sums of money - money donated by people who thought they were helping animals - not to be thrown at some futile political court case. I've signed and know many many others who will too.

There is something rotten at the core of the RSPCA. I think the clinching factor for me was when it was revealed that they were taking legacies from people after assuring their pets a future then putting the animal in question to sleep. Not to mention the infamous case involving the Arabs where they were shot despite the offer of help from the AHS then claimed vast keep expenses for animals that were deceased. The actions of a despicable organisation.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (7 January 2016)

Who would protect animals & charge those suspected of cruelty if not the RSPCA? The police? They are in the midst of massive cutbacks both in money & workforce. My local station is due to close soon. The police are no longer responsible for strays so how on earth are they expected to protect the thousands of neglected animals in this country? It simply wouldn't work & even more animals would suffer.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ChesnutsRoasting said:



			Who would protect animals & charge those suspected of cruelty if not the RSPCA? The police? They are in the midst of massive cutbacks both in money & workforce. My local station is due to close soon. The police are no longer responsible for strays so how on earth are they expected to protect the thousands of neglected animals in this country? It simply wouldn't work & even more animals would suffer.
		
Click to expand...

By the way the RSPCA need the police to help them investigate cruelty anyhow as the RSPCA has no more powers than any other citizen in this country. IE they cannot enter your property uninvited, They still need a police officer and a search warrant. So two lots of resources are tied up! . They like to perpetuate the myth they have extra powers as it makes their job easier but in truth they dont . Also they have no powers to make you sign over animals to them .

Nobody is suggesting taking away their right to investigate but there needs to be a check in the system on prosecutions because whatever they say there is certainly a political cause to some of their more outlandish and expensive cases they very often fail but cost into hundreds of thousands that should be spent protecting animals. It was interesting after their last appearance before the commons committee I believe they said themselves they had no more plans for fresh prosecutions under the hunting act so perhaps the message has struck home at last.

I am talking as somebody who in the past has been involved in some of their dealings and one large high profile case in particular, the guys on the ground do the best they can but the whole organisation is driven by the PR dept perhaps they need to get back to putting animals first.


----------



## minesadouble (7 January 2016)

There isn't an easy answer, however I'm not sure prosecutions are the answer. I know of at least 3 people who have been banned from keeping horses who are continuing to keep them - so is there really much point in such instances? 
If I know 3 such people how many are there actually out there for whom prosecution has meant nothing?


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Thats your opinion look at the facts ! Why do you think the commons are having to look at this .
And yes on the costs because RSPCA cases are treated as private prosecutions the costs are way out of line of those within the normal court system and legal aid is not so readily available to defendants in these cases.
		
Click to expand...

My opinion happens to be the truth. Sometimes, the two coincide 

Give me your facts if you think prosecutions are are skewed towards political bias. Tell me which of the THOUSANDS of cases they took in the last two years were politically motivated. 98% of their prosecutions result in convictions by the same magistrates and juries who convict burglars.

Where's your evidence for your outrageous allegation popsdosh?


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

minesadouble said:



			And they the courts often do decide RSPCA cases are futile
		
Click to expand...

No, they don't. In all but two cases in one hundred the accused is convicted.

Please, people, there are problems, yes, but get this in perspective. You are judging only from the miniscule number of cases that make the media.

Those are absolutely swamped by proper prosecutions of people who starve, beat and otherwise mistreat their animals.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

minesadouble said:



			There isn't an easy answer, however I'm not sure prosecutions are the answer. I know of at least 3 people who have been banned from keeping horses who are continuing to keep them - so is there really much point in such instances? 
If I know 3 such people how many are there actually out there for whom prosecution has meant nothing?
		
Click to expand...


What was the rest of the sentence and how much in costs and victim surcharge did they pay? The banninIg order is only part of the sentence. A man local to me was brought back to court for breaching his banning order and was given a hefty sentence for it because at that point he was in contempt of a court order.

Have you reported these the people to the Police? Breach of a court order is usually taken seriously.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			No, they don't. In all but two cases in one hundred the accused is convicted.

Please, people, there are problems, yes, but get this in perspective. You are judging only from the miniscule number of cases that make the media.

Those are absolutely swamped by proper prosecutions of people who starve, beat and otherwise mistreat their animals.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe the ones that failed were the politically motivated ones which were made high profile by the PR machine and lost the RSPCA a lot of money and respect!
I dont need to cite cases to you surely the fact they have been hauled up in front of the commons committee and took to task should tell you something.Why did they come out afterwards and say they had no more plans to prosecute hunting act cases?
I have no issue with them dealing with true animal welfare but the politically motivated prosecutions are doing them damage and restricting their ability to go after the real abuse.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			I dont need to cite cases to you surely the fact they have been hauled up in front of the commons committee and took to task should tell you something.Why did they come out afterwards and say they had no more plans to prosecute hunting act cases?

I have no issue with them dealing with true animal welfare but the politically motivated prosecutions are doing them damage and restricting their ability to go after the real abuse.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that, except that I can't see why hunting prosecutions are described as politically motivated.  And the case that prompted the enquiry to be set up was the Arab one, not hunting, wasn't it?

And none of it justifies your previous claim that RSPCA prosecutions were skewed towards politically motivated ones and that true animal welfare cases were being ignored. There were over two thousand prosecutions in 2014, and how many of those do you class as 'politically motivated'?


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/court-refuses-to-allow-trainer-back-1058975



minesadouble said:



			There isn't an easy answer, however I'm not sure prosecutions are the answer. I know of at least 3 people who have been banned from keeping horses who are continuing to keep them - so is there really much point in such instances? 
If I know 3 such people how many are there actually out there for whom prosecution has meant nothing?
		
Click to expand...

Prosecution hardly meant nothing to this man.


----------



## fburton (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			They like to perpetuate the myth they have extra powers as it makes their job easier but in truth they dont .
		
Click to expand...

Do they have _any_ more powers than the ordinary citizen? Could you or I go round doing the things that the RSPCA does (if we had the resources)?


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

fburton said:



			Do they have _any_ more powers than the ordinary citizen? (no)

 Could you or I go round doing the things that the RSPCA does (if we had the resources)?
		
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			I agree with all of that, except that I can't see why hunting prosecutions are described as politically motivated.  And the care that prompted the enquiry to be set up was the Arab one, not hunting.

And none of it justifies your previous claim that RSPCA prosecutions were skewed towards politically motivated ones and that true animal welfare cases were being ignored. There were over two thousand prosecutions in 2014, and how many of those do you class as 'politically motivated'?
		
Click to expand...

If they are not politically motivated you have to question why is their Judgement so bad in taking on and prosecuting these cases as the failure to convict will account for most of the 2% where they did not get convictions . The conviction rate is little over 50% with cases costing up to £350K they have many times been criticised by judges for the disproportionate cost and the likely hood they had of conviction. So why if they are so successful in other cases are they pursuing some of these more questionable ones! Thats the question that makes you think maybe theres politics involved. One of the highest profile ones they took on was in the prime ministers constituency just after he had said they favoured a free vote on repeal of the hunting act or was that just a remarkable coincidence?? Why had they sat on the evidence so long surely true cases of cruelty should be prosecuted straight away.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

fburton said:



			Do they have _any_ more powers than the ordinary citizen? Could you or I go round doing the things that the RSPCA does (if we had the resources)?
		
Click to expand...

The thing is the RSPCA legally can do very little without the help of the Police. They just like you to believe they can . .To do their work they have to resort to b******t sometimes and that came from an inspector!
Can I just ask what do you perceive the 'things they can do' to be?
 They have no right of access to property, They have no right to remove animals !


----------



## windand rain (7 January 2016)

It is the misuse of funds that is the issue for me I will never donate to them because there are charities that use the money for the animals I too know of a very high profile cases where banned and very cruel people still have horses. Ponies starved to death, near death and overstocked. Hidden away under the pretext of loans and some pretty dubious behaviour with other animals too. The former owners desperate for news of their much loved ponies being fobbed off with nonsense  of appeal after appeal that because they are on benefits are never paid for just get the animals out of there and then let them fight appeals. I also feel that the Arab case was a dreadful indictment of their inability to behave in the animals best interest and the fact that they sell with no further comeback rescued animals. Their efforts would be much better served by investigating and bringing to another body the evidence of cruelty to prosecute so they truly were only responsible for the animals and have no chance of being accused of bully boy, holier than thou attitudes. They need a shake up to bring them into line with charity work and let the prosecutions be done by the government. Perhaps the money used for prosecution would be better put towards holding farms for those convicted and under appeal so the poor animals are at least safe.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			If they are not politically motivated you have to question why is their Judgement so bad in taking on and prosecuting these cases as the failure to convict will account for most of the 2% where they did not get convictions . The conviction rate is little over 50% with cases costing up to £350K they have many times been criticised by judges for the disproportionate cost and the likely hood they had of conviction. So why if they are so successful in other cases are they pursuing some of these more questionable ones! Thats the question that makes you think maybe theres politics involved. One of the highest profile ones they took on was in the prime ministers constituency just after he had said they favoured a free vote on repeal of the hunting act or was that just a remarkable coincidence?? Why had they sat on the evidence so long surely true cases of cruelty should be prosecuted straight away.
		
Click to expand...

No. Just no. 

They prosecuted over two thousand cases in 2014. Are you telling me that there were over forty cases motivated by politics?

Which ones?


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

I have signed simply for the reason that the RSPCA proceed with cases even when the CPS advise against it. As there is no legal aid for private prosecutions, people are effectively bullied into accepting a plea. If the high profile cases where people can afford to defend themselves, there appears to be a good proportion where the CPS were right in their judgement. 

I don't necessarily agree with removing the powers completely but I do believe the CPS should be able to say that the balance of evidence is insufficient and stop them proceeding. In a criminal case it is 'innocent until proven guilty', for a private case it is up to the defendant to disprove the evidence - if CPS has already deemed the case lacking in evidence, how is this fair?


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			No. Just no. 

They prosecuted over two thousand cases in 2014. Are you telling me that there were over forty cases motivated by politics?

Which ones?
		
Click to expand...

Some just wont see,just cant be bothered with arguments ! Are you questioning their conviction rate in those cases ? Why is that so different to their usual success rate? As you seem to know all the facts and figures please tell us all the cost per conviction in the hunting act cases and just for good measure the cost per conviction in their general welfare cases. 
Does that not concern you at all? Or make you question the motive behind pursuing them?


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

Can someone link me to an example of an unfair prosecution, please?


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

Can someone please explain why prosecuting hunts for killing fox is described as 'politically motivated'. Foxes are still being killed by hunts. The question is whether it is within the law (where hounds accidentally pick up a live quarry)  or not (where hounds are deliberate set on live quarry). British law has always been refined by taking test cases. I fail totally to see what 'politics' has got to do with these cases. I know people from all walks of life who support and who are against the hunting of fox by hounds.

I agree completely that there was disproportionate use of charitable funds. I agree also on the question of whether there is actually an animal welfare issue involved. But politics?


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Can someone please explain why prosecuting hunts for killing fox is described as 'politically motivated'. Foxes are still being killed by hunts. The question is whether it is within the law (where hounds accidentally pick up a live quarry)  or not (where hounds are deliberate set on live quarry). British law has always been refined by taking test cases. I fail totally to see what 'politics' has got to do with these cases. I know people from all walks of life who support and who are against the hunting of fox by hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. It is nothing to do with politics. Many conservative voters do not support illegal hunting where hounds are deliberately set on a fox.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			I have signed simply for the reason that the RSPCA proceed with cases even when the CPS advise against it. As there is no legal aid for private prosecutions, people are effectively bullied into accepting a plea. If the high profile cases where people can afford to defend themselves, there appears to be a good proportion where the CPS were right in their judgement. 

I don't necessarily agree with removing the powers completely but I do believe the CPS should be able to say that the balance of evidence is insufficient and stop them proceeding. In a criminal case it is 'innocent until proven guilty', for a private case it is up to the defendant to disprove the evidence - if CPS has already deemed the case lacking in evidence, how is this fair?
		
Click to expand...

Thank you you probably put it a lot better than I could a lot of the convictions they have got under the hunting act have been where the defendant has pleaded guilty because they were to frightened to fight the case or couldnt for financial reasons . It is not the same as a normal criminal case in that the burden of proof is shifted and the cost implications are huge.
Do people really think justice is done were defendants have to plead guilty because they are to frightened to lose everything financially when it has been shown that those that plead not guilty more often than not are acquitted but still have to shoulder huge financial cost in defending themselves.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			Can someone link me to an example of an unfair prosecution, please?
		
Click to expand...

Do you fancy standing in court knowing the only way you can keep your house and possessions is by pleading guilty to charges that probably wont result in conviction but still cripple you with the same outcome.
There is no legal aid available in these cases ,Do you call that Justice? 
This is why the CPS should be left to it as at least people will be within a fair system then. I am not saying they should not be prosecuted just more fairly !


----------



## pennyturner (7 January 2016)

There is a good reason for separating investigation (police) from prosecution (CPS)... in places where this isn't done the police become increasingly corrupt and self-serving.  The CPS act as a brake on such behaviour in our system.  Imaging if police received money directly from the prosecutions they initiated and directed... justice would go hang.

The RSPCA have no such control mechanism.

I won't sign, as like others, I don't think this process is the right one.   I do think governance and regulation of well funded organisations operating in a quasi-governmental capacity, with serious impact on our legal and political system (and I do not limit this to the RSPCA) need to be much stricter.  A good start would be:

Separation of conflicts of interest
Separate funding streams for operations, prosecution, lobbying and research and a ban on cross-funding.  It's a travesty that lobbying and prosecution are funded by donors who think they're saving cute puppies and sick babies.


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Do you fancy standing in court knowing the only way you can keep your house and possessions is by pleading guilty to charges that probably wont result in conviction but still cripple you with the same outcome.
There is no legal aid available in these cases ,Do you call that Justice? 
This is why the CPS should be left to it as at least people will be within a fair system then. I am not saying they should not be prosecuted just more fairly !
		
Click to expand...

Of course I don't. But then there is nothing that I do that could possibly land me in that situation. I asked for a link to an example of where this has happened because without knowing about it, I cannot comment on its fairness. The important question is 'Is the person GUILTY of animal cruelty, or committing an illegal act such as hunting a fox down intentionally with hounds?' If the answer is 'yes' does it really matter?


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Can someone please explain why prosecuting hunts for killing fox is described as 'politically motivated'. Foxes are still being killed by hunts. The question is whether it is within the law (where hounds accidentally pick up a live quarry)  or not (where hounds are deliberate set on live quarry). British law has always been refined by taking test cases. I fail totally to see what 'politics' has got to do with these cases. I know people from all walks of life who support and who are against the hunting of fox by hounds.

I agree completely that there was disproportionate use of charitable funds. I agree also on the question of whether there is actually an animal welfare issue involved. But politics?
		
Click to expand...

With respect how do you explain the Heythrop case then was it really a huge coincidence?


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			Of course I don't. But then there is nothing that I do that could possibly land me in that situation. I asked for a link to an example of where this has happened because without knowing about it, I cannot comment on its fairness. The important question is 'Is the person GUILTY of animal cruelty, or committing an illegal act such as hunting a fox down intentionally with hounds?' If the answer is 'yes' does it really matter?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps some of them did not think they were doing anything that could land them in that position.
Several of those who pleaded guilty would have been acquitted when you compare the conviction rate to those who could afford to defend themselves( often in the same court) is that a fair system of justice. 
Whats your problem with the CPS taking responsibility for these prosecutions? this is all we are really bickering about! At least it would be transparent then as they are accountable for their actions and scrutinised !


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Several of those who pleaded guilty would have been aquitted when you compare the conviction rate to those who could afford to defend themselves is that a fair system of justice. 
Whats your problem with the CPS taking responsibility for these prosecutions? this is all we are really bickering about! At least it would be transparent then as they are accountable for their actions and scrutinised !
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA is the only organisation that has the funds to successfully prosecute people breaking the law regarding animals. Yes, I think it is a shame that so much of their money is dedicated to this, but as they are the only organisation prepared to do it, then they have to make this stand IMO.  You seem to be arguing that people breaking this particular law should 'get off', which they would should it fall to the CPS. Of course many on here think that traditional hunting should not have been banned, but that is a completely different argument.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			The RSPCA is the only organisation that has the funds to successfully prosecute people breaking the law regarding animals. Yes, I think it is a shame that so much of their money is dedicated to this, but as they are the only organisation prepared to do it, then they have to make this stand IMO.  You seem to be arguing that people breaking this particular law should 'get off', which they would should it fall to the CPA. Of course many on here think that traditional hunting should not have been banned, but that is a completely different argument.
		
Click to expand...

Why would they get off if the CPS was prosecuting it or are you accusing them of being biassed.
No im not saying they should get off but have the same right to justice as any other criminal case. Which they dont. So as much as you hate hunting you think it is right that people are forced into pleading guilty to charges as they cannot afford not to, innocent or not ! I dont think you really understand the argument here! If they break whatever law they should be brought to justice. However justice is not served by people being forced into pleading guilty because its better than their family not having a roof over their head.Believe me this has happened and is happening!
Maybe we should campaign for legal aid in these cases and then see what the true conviction rate would be.It hasnt been very spectacular where people have defended the case.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			Of course I don't. But then there is nothing that I do that could possibly land me in that situation. I asked for a link to an example of where this has happened because without knowing about it, I cannot comment on its fairness. The important question is 'Is the person GUILTY of animal cruelty, or committing an illegal act such as hunting a fox down intentionally with hounds?' If the answer is 'yes' does it really matter?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I thought I wouldn't find myself in that situation either - yet I very nearly did. 
The first time the RSPCA investigated me was when a neighbour reported me for having an emaciated dog. My dog is thin - he's a saluki x greyhound and is lean as he is fit. The RSPCA officer generously allowed me to keep my dog as long as I took him to a vets and fed him more so he put some weight on. I strongly disagreed with his assessment as my dog is fed on a BARF diet and I do not believe in long dogs carrying excess weight - I paid lip service to his demands and carried on as I was. When he came to review my dog after 3 months I had moved house... What would have happened if my dog hadn't gained weight? Would he have been removed? Would I have been prosecuted - this is what the officer told me would happen if I didn't comply.

The second time was when someone reported me for abandoning my horses. The neighbour had never seen me visit and claimed the horses had no water - there was a bathtub at the far end of the field where the water supply coming from my house was. The neighbour tied thread around the field gate to prove that noise was entering the field - the gate that was padlocked as it opened onto the road. I used the gate near my back door and never had any reason to use that gate. That gate that the abandonment notice demanding I contact them within 48 hours was nailed to. The abandonment notice I didn't ever see. The locked gate that the RSPCA cut the lock to remove my horses. Fortunately I was actually in the field poo picking when they tried to do this! They waved a piece of paper in my face stating they had a right to remove the horses as I hadn't responded to their abandonment notice. I pointed out to the police officer that was accompanying them that the gate wasn't used (apart from a couple of times a year to allow tractor access) and that my horses were checked on daily and I could see them multiple times daily from my kitchen window. The police officer said to the RSPCA officers that they couldn't remove the horses and boy were they unhappy - there was talk about going through the courts as I hadn't responded to the notice. They demanded to come back in 3 months. Again I moved...

Somehow the RSPCA got hold of my phone number (presumably from the neighbour). When I told them that I was moving house and wouldn't give a forwarding address (I had sought legal advice by this point), they demanded I give them my forwarding address to allow them to do checks.

The house moves themselves were coincidental - it was just timing that I happened to be in the process of moving when the visits occurred but imagine the hounding I would have got if I hadn't moved? Would I have had my horses removed, would they have taken me to court? If they had taken me to court there is no way I would have been able to plead not guilty. I would have had to have too the plea and lost my horses.

So when you think that it won't happen to you - actually it might...

ETA - in answer to your last question of if they are guilty should it matter? If the CPS. Has already said their is insufficient evidence then yes it should. No one should be allowed to be prosecuted on flimsy evidence and here say - our legal system is respected worldwide and the RSPCA are making a mockery of it!


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			Yes I thought I wouldn't find myself in that situation either - yet I very nearly did. 
The first time the RSPCA investigated me was when a neighbour reported me for having an emaciated dog. My dog is thin - he's a saluki x greyhound and is lean as he is fit. The RSPCA officer generously allowed me to keep my dog as long as I took him to a vets and fed him more so he put some weight on. I strongly disagreed with his assessment as my dog is fed on a BARF diet and I do not believe in long dogs carrying excess weight - I paid lip service to his demands and carried on as I was. When he came to review my dog after 3 months I had moved house... What would have happened if my dog hadn't gained weight? Would he have been removed? Would I have been prosecuted - this is what the officer told me would happen if I didn't comply.

The second time was when someone reported me for abandoning my horses. The neighbour had never seen me visit and claimed the horses had no water - there was a bathtub at the far end of the field where the water supply coming from my house was. The neighbour tied thread around the field gate to prove that noise was entering the field - the gate that was padlocked as it opened onto the road. I used the gate near my back door and never had any reason to use that gate. That gate that the abandonment notice demanding I contact them within 48 hours was nailed to. The abandonment notice I didn't ever see. The locked gate that the RSPCA cut the lock to remove my horses. Fortunately I was actually in the field poo picking when they tried to do this! They waved a piece of paper in my face stating they had a right to remove the horses as I hadn't responded to their abandonment notice. I pointed out to the police officer that was accompanying them that the gate wasn't used (apart from a couple of times a year to allow tractor access) and that my horses were checked on daily and I could see them multiple times daily from my kitchen window. The police officer said to the RSPCA officers that they couldn't remove the horses and boy were they unhappy - there was talk about going through the courts as I hadn't responded to the notice. They demanded to come back in 3 months. Again I moved...

Somehow the RSPCA got hold of my phone number (presumably from the neighbour). When I told them that I was moving house and wouldn't give a forwarding address (I had sought legal advice by this point), they demanded I give them my forwarding address to allow them to do checks.

The house moves themselves were coincidental - it was just timing that I happened to be in the process of moving when the visits occurred but imagine the hounding I would have got if I hadn't moved? Would I have had my horses removed, would they have taken me to court? If they had taken me to court there is no way I would have been able to plead not guilty. I would have had to have too the plea and lost my horses.

So when you think that it won't happen to you - actually it might...

ETA - in answer to your last question of if they are guilty should it matter? If the CPS. Has already said their is insufficient evidence then yes it should. No one should be allowed to be prosecuted on flimsy evidence and here say - our legal system is respected worldwide and the RSPCA are making a mockery of it!
		
Click to expand...

I expect after legal advice you know they have no right of access to your property and they cannot remove animals unless you agree which you are not obliged to. They like to make you think they can but they cant its part of the bluff so you let them on to your property. Only police with a warrant can come onto your property without your consent and oddly enough HMRC and they dont need a warrant.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			I expect after legal advice you know they have no right of access to your property and they cannot remove animals unless you agree which you are not obliged to. They like to make you think they can but they cant its part of the bluff so you let them on to your property. Only police with a warrant can come onto your property without your consent and oddly enough HMRC and they dont need a warrant.
		
Click to expand...

They'd brought a police officer with them as the padlock needed removing (the hinges were upside down to prevent lifting). Fortunately the police officer was more sensible than the RSPCA officer. I have since found out (as issued an abandonment notice myself against a charity) that the notice needs to be placed on every entrance to the field to avoid it being missed - but this is only when it cannot be delivered in the property itself. Had they sought out the other gate their route would have taken them to my house where they would have every opportunity to direct their questions at me in person.


----------



## fburton (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Can I just ask what do you perceive the 'things they can do' to be?
 They have no right of access to property, They have no right to remove animals !
		
Click to expand...

I knew they have no right of access (unless 'invited'). What I had in mind was pressuring with threats of further action people who are suspected of wrongdoing, and issuing advice or warning notices.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

fburton said:



			I knew they have no right of access (unless 'invited'). What I had in mind was pressuring with threats of further action people who are suspected of wrongdoing, and issuing advice or warning notices.
		
Click to expand...

They can issue whatever they like but none have any legal teeth behind them. You do not have to talk to them even .


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			They'd brought a police officer with them as the padlock needed removing (the hinges were upside down to prevent lifting). Fortunately the police officer was more sensible than the RSPCA officer. I have since found out (as issued an abandonment notice myself against a charity) that the notice needs to be placed on every entrance to the field to avoid it being missed - but this is only when it cannot be delivered in the property itself. Had they sought out the other gate their route would have taken them to my house where they would have every opportunity to direct their questions at me in person.
		
Click to expand...

Did they have a warrant? As they cannot do that without. Even a police officer has no right to enter your property unless invited without one.

By the way they cannot issue an abandonment order only the land owner or there agent can, at least under the new laws.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Did they have a warrant? As they cannot do that without. Even a police officer has no right to enter your property unless invited without one.

By the way they cannot issue an abandonment order only the land owner or there agent can, at least under the new laws.
		
Click to expand...

The first question - it never got as far as me finding out if the police officer had a warrant although I assume if they were cutting my lock they did? The second point - I didn't know that. I issued my abandonment notice against the charity as the land owner. I didn't realise that the RSPCA couldn't - they just said they had as they had no way of tracing the land owner. This is despite me being prepared by a neighbour who knew where the landowner (me) lived. Beggars belief really


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			The first question - it never got as far as me finding out if the police officer had a warrant although I assume if they were cutting my lock they did? The second point - I didn't know that. I issued my abandonment notice against the charity as the land owner. I didn't realise that the RSPCA couldn't - they just said they had as they had no way of tracing the land owner. This is despite me being prepared by a neighbour who knew where the landowner (me) lived. Beggars belief really 

Click to expand...

As you are well aware now they never really bothered looking.

If ever it happens again do not assume they have a warrant as you never know what they have told the police. It is not easy to obtain such a warrant and the magistrate would need evidence they had done everything else to gain access.

Like I said in a previous post I have worked with them in the past on a few occasions so know a few of their tricks they use.


----------



## fburton (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			Somehow the RSPCA got hold of my phone number (presumably from the neighbour). When I told them that I was moving house and wouldn't give a forwarding address (I had sought legal advice by this point), they demanded I give them my forwarding address to allow them to do checks.
		
Click to expand...

Something any member of the public could do, right?


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Why would they get off if the CPS was prosecuting it or are you accusing them of being biassed.
		
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that any case regarding animals would not be of sufficient priority to afford the funds necessary to make a successful conviction. 




			So as much as you hate hunting
		
Click to expand...

Where have I ever said in all of my posts on here that I hate hunting? I support legal hunting. I disagree with breaking the law. There will always be some laws that people disagree with, but that does not give them the right to disobey them. We have to have law in a civilised society which everyone should have to obey, otherwise we would fall into anarchy.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

fburton said:



			Something any member of the public could do, right?
		
Click to expand...

Mobile phone number that isn't listed anywhere so no...


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Thank you you probably put it a lot better than I could a lot of the convictions they have got under the hunting act have been where the defendant has pleaded guilty because they were to frightened to fight the case or couldnt for financial reasons . It is not the same as a normal criminal case in that the burden of proof is shifted and the cost implications are huge.
Do people really think justice is done were defendants have to plead guilty because they are to frightened to lose everything financially when it has been shown that those that plead not guilty more often than not are acquitted but still have to shoulder huge financial cost in defending themselves.
		
Click to expand...


It is EXACTLY the same as a normal criminal case. The burden of proof is EXACTLY the same and the costs are proportionate to means EXACTLY the same and the bench/judge/jury are EXACTLY the same.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			With respect how do you explain the Heythrop case then was it really a huge coincidence?
		
Click to expand...

They hunted fox?


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

Equidae, I am sorry you were wrongly reported to the RSPCA. However, as an animal lover, surely you know it is important that they investigate these accusations? After all, they don't know you from Adam, and everyone accused, including those very guilty will have a story that contradicts what they are being accused of. The inspectors will be well aware of the fabrications people make and will be justifiably sceptical. They did not prosecute you after seeing for themselves what the situation was, but it is quite standard for them to make future checks just in case they are wrong. I was once reported for keeping two dogs in a kennel and run. They were in there during the day because my partner and I both worked, but as soon as we got home they spent the evening and night in the house with us and got three walks a day. The RSPCA visited and saw for themselves and just told us they were happy that the dogs were in good condition and had clean water and food, and they were completely happy with that. Then we had another spot check some weeks later, and put a note through the door to inform us. All nice and amicable. I was impressed that they came out to double check.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			There is no legal aid available in these cases ,Do you call that Justice? 
This is why the CPS should be left to it as at least people will be within a fair system.!
		
Click to expand...

God, I wish you would do your research before you post this stuff popsdosh.

According to my research, legal aid is available to defend RSPCA prosecutions under THE SAME RULES as CPS prosecutions.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			It is EXACTLY the same as a normal criminal case. The burden of proof is EXACTLY the same and the costs are proportionate to means EXACTLY the same and the bench/judge/jury are EXACTLY the same.
		
Click to expand...

With respect the costs are not the same it is a private prosecution so all the prosecuting costs including investigation are claimed by the RSPCA this is where my main argument lies. If it was a CPS case the defendant would have his defence costs covered out of public funds which is not the case in Private prosecutions . Do you really feel this is fair because sorry I dont. It has always been a tradition in english law that a defendant has a right to a defence in criminal matters. Why do the RSPCA feel they need to do the prosecuting when we already have a system in place that they could use if they wanted too.

I am not looking for anybody who is guilty to get off just that those who have a chance to clear their name are not pleading guilty because they cannot afford to defend themselves. I dont care what you believe this has been the case in several private prosecutions brought by the RSPCA and that is why they dont want it to change.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			With respect the costs are not the same it is a private prosecution so all the prosecuting costs including investigation are claimed by the RSPCA this is where my main argument lies. If it was a CPS case the defendant would have his defence costs covered out of public funds which is not the case in Private prosecutions . Do you really feel this is fair because sorry I dont. It has always been a tradition in english law that a defendant has a right to a defence in criminal matters. Why do the RSPCA feel they need to do the prosecuting when we already have a system in place that they could use if they wanted too.
		
Click to expand...


Do you feel no need whatsoever to research your statements about defendant's costs being paid by state ?

You are so wrong that it's ridiculous.

I agree with you that there are issues with RSPCA prosecutions, but you ruin the argument presenting incorrect information.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

U



ycbm said:



			Do you feel no need whatsoever to research your statements about defendant's costs being paid by state ?

You are so wrong that it's ridiculous.

I agree with you that there are issues with RSPCA prosecutions, but you ruin the argument presenting incorrect information.
		
Click to expand...

Legal aid _is_ available for CPS prosecutions if you are on a low enough income. For private prosecutions there is no legal aid regardless of income - those without money have no way of defending themselves. Maybe you should check your own statements before berating people for not checking theirs. It just makes your own comments look 'ridiculous' to use your own choice of words.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			U

Legal aid _is_ available for CPS prosecutions if you are on a low enough income. For private prosecutions there is no legal aid regardless of income - those without money have no way of defending themselves. Maybe you should check your own statements before berating people for not checking theirs. It just makes your own comments look 'ridiculous' to use your own choice of words.
		
Click to expand...

There is information on legal sites online that you are not correct. And that legal aid is available under exactly the same rules as a CPS prosecution for defendants in criminal private prosecutions. Google 'legal aid RSPCA defence' and you will find masses of solicitors offering to claim legal aid to fight RSPCA cases.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

This is what Julian Barnfield said after pleading guilty in the Heythrop case which cost the RSPCA the best part of a third of a million pounds.
'
Outside court, Barnfield said he had only pleaded guilty because he could not afford to fight the £327,000 case the RSPCA had mounted.

"We conceded because the money wasn't there to defend ourselves. I would like to stand there and defend it but there was no way it was possible.

Is that really what you call Justice in this day and age. At least the RSPCA can say another successful prosecution though!


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

Any private prosecutions, including those brought by the RSPCA have to adhere to the CPS code of practice. One of those conditions is that there is sufficient evidence to bring about a successful prosecution. Everyone has the right to bring a private prosecution, but it must adhere to the code. It would be wrong to single out one organisation and prevent them from having that right. If you are to ban the RSPCA from doing it, then you have to ban all organisations and all individuals from doing it. That, IMO would be wrong.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			There is information on legal sites online that you are not correct. And that legal aid is available under exactly the same rules as a CPS prosecution for defendants in criminal private prosecutions.
		
Click to expand...

It is not!!!! Go and try to get it!!!


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			It is not!!!! Go and try to get it!!!
		
Click to expand...


It IS.

Under exactly the same rules as for any other criminal prosecution.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			Any private prosecutions, including those brought by the RSPCA have to adhere to the CPS code of practice. One of those conditions is that there is sufficient evidence to bring about a successful prosecution. Everyone has the right to bring a private prosecution, but it must adhere to the code. It would be wrong to single out one organisation and prevent them from having that right. If you are to ban the RSPCA from doing it, then you have to ban all organisations and all individuals from doing it. That, IMO would be wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Its equally as wrong that people cannot afford to defend themselves. Particularly when its an organisation with the largest legal dept outside Government.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			Any private prosecutions, including those brought by the RSPCA have to adhere to the CPS code of practice. One of those conditions is that there is sufficient evidence to bring about a successful prosecution. Everyone has the right to bring a private prosecution, but it must adhere to the code. It would be wrong to single out one organisation and prevent them from having that right. If you are to ban the RSPCA from doing it, then you have to ban all organisations and all individuals from doing it. That, IMO would be wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Again incorrect - the RSPCA have brought forth prosecutions where they have been advised not to by the CPS. The burden of evidence is totally different for CPS prosecutions to that of private prosecutions. If you had any idea what you were talking about you would know this. Be careful of what you read on the Internet - those firms offering their services against RSPCA prosecutions do not offer it through legal aid, they offer it through insurance services should the case lose.

wagtail and ybcm - do you have any legal background at all or are you just basing your statments on what you have read in the Internet? I'm basing mine on what happens in a practicing criminal defence law firm (my OH who is providing this information has also freelanced for the CPS in the recent past too)


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			It is not!!!! Go and try to get it!!!
		
Click to expand...

It is exactly the same. It is only given to people on benefits or on a very low income.


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Its equally as wrong that people cannot afford to defend themselves. Particularly when its an organisation with the largest legal dept outside Government.
		
Click to expand...

But it is no different for people being prosecuted by the RSPCA or any other organisation or the CPS. You either qualify for legal aid or you don't.


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			Again incorrect - the RSPCA have brought forth prosecutions where they have been advised not to by the CPS. The burden of evidence is totally different for CPS prosecutions to that of private prosecutions. If you had any idea what you were talking about you would know this. Be careful of what you read on the Internet - those firms offering their services against RSPCA prosecutions do not offer it through legal aid, they offer it through insurance services should the case lose.

wagtail and ybcm - do you have any legal background at all or are you just basing your statments on what you have read in the Internet? I'm basing mine on what happens in a practicing criminal defence law firm (my OH who is providing this information has also freelanced for the CPS in the recent past too)
		
Click to expand...

From the CPS website: A private prosecution should be taken over and stopped if, upon review of the case papers, either the evidential sufficiency stage or the public interest stage of the Full Code Test is not met.

Are you suggesting they are lying?


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			But it is no different for people being prosecuted by the RSPCA or any other organisation or the CPS. You either qualify for legal aid or you don't.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong again! In normal criminal court you have a right to a defence. When was the last time you heard anybody coming out of criminal court saying I pleaded guilty I could not afford to defend myself


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Wrong again! In normal criminal court you have a right to a defence. When was the last time you heard anybody coming out of criminal court saying I pleaded guilty I could not afford to defend myself
		
Click to expand...

The last people I heard saying they had almost bankrupted themselves defending themselves in a criminal court were Freddie Starr and Dave Lee Travis.

There is no difference between private criminal prosecutions and CPS  criminal prosecutions in that respect.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Wrong again! In normal criminal court you have a right to a defence. When was the last time you heard anybody coming out of criminal court saying I pleaded guilty I could not afford to defend myself
		
Click to expand...

Do you believe everything anyone accused of a criminal offence says?


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Wrong again! In normal criminal court you have a right to a defence. When was the last time you heard anybody coming out of criminal court saying I pleaded guilty I could not afford to defend myself
		
Click to expand...

You get whatever you can afford. If you qualify for legal aid you do not get an expensive barrister. When people come out saying they could not afford to defend themselves, they mean they need someone really expensive to have a hope in hell of getting off with all the evidence against them.


----------



## fburton (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			Mobile phone number that isn't listed anywhere so no...
		
Click to expand...

But they could do everything the RSPCA did with equal legality (or illegality) - i.e. get hold of your phone number from whoever and demand you give them your forwarding address. That's what I meant.

And if it's wrong for some random Joe to do these things (it seems obvious to me that it would be wrong), then it would also be wrong for the RSPCA to do so. So why did they?? How common is this kind of behaviour?


----------



## pennyturner (7 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			You get whatever you can afford. If you qualify for legal aid you do not get an expensive barrister. When people come out saying they could not afford to defend themselves, they mean they need someone really expensive to have a hope in hell of getting off with all the evidence against them.
		
Click to expand...


That's rubbish.  As a person of reasonable means (but not a millionaire), I would not get legal aid, and would NEVER take on a lawyer at my own expense, since I would have to sell the farm (literally) to do it; so yes, I would plead guilty and take the fine... choking on my pride all the way.


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

pennyturner said:



			That's rubbish.  As a person of reasonable means (but not a millionaire), I would not get legal aid, and would NEVER take on a lawyer at my own expense, since I would have to sell the farm (literally) to do it; so yes, I would plead guilty and take the fine... choking on my pride all the way.
		
Click to expand...

That is not disagreeing with what I am saying at all. You either qualify for legal aid or you don't. Legal aid would not get you the quality of defence you would need to get you off something where there is considerable evidence against you. If you don't qualify, then you have to decide whether to sell whatever you need to afford a defence. Are you seriously saying that you would never pay for a defence whatever you were accused of? What about murder? What about burglary? You'd just plead guilty? I guess if you did it, you would, yes.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

pennyturner said:



			That's rubbish.  As a person of reasonable means (but not a millionaire), I would not get legal aid, and would NEVER take on a lawyer at my own expense, since I would have to sell the farm (literally) to do it; so yes, I would plead guilty and take the fine... choking on my pride all the way.
		
Click to expand...

Surely you would represent yourself rather than do that? Everyone is entitled to represent themselves in court (except under rare situations like rape cross examination of the victim). And you cannot lose your farm if you represent yourself, so why would you not at least try to defend yourself?


----------



## chillipup (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			This is what Julian Barnfield said after pleading guilty in the Heythrop case which cost the RSPCA the best part of a third of a million pounds.
'
Outside court, Barnfield said he had only pleaded guilty because he could not afford to fight the £327,000 case the RSPCA had mounted.

"We conceded because the money wasn't there to defend ourselves. I would like to stand there and defend it but there was no way it was possible.

Is that really what you call Justice in this day and age. At least the RSPCA can say another successful prosecution though!
		
Click to expand...

Their barrister and their solicitor (who rides with the hunt) advised them to plead guilty, because they were.


----------



## chillipup (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			God, I wish you would do your research before you post this stuff popsdosh..
		
Click to expand...

This^ exactly.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

I've just spoke to my OH and he says that you can get Legal Aid for a private prosecution but only if it has implications of a custodial sentence. So worth the RSPCA cases I very much doubt it would get that far


----------



## pennyturner (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Surely you would represent yourself rather than do that? Everyone is entitled to represent themselves in court (except under rare situations like rape cross examination of the victim). And you cannot lose your farm if you represent yourself, so why would you not at least try to defend yourself?
		
Click to expand...

I'm self-employed.  I couldn't afford the time off to represent myself, even if I thought that would be an adequate defense.  Remember the maxim - "He who defends himself has a fool for a client".
I just wanted to make the point that the law is not affordable, unless you get legal aid.  

Wagtail, I believe I the state pays for a defense lawyer if I'm accused of murder... a bit different to the RSPCA not liking the look of your dog.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

Their going to have their wings clipped anyhow so whats the point arguing .

YCBM all my research comes from personal experience( I had links with them long enough chilipup knows why I dont anymore and that was lies apparently) not everybody believes google unless they are so stubborn in their beliefs . All I want is people who fight a charge from the RSPCA to have the same chance of a defence as anybody else. Does it not even worry you that people have pleaded guilty because they cannot afford to fight it. If not you have no morals at all.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

pennyturner said:



			I'm self-employed.  I couldn't afford the time off to represent myself, even if I thought that would be an adequate defense.  Remember the maxim - "He who defends himself has a fool for a client".
I just wanted to make the point that the law is not affordable, unless you get legal aid.  

Wagtail, I believe I the state pays for a defense lawyer if I'm accused of murder... a bit different to the RSPCA not liking the look of your dog.
		
Click to expand...

I know where your coming from but you cant tell them till it happens to them I hope it never does or they will find out the reality of trying to fight the RSPCA and YCBM still doesnt get it you could easily lose the farm as they always try to get a full cost order against the defendant maybe if they had that hanging over their heads they may think differently.


----------



## Wagtail (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Their going to have their wings clipped anyhow so whats the point arguing .

YCBM all my research comes from personal experience( I had links with them long enough chilipup knows why I dont anymore and that was lies apparently) not everybody believes google unless they are so stubborn in their beliefs . All I want is people who fight a charge from the RSPCA to have the same chance of a defence as anybody else. Does it not even worry you that people have pleaded guilty because they cannot afford to fight it. If not you have no morals at all.
		
Click to expand...

But if you read what chillipup says, that's not true, is it? They had a barrister and a solicitor...


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			I've just spoke to my OH and he says that you can get Legal Aid for a private prosecution but only if it has implications of a custodial sentence. So worth the RSPCA cases I very much doubt it would get that far
		
Click to expand...

EXACTLY the same as any other prosecution for a criminal offence, and if you bother to use Google at all you will swiftly find that the MAJORITY  of RSPCA  prosecutions will allow legal aid if the applicant's means pass the threshold applied to ALL criminal prosecutions.

I am sick to the back teeth of you people posting this rubbish without researching it!


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

Wrong edit, back later.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			I know where your coming from but you cant tell them till it happens to them I hope it never does or they will find out the reality of trying to fight the RSPCA and YCBM still doesnt get it you could easily lose the farm as they always try to get a full cost order against the defendant maybe if they had that hanging over their heads they may think differently.
		
Click to expand...

You will NEVER lose the farm. Rules on costs and fines are quite clear. They must be payable within one year usually or two years at the absolute longest, and will NEVER, EVER,include having to sell your property to pay them.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Their going to have their wings clipped anyhow so whats the point arguing .

YCBM all my research comes from personal experience( I had links with them long enough chilipup knows why I dont anymore and that was lies apparently) not everybody believes google unless they are so stubborn in their beliefs . All I want is people who fight a charge from the RSPCA to have the same chance of a defence as anybody else. Does it not even worry you that people have pleaded guilty because they cannot afford to fight it. If not you have no morals at all.
		
Click to expand...

Good grief, popsdosh, do your damned research before accusuing me of having no morals, won't you?

People who are prosecuted by the RSPCA have EXACTLY THE SAME  defence as anyone else!!!!


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			EXACTLY the same as any other prosecution for a criminal offence, and if you bother to use Google at all you will swiftly find that the MAJORITY  of RSPCA  prosecutions will allow legal aid if the applicants means pass the threshold applied to ALL criminal prosecutions.

I am sick to the back teeth of you people posting this rubbish without researching it!
		
Click to expand...

Your starting to sound like a teenager as they and google are the only things that are ever right


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Your starting to sound like a teenager as they and google are the only things that are ever right
		
Click to expand...

You produce no evidence whatsoever to support your increasingly absurd allegations.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			EXACTLY the same as any other prosecution for a criminal offence, and if you bother to use Google at all you will swiftly find that the MAJORITY  of RSPCA  prosecutions will allow legal aid if the applicants means pass the threshold applied to ALL criminal prosecutions.

I am sick to the back teeth of you people posting this rubbish without researching it!
		
Click to expand...

You Base your quotes on Google? I Base mine on what actually happens in the legal world. You would not get legal aid for an rspca prosecution - you can check this yourself by going on the.. Gov website and doing their calculator.



ycbm said:



			You will NEVER lose the farm. Rules on costs and fines are quite clear. They must be payable within one year usually our two years at best, and will NEVER include having to sell your property to pay them.
		
Click to expand...

You really don't get it do you? Most would have to sell their properties to pay for legal counsel, not the fines.

Im totally bemused about how you can argue so forcefully about something that you clearly have no knowledge abiut other than doing a little googling... You do realise you look quite foolish saying 'you clearly haven't googled'?


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			You Base your quotes on Google? I Base mine on what actually happens in the legal world. You would not get legal aid for an rspca prosecution - you can check this yourself by going on the.. Gov website and doing their calculator.



You really don't get it do you? Most would have to sell their properties to pay for legal counsel, not the fines.

Im totally bemused about how you can argue so forcefully about something that you clearly have no knowledge abiut other than doing a little googling... You do realise you look quite foolish saying 'you clearly haven't googled'?
		
Click to expand...


If 95 % or more of the results you get on Google say one thing, then that one thing can generally be relied upon to be correct. In addition to that I do have personal experience of  RSPCA prosecutions.

No-one has to  pay to defend themselves from an accusation for which the penalty includes a custodial sentence . If they meet the criteria, legal aid is available. Whether they meet any means test or not, they are entitled to represent themselves and will receive the full assistance of the court in order to do so.

And if they lose a case, no-one will ever face having to lose their home to pay their costs.

Get your facts straight before you post!


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			If 95 % or more of the results you get on Google say one thing, then that one thing can generally be relied upon to be correct. In addition to that I do have personal experience of  RSPCA prosecutions.

No-one has to  pay to defend themselves from an accusation for which the penalty includes a custodial sentence . If they meet the criteria, legal aid is available. Whether they meet any means test or not, they are entitled to represent themselves and will receive the full assistance of the court in order to do so.

And if they lose a case, no-one will ever face having to lose their home to pay their costs.

Get your facts straight before you post!
		
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe this? I really hope that you never have to go to court 

As for facts - mine comes from a genuine real life lawyer, not Google... Google is frequently wrong - 95% consensus does not mean that it is 95% are correct. It could equally mean 95% are using the wrong source material. There is a difference between causation and correlation


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			Do you honestly believe this? I really hope that you never have to go to court 

Click to expand...

I believe it because it's true. I've seen as many court cases as many as you've had hot dinners.


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			I believe it because it's true. I've seen as many court cases as many as you've had hot dinners.
		
Click to expand...

Judging from the quality of your posts I very much doubt this...

Eta - judge Judy doesn't count...


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			Judging from your post I very much doubt this...
		
Click to expand...

You do recognise a figure of speech when your see one, do you ? OK, you may have had more than 600 hot dinners in your life, but I have been present at at least that number of prosecutions, some of which included RSPCA cases, which are in every respect handled exactly the same as any other criminal prosecution.

In general, the RSPCA use a Crown Court qualified barrister to prosecute, who is more effective than a CPS  prosecutor, many of whom are young and inexperienced (and therefore cheap). This may partly account for a high conviction rate, but it doesn't mean the convicted offender wasn't guilty. I've seen CPS prosecutors without vital evidence to give to the court, and I've seen them make stupid mistakes. But I've never seen an RSPCA  barrister do the same, and that's one reason why they are so successful at obtaining convictions. They get the basics right.

The RSPCA have flaws. I have signed the petition. But on the whole they do a terrific job for animal protection in this country and the vast majority of people the prosecute are guilty of animal cruelty.


----------



## cremedemonthe (7 January 2016)

Signed


----------



## EQUIDAE (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			You do recognise a figure of speech when your see one, do you ? OK, you may have had more than 600 hot dinners in your life, but I have been present at at least that number of prosecutions, some of which included RSPCA cases, which are in every respect handled exactly the same as any other criminal prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand what I mean - I mean that, as someone who uses Google as a frame of reference (and as Gospel it seems), I highly doubt you have had any court dealings in any professional sense... You claim you have, but your postings make me suspect otherwise.


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			And if they lose a case, no-one will ever face having to lose their home to pay their costs.

Get your facts straight before you post!
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear uou missed something googling
Although I despise the man and I was involved in the case(its when i learned a few of the RSPCA tricks) try telling Jamie Gray that! I suppose he found this from small change in his pocket ,His house was sold by court order to cover the RSPCA cost 

Gray Senior, a horse trader, was ordered to pay costs of £400,000 to cover the expenses of the investigation by the RSPCA and the trial which was held Bicester Magistrates' Court.

Right or wrong it blows your argument out of the water or is that not evidential fact enough for you.


----------



## moosea (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			If 95 % or more of the results you get on Google say one thing, then that one thing can generally be relied upon to be correct.!
		
Click to expand...

If 95% of google results told you the sky was green and not blue you would agree with them?


As far as I am concerned the rspca are a horrible organisation, who spend money on prosecutions, while killing perfectly healthy animals because the cannot afford to house and keep them. Money that is donated by the public to care for those animals. 

I was shocked by their behavior when I worked for them.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

moosea said:



			If 95% of google results told you the sky was green and not blue you would agree with them?
		
Click to expand...

But they don't, do they?


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			I think you misunderstand what I mean - I mean that, as someone who uses Google as a frame of reference (and as Gospel it seems), I highly doubt you have had any court dealings in any professional sense... You claim you have, but your postings make me suspect otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

So now you call me a liar. Nice.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Oh dear uou missed something googling
Although I despise the man and I was involved in the case(its when i learned a few of the RSPCA tricks) try telling Jamie Gray that! I suppose he found this from small change in his pocket ,His house was sold by court order to cover the RSPCA cost 

Gray Senior, a horse trader, was ordered to pay costs of £400,000 to cover the expenses of the investigation by the RSPCA and the trial which was held Bicester Magistrates' Court.

Right or wrong it blows your argument out of the water or is that not evidential fact enough for you.
		
Click to expand...

Reference please?

What I can find is that he was ordered to sell his business premises after the death or severe abuse of 146 horses. The court is not able to leave him homeless and I doubt he was homeless, but he may well, quite rightly, have lost most of his business, land,  and any savings he had.


----------



## moosea (7 January 2016)

I don't know  I don't rely on google for my information


----------



## popsdosh (7 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Reference please?

What I can find is that he was ordered to sell his business premises after the death or severe abuse of 146 horses. The court is not able to leave him homeless and I doubt he was homeless, but he may well, quite rightly, have lost mpst of his business, land,  and any savings he had.
		
Click to expand...

He got everything he deserved so dont twist that around . The quote was from the telegraph 12/06/2009 oh and google so maybe its true 

Surely you remember it .


----------



## Alec Swan (7 January 2016)

ChesnutsRoasting said:



			No, will not sign. A court of law will decide if a case is dubious or not, not the general public.
		
Click to expand...

The problem with that suggestion is that the Courts simply aren't qualified,  generally,  to judge at such hearings.  The word of the rspca is just about always taken as gospel,  there are very few solicitors who want to take them on because of the very well documented campaigns launched the the rspca against those who do,  and there is very clear evidence of the rspca and its officers perjuring themselves in Court.

Most who face prosecution by the rspca are very poorly represented,  because it would be rare for any defending counsel to be any better advised than the Court themselves.  The system is quite simply as far removed form justice as one can imagine.  Further,  the current system is corrupt.  The CPS present clear and unequivocal evidence before the Courts,  generally,  and generally,  the rspca don't.  If Police Officers present evidence on a criminal matter to the CPS and the evidence is perjured,  then the CPS will take action against them.  With the evidence which is dishonest and is presented by the rspca,  there is no apparent body who will in turn prosecute those who are the perjurers and this can all so often be the rspca themselves.

Alec.


----------



## minesadouble (7 January 2016)

I myself am a lawyer and believe me when it comes to legalities Google is not a good point of reference. If an organisation has a good Legal Team there are means of rendering  it unlikely a defendant be eligible for Legal Aid, not least by bringing a lesser charge than perhaps originally intended.
Contrary to most opinion on this thread many of this Country's top earning Barristers got rich on Legal Aid -  thereby negating the statement that if you are on Legal Aid your representation will be below par. Some of our Barristers take £600k + annually from the Legal Aid purse. 

The RSPCA is corrupt at the core.For a charity to happily perjure itself in Court for financial gain smacks of an arrogance which knows no bounds.. Maybe the folk on the ground have good intentions but the organisation as a whole is just not about animal welfare, money and politics seem to be the top priorities.


----------



## Alec Swan (7 January 2016)

chillipup said:



			..

*Fact 2.*  The CPS has never taken RSPCA prosecutions.

..?...
		
Click to expand...

The CPS has often counselled against the rspca progressing with cases because the evidence has been so unsound.  Again,  the Courts are rarely in a position to contradict the rspca because of their own lack of experience on technical matters regarding animal welfare,  and it's only when there is clear evidence that the rspca have shown either scant respect for the Court or they've been found to be wanting,  that the cases are thrown out.

Does anyone remember the case of 'dymented' on here?  It was a debacle and a shameful offering of British Justice.  All bar one charge was thrown out as the Court simply didn't believe the evidence offered by either the rspca officers or the attending police officers because they were contradictory and clearly improbable.  The whole case is on record.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (7 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			Can someone link me to an example of an unfair prosecution, please?
		
Click to expand...


By all means,  consider the case of a man on here with the user name 'dymented'(sp!)  and consider how he was treated.  It was a shambles and the only point won was through shear dishonesty.

Alec.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			The CPS has often counselled against the rspca progressing with cases because the evidence has been so unsound.
		
Click to expand...

When?  The CPS plays no part in RSPCA prosecutions, except for the fact that it can stop them at any time if it considers them to be unfounded or vexatious. Please substantiate your claim.




			Does anyone remember the case of 'dymented' on here?  It was a debacle and a shameful offering of British Justice.  All bar one charge was thrown out as the Court simply didn't believe the evidence offered by either the rspca officers or the attending police officers because they were contradictory and clearly improbable.  The whole case is on record.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

 Yes I remember it well. Dreadful case. One in over four thousand prosecutions in the last two years. There have been at least two other bad ones. Let's for the sake of argument say there have been fifty, which I think is way over the top. Let's get this in perspective. That would be able one per cent. Most of what the RSPCA  prosecutes is bang on the nail. They need questions asked because one bad case is one too many. But the outright condemnation going on on this thread is a bit over the top, ime.


----------



## ycbm (7 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Again,  the Courts are rarely in a position to contradict the rspca because of their own lack of experience on technical matters regarding animal welfare,  and it's only when there is clear evidence that the rspca have shown either scant respect for the Court or they've been found to be wanting,  that the cases are thrown out.


Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec, come on now. A couple of thousand cases a year are about starved horses, beaten dogs and microwaved cats. Your average court is perfectly well able to understand the vast majority of cases prosecuted by the RSPCA.

There are problems. They need investigating. But it's not right  to suggest that those problems apply to more than a tiny minority of RSPCA prosecutions.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			..

There are problems. They need investigating. But it's not right  to suggest that those problems apply to more than a tiny minority of RSPCA prosecutions.
		
Click to expand...

The only unsound and blatantly fraudulent cases are those which we read of when they're thrown out of Court.  There are far too many which succeed when the shouldn't and they 'shouldn't' because the defendants are all so often ill advised,  the Courts are also similarly treated,  and if the question arises 'Is it in the public interest',  then most would benefit from help and advice rather than prosecution.  Considering the HHOer in question,  his defence counsel asked of the prosecuting barrister if the witness (a qualified vet) needed to attend Court.  The answer given was that the vet wouldn't need to attend and that his written statement (in total support of the defendant) would be acceptable.  On the morning of the hearing,  the prosecuting barrister said that he'd changed his mind,  the vet would need to attend (he couldn't he was in surgery) and so his statement was deemed inadmissible.  

Alec,  come one now?  ycbm,  are you really going to tell me that this was an isolated case of the rspca showing neither respect to the Court or the defendant?  Are you so certain that the rspca have any real interest in justice?  

It's also my belief that prosecutions are all so often brought with the deciding factor being the defendant's ability to pay.  The high profile cases regarding Hunting offences,  generally have the defendants accepting the charge and pleading guilty because Hunting isn't how they earn their living and the risks of bankruptcy are very real.  Hunting cases are also generally a matter of opinion and a belief of intent and defending such an argument is fraught with risk,  risk which few are prepared to take.

We need an RSPCA now and perhaps more than ever,  it's just that the views of a great many are that the current shower who are the rspca council need to be replaced with a body which will return that august body to its original charter.

Alec.

ets,  and I've just remembered,  it wasn't that long ago when the rspca talked a man in to gifting all his sheep to them (they weren't as they should have been),  they got them fit,  sent them to slaughter,  and pocketed the proceeds!


----------



## ycbm (8 January 2016)

minesadouble said:



			I myself am a lawyer and believe me when it comes to legalities Google is not a good point of reference. If an organisation has a good Legal Team there are means of rendering  it unlikely a defendant be eligible for Legal Aid, not least by bringing a lesser charge than perhaps originally intended.
		
Click to expand...


Are you confusing Google with Wiki?  Google is an invaluable research tool used by most professionals. For example, if you Google 'Sentencing Guidelines animal welfare act'  It will point you straight to the actual sentencing guidelines used in courts to prosecute cases of animal cruelty. And if you read those guidelines, you will see that there is no charge under that act which could not potentially carry a prison sentence. And if you Google legal aid rules, you will find that automatically means that anyone who qualifies on means can get legal aid to defend an animal cruelty charge.


----------



## Mooseontheloose (8 January 2016)

I know too little about the law as it stands to comment in a worthwhile way but I do think, as an early poster said, that it's time a lot of equestrian charities were looked into.
Locally to us is a racehorse 'rehoming and rescuing' service. It appears to have colossal costs for it's actual achievements. One does wonder..........
Also the use of charitable status for getting out of paying business rates is another area that needs looking into.
Unfortunately I don't think the Charities Commissioners have the time or wherewithal to investigate too closely, particularly when the turnover of some of these charities is  very small.
Sorry, bit off topic.


----------



## Regandal (8 January 2016)

As far as I understand it,  the SSPCA do not themselves prosecute.  They refer all cases to the procurator fiscal,  who then decides whether to go ahead or not.  Obviously we are a much smaller area, but food for thought.


----------



## Fenris (8 January 2016)

First of all I am very sorry everyone.  I had intended to keep an eye on this thread but life outside of the internet suddenly got very hectic and I couldn't.

A couple if points.

There is criminal legal aid available for animal welfare cases because they carry a maximum prison sentence of 6 months.  Don't believe the media when they say 12 months.  That is a mistake based on the provision within the AWA for government to increase the max sentence.  It has not happened yet.  

Criminal legal aid clocks in for interview at the police station and will provide at least the duty police station representative - or you can arrange your solicitor of choice providing they do legal aid work. This is why the RSPCA is so determined to interview people in their field or house - then there is no protection whatsoever.

Legal aid then switches off until you receive a summons.  There is no legal aid available to make a S.20 application for return of animals.  There is no legal aid available to defend yourself (and your animals) against an RSPCA application tot he court to allow them to 'dispose of' your animals prior to any criminal proceedings taking place.  These are all civil applications that are made in the magistrates court.

The provision to enable a prosecutor to dispose of animals was meant to enable the sale of commercial animals, perhaps a herd of beef cattle who would be useless once they passed their 'sell by' date.  It was meant to be a protection for both prosecutor and owner.  The SHG predicted when giving evidence to the EFRA committee hearings that it would end up with valuable blood lines being lost and people getting to the end of a criminal case having proved their innocence only to find they had no animals left.  Unfortunately that prediction has come to pass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-to-sue-RSPCA-over-loss-of-their-animals.html

There are many other things that should be done at the time and which are not because most people can not afford to take legal advice without the help of legal aid.  Legal aid is under threat and many solicitors firms are facing going out of business and losing their contracts (a whole other issue).  That is where the SHG is able to help people.

When a summons is received legal aid is means tested.  Earn anything like a living wage and you simply will not qualify, even if you make a special hardship appeal.

If you have property is is normal for the RSPCA to ask the court to put a charge on the property for the value of the costs.  RSPCA costs are massive and the amounts they charge are unrealistic.  Without legal representation and without one of the specialist animal welfare solicitors or barristers on side the courts usually agree.

The RSPCA figure of 98% prosecution success rate is very difficult to pin down.  There is a thought that it includes cautions accepted - something many people do because they are afraid of going to court or simply can not afford either the time or cost of fighting.  The other problem is that if a defendant faces 20 charges and is only convicted of 1 that is classed as a successful prosecution, not 19 failed prosecutions and 1 success.

The other way the figures are boosted is when people either don't see the summons and so don't go to court, or fail to go for other reasons.  Then the RSPCA asks the magistrates to enter a Guilty verdict by default and the case is never tested in court.  The CPS is far more understanding of human nature and uses the provision in the manner it was intended - to penalise those who have gone on the run, not people who simply don't understand the way the system works or who have been ill or are elderly etc.

The whole point of the petition is that it will pass a message to government that there is great unhappiness with the way things are going in the hope that it will speed ant inquiry into being and that those taking part will keep the public's concern in mind during their deliberations.


----------



## MagicMelon (8 January 2016)

ChesnutsRoasting said:



			No, will not sign. A court of law will decide if a case is dubious or not, not the general public.
		
Click to expand...

This. How can we possibly have all the facts to form an opinion of this.  The RSPCA do a good job in my opinion, yes there are areas they could improve but thats the same of any organisation.  As long as the ultimate goal is for the protection of animals then I'd support them, and that includes bringing hunts under investigation for illegal activity.


----------



## blueboy day (8 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			First of all I am very sorry everyone.  I had intended to keep an eye on this thread but life outside of the internet suddenly got very hectic and I couldn't.

A couple if points.

There is criminal legal aid available for animal welfare cases because they carry a maximum prison sentence of 6 months.  Don't believe the media when they say 12 months.  That is a mistake based on the provision within the AWA for government to increase the max sentence.  It has not happened yet.  

Criminal legal aid clocks in for interview at the police station and will provide at least the duty police station representative - or you can arrange your solicitor of choice providing they do legal aid work. This is why the RSPCA is so determined to interview people in their field or house - then there is no protection whatsoever.

Legal aid then switches off until you receive a summons.  There is no legal aid available to make a S.20 application for return of animals.  There is no legal aid available to defend yourself (and your animals) against an RSPCA application tot he court to allow them to 'dispose of' your animals prior to any criminal proceedings taking place.  These are all civil applications that are made in the magistrates court.

The provision to enable a prosecutor to dispose of animals was meant to enable the sale of commercial animals, perhaps a herd of beef cattle who would be useless once they passed their 'sell by' date.  It was meant to be a protection for both prosecutor and owner.  The SHG predicted when giving evidence to the EFRA committee hearings that it would end up with valuable blood lines being lost and people getting to the end of a criminal case having proved their innocence only to find they had no animals left.  Unfortunately that prediction has come to pass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-to-sue-RSPCA-over-loss-of-their-animals.html

There are many other things that should be done at the time and which are not because most people can not afford to take legal advice without the help of legal aid.  Legal aid is under threat and many solicitors firms are facing going out of business and losing their contracts (a whole other issue).  That is where the SHG is able to help people.

When a summons is received legal aid is means tested.  Earn anything like a living wage and you simply will not qualify, even if you make a special hardship appeal.

If you have property is is normal for the RSPCA to ask the court to put a charge on the property for the value of the costs.  RSPCA costs are massive and the amounts they charge are unrealistic.  Without legal representation and without one of the specialist animal welfare solicitors or barristers on side the courts usually agree.

The RSPCA figure of 98% prosecution success rate is very difficult to pin down.  There is a thought that it includes cautions accepted - something many people do because they are afraid of going to court or simply can not afford either the time or cost of fighting.  The other problem is that if a defendant faces 20 charges and is only convicted of 1 that is classed as a successful prosecution, not 19 failed prosecutions and 1 success.

The other way the figures are boosted is when people either don't see the summons and so don't go to court, or fail to go for other reasons.  Then the RSPCA asks the magistrates to enter a Guilty verdict by default and the case is never tested in court.  The CPS is far more understanding of human nature and uses the provision in the manner it was intended - to penalise those who have gone on the run, not people who simply don't understand the way the system works or who have been ill or are elderly etc.

The whole point of the petition is that it will pass a message to government that there is great unhappiness with the way things are going in the hope that it will speed ant inquiry into being and that those taking part will keep the public's concern in mind during their deliberations.
		
Click to expand...

What most horse owning people do not understand with the RSPCA, is if you have a neighbour dispute, and they decided out of spite to report you to the RSPCA, if you have an elderly horse, with all the good will in the world, you cannot make an elderly horse look like a fit race horse, and there are many caring owners in this situation, the RSPCA can lie their way in to getting the animal seized, and the owner prosecuted even though the owners own vet had been involved in the full life of the animals. Even if it is decided that there are no welfare issues to answer. On a number of occasions the RSPCA rather than lose face and return the animals, they abuse their position, and still take the owner to court under section 20 of the AWA, saying they are better situated to care for the animal, or in their opinion it is better for the animal to be euthanased. This is an abuse of the court procedure, as NO CRIME has been committed, in yet not only does the owner lose their animal, they also find themselves having to foot a huge costs bill from the RSPCA, when in fact they have done no wrong.

Even if the owner wishes to appeal, they can only go so far, because of the RSPCA's ABUSE of the court system, the section 20 is a civil case, in yet the RSPCA put the section 20 in the Magistrates Court, making it a criminal offence, when in fact they have themselves admitted there is no criminal case to answer. so to take the matter beyond the Crown Court, the only way to fight the RSPCA is to go for Abuse of Process against them, which means the possibility of huge costs, which is ludicrous, for innocent owners, and leads to permanent loss  of once loved pets, or unnecessary destruction of the animal. THIS IS DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR OF WHAT AT THE END OF THE DAY IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CHARITY


----------



## Fenris (8 January 2016)

The vast mjaority of RSPCA cases are not starving animals or tortured animals.  They revolve around disputes over whether a vet was consulted quickly enough.  Or whether the right treatment was applied by the individual.  Or whether an animal was put down at the right time.  

Many of the defendants are elderly or homeless or ill people.  Certainly many are vulnerable.  The CPS has ordered the RSPCA to drop charges in some cases and the whole case in others.  But they are dependent on being informed that there are concerns about how a case has been handled or that it does not comply with the Code  for Crown prosecutors.

It is not enough to depend on the courts to be the final arbiter.  By the time a case reaches court much of the damage will have already been done.  Elderly and much loved animals have died of old age.  Puppies have grown up in kennels instead of the family home.  

The RSPCA may well have gone to people's employers to inform them of the investigation and pending prosecution.  Jobs have been lost.

Social services is often notified if there are children or elderly people present.  Clearly precedence is given to these fights allowing the RSPCA a much easier 'win' in their case.

You will find much more information on RSPCA prosecutions in the SHG submission to the Wooler report

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


----------



## Lizzie66 (8 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Are you confusing Google with Wiki?  Google is an invaluable research tool used by most professionals. For example, if you Google 'Sentencing Guidelines animal welfare act'  It will point you straight to the actual sentencing guidelines used in courts to prosecute cases of animal cruelty. And if you read those guidelines, you will see that there is no charge under that act which could not potentially carry a prison sentence. And if you Google legal aid rules, you will find that automatically means that anyone who qualifies on means can get legal aid to defend an animal cruelty charge.
		
Click to expand...

ycbm your arguments have persuaded me to sign the petition !

Legal aid is means tested, so therefore many people aren't entitled to it. This does not make allowance for the fact that defending your case will cost you thousands. This frequently has to be borrowed against assets so houses are sold, or as is more common people are then frightened into accepting a caution and signing over their animals.

The CPS was set up to be independent to the police to enable the gathering of evidence and prosecution to be done by separate bodies thereby allowing a one step removed approach that enabled a more fair approach. This should be the same for the RSPCA. 

They are a charity that is meant to look after animal welfare, this will involve a level of intervention however there should be a greater emphasis put on education and only if this fails should an application for a S20 be made. 

Equally all S20 should have a maximum 7 day term whereupon the animal should be returned to its owner unless 2 independent vets confirm that the animal is in imminent danger.

The majority of RSPCA cases involve negligent care rather than deliberate harming and prosecution for negligence should be last resort.


----------



## popsdosh (8 January 2016)

The google warriors internet must be down. 
I dont think some actually appreciate what happens in reality! People have had to sell their houses and even worse has happened. Maybe its because they dont truly believe the RSPCA could be like it.
However they are and they use bully boy tactics to achieve their ends and they have got very good at it.
They threaten people with things that in reality they cannot do but rely on people being frightened into signing animals over etc. Having worked on the inside I am well aware of what they will do but others dont care to believe it thinking the truth is embelished if only it was!


----------



## Regandal (8 January 2016)

As an aside,  most welfare groups have a memo of understanding.  They will inform each other if abuse is suspected in a household.  eg child protection may inform animal welfare and vice versa. Unfortunately there is a link between the two.


----------



## Fenris (8 January 2016)

Regandal said:



			As an aside,  most welfare groups have a memo of understanding.  They will inform each other if abuse is suspected in a household.  eg child protection may inform animal welfare and vice versa. Unfortunately there is a link between the two.
		
Click to expand...

This is simply not true.   See

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/3894#.Vo-9kfmF6M8

"The UK&#8217;s main animal welfare organisation, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), currently prosecutes up to 1,000 people a year, but the majority of these cases involve neglect not violence. To assume that neglecting an animal can be linked to violence towards a child appears even more spurious. Accounts often report the same few infamous criminals (Jeffrey Dahmer, Fred West, the Boston Strangler, Jamie Bulger&#8217;s killers) who have admitted to harming animals, but such sensationalist &#8216;evidence&#8217; cannot hide the absence of serious base-line data. The links panic is reliant on the kind of consequential fallacy which would be noticed by most undergraduate philosophy students: all serial killers have mothers but not everyone who has a mother is a serial killer.

The problem is further compounded by whether the kind of people sampled in this research are likely to be telling the truth. Owning up to harming animals is difficult but a criminal sample, with a hard image to maintain, will readily admit to such behaviour. The essentially individualistic approach that characterises most of the links and cycles arguments emphasises individual pathology. As before, the NSPCC have produced guidelines (5). Broader issues concerning the socio-economic context of violence towards animals are disregarded &#8211; and again families caught up in this panic tend to be poor."


----------



## chillipup (8 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			The google warriors internet must be down. 
I dont think some actually appreciate what happens in reality! People have had to sell their houses and even worse has happened. Maybe its because they dont truly believe the RSPCA could be like it.
However they are and they use bully boy tactics to achieve their ends and they have got very good at it.
They threaten people with things that in reality they cannot do but rely on people being frightened into signing animals over etc. Having worked on the inside I am well aware of what they will do but others dont care to believe it thinking the truth is embelished if only it was!
		
Click to expand...

Google is a search engine...surely you know that much?


----------



## chillipup (8 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			This is simply not true.   See

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/3894#.Vo-9kfmF6M8

"The UK&#8217;s main animal welfare organisation, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), currently prosecutes up to 1,000 people a year, but the majority of these cases involve neglect not violence. To assume that neglecting an animal can be linked to violence towards a child appears even more spurious. Accounts often report the same few infamous criminals (Jeffrey Dahmer, Fred West, the Boston Strangler, Jamie Bulger&#8217;s killers) who have admitted to harming animals, but such sensationalist &#8216;evidence&#8217; cannot hide the absence of serious base-line data. The links panic is reliant on the kind of consequential fallacy which would be noticed by most undergraduate philosophy students: all serial killers have mothers but not everyone who has a mother is a serial killer.

The problem is further compounded by whether the kind of people sampled in this research are likely to be telling the truth. Owning up to harming animals is difficult but a criminal sample, with a hard image to maintain, will readily admit to such behaviour. The essentially individualistic approach that characterises most of the links and cycles arguments emphasises individual pathology. As before, the NSPCC have produced guidelines (5). Broader issues concerning the socio-economic context of violence towards animals are disregarded &#8211; and again families caught up in this panic tend to be poor."
		
Click to expand...

Not sure how old that is but 2014 figures are over 2000 convictions.


----------



## chillipup (8 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			The vast mjaority of RSPCA cases are not starving animals or tortured animals.  They revolve around disputes over whether a vet was consulted quickly enough.  Or whether the right treatment was applied by the individual.  Or whether an animal was put down at the right time.  

Many of the defendants are elderly or homeless or ill people.  Certainly many are vulnerable.  The CPS has ordered the RSPCA to drop charges in some cases and the whole case in others.  But they are dependent on being informed that there are concerns about how a case has been handled or that it does not comply with the Code  for Crown prosecutors.

It is not enough to depend on the courts to be the final arbiter.  By the time a case reaches court much of the damage will have already been done.  Elderly and much loved animals have died of old age.  Puppies have grown up in kennels instead of the family home.  

The RSPCA may well have gone to people's employers to inform them of the investigation and pending prosecution.  Jobs have been lost.

Social services is often notified if there are children or elderly people present.  Clearly precedence is given to these fights allowing the RSPCA a much easier 'win' in their case.

You will find much more information on RSPCA prosecutions in the SHG submission to the Wooler report

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

Click to expand...

You are doing yourself no favours here. At least have some serious evidence of the statements you make.


----------



## YorksG (8 January 2016)

chillipup said:



			You are doing yourself no favours here. At least have some serious evidence of the statements you make.
		
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence to refute the claims?


----------



## Fenris (8 January 2016)

chillipup said:



			You are doing yourself no favours here. At least have some serious evidence of the statements you make.
		
Click to expand...

Take a look at the SHG submission to the Wooler inquiry.  Then go and read the Wooler report and you will see that much of the SHG's submission has been incorporated into the final report - even allowing for the RSPCA having demanded changes in it.  If that is not sufficient for you then nothing will satisfy you.


----------



## EQUIDAE (8 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Are you confusing Google with Wiki?  Google is an invaluable research tool used by most professionals. For example, if you Google 'Sentencing Guidelines animal welfare act'  It will point you straight to the actual sentencing guidelines used in courts to prosecute cases of animal cruelty. And if you read those guidelines, you will see that there is no charge under that act which could not potentially carry a prison sentence. And if you Google legal aid rules, you will find that automatically means that anyone who qualifies on means can get legal aid to defend an animal cruelty charge.
		
Click to expand...

PMSL YCBM is telling a lawyer they are wrong - based on a google search. This has me rolling around laughing and people at work are giving me funny looks...

ycbm - legal aid as it stands can only be applied when there is a risk of a custodial sentence. As minesadouble said - yes you are entitled to a solicitor under legal aid when you are arrested, but that is where it ends. 

The legal aid contracts have just changed this January (though still under appeal until April) and it is going to be ever more difficult to get legal aid - and even more difficult still to get a solicitor who will accept legal aid clients. They have cut the fee by 30%, this is on top of the 20% (ish) cut last year. My other half dealt with 6 offences last night - guess what he got paid? A big fat £0! 4 were telephone advice (3 during the night), 1 was released without charge so he wasn't needed - after driving 35 miles to the police station, and one decided just before interview that he didn't want a lawyer - again after a 35 mile trip. So for a payment of £0 he had about 2 hours sleep and then had to be in work at 9am. He will not even be eligible to claim travel expenses. He, like many others will not be taking on any legal aid clients from April... Who wants to work for nothing? (he does do pro bono work for a few animal charities, but that's out of love, not necessity)

And as for Google - most professionals use Google Scholar as it filters out all the misinformation, you you are wrong there again too. You are repeatedly quoting what professionals do, and how things work when you quite clearly have no basis for these claims. You appear to have no actual knowledge other than what you have gleaned from a google search and that makes your argument totally incredible.


----------



## ycbm (8 January 2016)

EQUIDAE said:



			ycbm - legal aid as it stands can only be applied when there is a risk of a custodial sentence.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming that what I have been saying all along is correct.




			You appear to have no actual knowledge other than what you have gleaned from a google search and that makes your argument totally incredible.
		
Click to expand...

Incredible, but correct


----------



## ycbm (8 January 2016)

Dupe


----------



## ycbm (8 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			The other way the figures are boosted is when people either don't see the summons and so don't go to court, or fail to go for other reasons.  Then the RSPCA asks the magistrates to enter a Guilty verdict by default and the case is never tested in court.  The CPS is far more understanding of human nature and uses the provision in the manner it was intended - to penalise those who have gone on the run, not people who simply don't understand the way the system works or who have been ill or are elderly etc.
		
Click to expand...

Now here's my problem.  The very lengthy post from which the above quote was taken contained a lot of very useful information if it is correct. 

But this nugget is completely misleading. It is common in Magistrates Courts for defendants who don't turn up in court to have cases of all sorts heard in their absence at the request of the CPS and be convicted. It is also common for them to come back to court and ask for the proceedings to be reopened because they swear on oath that they were unaware of the proceedings or prevented from being there at very short notice.

So when misleading paragraphs like that one are inserted into a long post which seems very informative, how does anyone trust the rest?


----------



## ycbm (8 January 2016)

Lizzie66 said:



			ycbm your arguments have persuaded me to sign the petition!
		
Click to expand...

Good. I signed it a long time before you did


----------



## Fenris (8 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Now here's my problem.  The very lengthy post from which the above quote was taken contained a lot of very useful information if it is correct. 

But this nugget is completely misleading. It is common in Magistrates Courts for defendants who don't turn up in court to have cases of all sorts heard in their absence and be convicted. It is also common for them to come back to court and ask for the proceedings to be reopened because they swear on oath that they were unaware of the proceedings or prevented from being there at very short notice.

So when misleading paragraphs like that one are inserted into a long post which seems very informative, how does anyone trust the rest?
		
Click to expand...


In normal proceedings yes. Note what I said about the CPS.  In RSPCA proceedings it is almost impossible to get cases re-opened even when people have medical certificates.  In one case the court proceeded despite the fact that a medical certificate had been lodged along with a letter from the solicitor explaining that applications for legal aid had not been dealt with by the legal aid board.  Very few of these issues are ever reported in the media.  They are just part of the RSPCA's arsenal used to wear the defendant down to the point that the will to fight to clear their name is so completely sapped that they give in.


----------



## ycbm (8 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			In normal proceedings yes. Note what I said about the CPS.  In RSPCA proceedings it is almost impossible to get cases re-opened even when people have medical certificates.  In one case the court proceeded despite the fact that a medical certificate had been lodged along with a letter from the solicitor explaining that applications for legal aid had not been dealt with by the legal aid board.  Very few of these issues are ever reported in the media.  They are just part of the RSPCA's arsenal used to wear the defendant down to the point that the will to fight to clear their name is so completely sapped that they give in.
		
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that, but what you said in your post was that the CPS only prosecute in absence if someone is on the run, and that is simply not the truth. And knowing one bit of what someone says is not the truth makes it very difficult to judge how much else being posted is not the truth.

I want the RSPCA's role as the animal police investigated as much as anyone, but I have yet to see any credible evidence that the majority of people being prosecuted do not deserve to be prosecuted. I know three cases well. In the first, a horse was allowed to starve to death in a field which was close to the owner's house, and they had other horses which were extremely well cared for. The owner was fit, middle aged, had money and deserved everything he got. In the second case the RSPCA visited a thin dog and gave the owners advice to take the dog to a vet to investigate his sensitive stomach. They did, and the vet recommended Hill's feed. They visited again and the dog was fine. They followed up later and the dog was again skeletally thin, and the owners had stopped feeding it Hills. The RSPCA had it signed over to them, from when it was cared for in kennels, fed Hills, and recovered its health with no veterinary treatment, just the right food. They were fined, banned from keeping dogs, made to pay only about one quarter of the costs applied for (a few hundred instead of fifteen hundred)  and thoroughly deserved everything they got.  The third case was the import of hundreds of puppies from Ireland in the back of a box van. I'm not sure what the sentence was on that case, but whatever it was it probably wasn't enough.


----------



## Fenris (8 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			I don't doubt that, but what you said in your post was that the CPS only prosecute in absence if someone is on the run, and that is simply not the truth. And knowing one bit of what someone says is not the truth makes it very difficult to judge how much else being posted is not the truth.

I want the RSPCA's role as the animal police investigated as much as anyone, but I have yet to see any credible evidence that the majority of people being prosecuted do not deserve to be prosecuted. I know three cases well. In the first, a horse was allowed to starve to death in a field which was close to the owner's house, and they had other horses which were extremely well cared for. The owner was fit, middle aged, had money and deserved everything he got. In the second case the RSPCA visited a thin dog and gave the owners advice to take the dog to a vet to investigate his sensitive stomach. They did, and the vet recommended Hill's feed. They visited again and the dog was fine. They followed up later and the dog was again skeletally thin, and the owners had stopped feeding it Hills. The RSPCA had it signed over to them, from when it was cared for in kennels, fed Hills, and recovered its health with no veterinary treatment, just the right food. They were fined, banned from keeping dogs, made to pay only about one quarter of the costs applied for (a few hundred instead of fifteen hundred)  and thoroughly deserved everything they got.  The third case was the import of hundreds of puppies from Ireland in the back of a box van. I'm not sure what the sentence was on that case, but whatever it was it probably wasn't enough.
		
Click to expand...

I said that the CPS use the law in the way it was intended, giving people going on the run as an example - Thought people would understand that it meant the CPS use the law in extreme cases and accept that most normal people either don't understand the system or have problems with it.

One of the big problems with our legal system is that something that looks good when legislated to deal with a specific problem is taken by campaigning lawyers and used for purposes it was never intended to deal with.  As with the applications to dispose of animals already mentioned.


----------



## popsdosh (8 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			I don't doubt that, but what you said in your post was that the CPS only prosecute in absence if someone is on the run, and that is simply not the truth. And knowing one bit of what someone says is not the truth makes it very difficult to judge how much else being posted is not the truth.

I want the RSPCA's role as the animal police investigated as much as anyone, but I have yet to see any credible evidence that the majority of people being prosecuted do not deserve to be prosecuted. I know three cases well. In the first, a horse was allowed to starve to death in a field which was close to the owner's house, and they had other horses which were extremely well cared for. The owner was fit, middle aged, had money and deserved everything he got. In the second case the RSPCA visited a thin dog and gave the owners advice to take the dog to a vet to investigate his sensitive stomach. They did, and the vet recommended Hill's feed. They visited again and the dog was fine. They followed up later and the dog was again skeletally thin, and the owners had stopped feeding it Hills. The RSPCA had it signed over to them, from when it was cared for in kennels, fed Hills, and recovered its health with no veterinary treatment, just the right food. They were fined, banned from keeping dogs, made to pay only about one quarter of the costs applied for (a few hundred instead of fifteen hundred)  and thoroughly deserved everything they got.  The third case was the import of hundreds of puppies from Ireland in the back of a box van. I'm not sure what the sentence was on that case, but whatever it was it probably wasn't enough.
		
Click to expand...

Can you show where anybody in this long thread  has suggested the majority should not be prosecuted as I like you like to see the evidence. In that case how does your example of 3 cases out of 2,000 show that everybody prosecuted are guilty as charged  now please dont come out with the only 2% are  acquitted as that was discredited long ago I think we all know those figures are manipulated to impress the little old cat ladies. Are there seriously 6 RSPCA cases in the courts every day they are sitting. I cant be bothered to check but its out there somewhere!


----------



## ycbm (8 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			I said that the CPS use the law in the way it was intended, giving people going on the run as an example - Thought people would understand that it meant the CPS use the law in extreme cases and accept that most normal people either don't understand the system or have problems with it.

.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly what I understood you to say. And it's not true. It's absolutely routine for the CPS to prosecute in absence, it happens all the time.


----------



## ycbm (8 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			I cant be bothered to check
		
Click to expand...

A very good summary of your arguments, popsdosh


----------



## Regandal (8 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			This is simply not true."
		
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it is.  In my previous job, I had to attend various protection policy steering groups.  It was recognised then, and that must be 7-8 years ago.
 A quick look through the reports available on the NSPCC website shows numerous reports highlighting this.  They put 'neglect' under the umberella of 'abuse'.  I tried to link one, but it came up huge.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 January 2016)

ycbm,  I've just googled 'The Rolle of the CPS' and found their statement of ethos.  Here it is;

Introduction. ..

What we do
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal prosecuting authority for England and Wales, acting independently in criminal cases investigated by the police and others.

..

Casework Quality Standards (CQS).
Our mission
Our mission is to deliver justice through the independent and effective prosecution of crime, fostering a culture of excellence by supporting and inspiring each other to be the best we can.

*Our values*
We will be independent and fair
We will prosecute independently, without bias and will seek to deliver justice in every case.

We will be honest and open
We will explain our decisions, set clear standards about the service the public can expect from us and be honest if we make a mistake.

We will treat everyone with respect
We will respect each other, our colleagues and the public we serve, recognising that there are people behind every case.

We will behave professionally and strive for excellence
We will work as one team, always seeking new and better ways to deliver the best possible service for the public. 

We will be efficient and responsible with tax-payers' money. 

__________

I've shortened it for the sake of brevity!

Considering the heading,  *Our Values*;  can you honestly,  with your hand on your heart,  you or anyone else for that matter,  tell me that you actually believe that the same conditions are even considered by the rspca when they prosecute?  Considering the donations aspect of the rspca and how they squander those bequests,  I just love the last sentence quoted,  don't you? :wink3:

Alec.


----------



## shetland pony (8 January 2016)

I haven't read all replies but one criticism is the lack of legal aid however in most criminal cases (I think sexual assault type and child endangerment are excluded) you aren't entitled to legal aid if you have more than £8,000 including the value of your house. So people won't  lose their house due to rspca because they would lose it in any criminal case because they wouldn't get legal aid in any case. Look online to see the income limits for legal aid in criminal cases.


----------



## Rollin (8 January 2016)

Unfortunately, once the RSPCA decide to prosecute, the innocent owner may not discuss the case, even when it is apparent that an inspector, ignorant of the law, has both broken the law and lied in testament more than once.  Witnesses will testify to this. The defendant who does not have the benefit of being a 'charity' has to borrow money to make a defence and is told they may not recover costs even if they win.

I will never give another donation to the RSPCA.


----------



## honetpot (8 January 2016)

Regandal said:



			I'm afraid it is.  In my previous job, I had to attend various protection policy steering groups.  It was recognised then, and that must be 7-8 years ago.
 A quick look through the reports available on the NSPCC website shows numerous reports highlighting this.  They put 'neglect' under the umberella of 'abuse'.  I tried to link one, but it came up huge.
		
Click to expand...

I think the idea of abuse/neglect can be pretty broad. Someone who is a serious alcohol/drug user may be neglecting their children, and may not be feeding their dogs as well. Social services, the police, schools may be involved with but the children may remain with the parents, monitored. In one example I was shown as part of training it was only when the RSPCA started proceedings that the relevant government departments decided the child's needs were not being met.


----------



## honetpot (8 January 2016)

honetpot said:



			I think the idea of abuse/neglect can be pretty broad. Someone who is a serious alcohol/drug user may be neglecting their children, and may not be feeding their dogs as well. Social services, the police, schools may be involved with but the children may remain with the parents, monitored. In one example I was shown as part of training it was only when the RSPCA started proceedings that the relevant government departments decided the child's needs were not being met.
		
Click to expand...

 Missed a bit.
I think the idea of abuse/neglect can be pretty broad.
 Someone who is a serious alcohol/drug user may be neglecting their children, and may not be feeding their dogs as well. Social services, the police, schools may be involved with but the children may remain with the parents, monitored and supported. 
In one example I was shown as part of training it was only when the RSPCA started proceedings that the relevant government departments decided the child's needs were not being met. Now as a statistic this would come as abuse of children and animals when the abuse is a consequence of a chaotic lifestyle and not necessarily  deliberate animal cruelty or child abuse although the effect is the same. The chances would be the parents would not be prosecuted but the children would be taken into care. 
  The trouble with statistics is until they are broken down into actual causes, ie physical, emotional,financial etc they do not give you the whole picture. I think anyone who shows violence and a lack of empathy towards animals is likely to behave in the same way towards children, but a lot animal welfare cases seem to neglect when the people have knowledge and a history of keeping animals well so I think there is something else going on here. Its it a set of circumstances that happen, ie aging and lack of support, or some sort of blinkering to a problem the obvious hoping it will go away? Or is it an old shaggy pony in a wet field would look rough who ever owned it or however it was cared for and someone elses interpretation of events.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 January 2016)

honetpot said:



			Missed a bit.

&#8230;&#8230;.. . Its it a set of circumstances that happen, ie aging and lack of support, or some sort of blinkering to a problem the obvious hoping it will go away? Or is it an old shaggy pony in a wet field would look rough who ever owned it or however it was cared for and someone elses interpretation of events.
		
Click to expand...

Very often,  yes it is.  Very often when life is overbearing for some their priorities lie elsewhere and they simply neglect their duty of care to their charges.  It's all too easy to sit in judgement of them.  Asking for help is all so often an admission of failure and would be unthinkable for many.  Sad though it is,  it's a fact.

A few years ago,  near to Thetford,  an otherwise lovely man fell on hard times,  he was himself an elderly man,  a bachelor and was caring for his dying mother.  His sheep were in a pretty awful state.  Thankfully,  it wasn't the rspca but the Farm Team from Trading Standards who visited him.  The story made the national news.  There were those who made representations to TS,  every assistance was offered locally,  the sheep were removed,  'put right' and sold,  the man concerned signed a declaration to the effect that he would never keep livestock again.  That was the end of the matter.  All credit to Trading Standards for taking such a humane and decent approach.  Prosecution was a guaranteed route and success would have been a certainty,  but they took a more pragmatic view,  and the man is still with us.

Alec.


----------



## popsdosh (8 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			A very good summary of your arguments, popsdosh 

Click to expand...

Still havent answered my question ? Only to be expected !! People get abusive when they cant answer back! You keep asking for facts lets see yours to back up what you are saying. 
It makes me laugh when in the face of professional people who are dealing with it day in day out you still insist you are correct and the only knowledge you profess to have is from google.
Now please try and answer my question as you have insisted from others all along,I will repeat it

Can you show where anybody in this long thread has suggested the majority should not be prosecuted as I like you like to see the evidence. In that case how does your example of 3 cases out of 2,000 show that everybody prosecuted are guilty as charged now please dont come out with the only 2% are acquitted as that was discredited long ago I think we all know those figures are manipulated to impress the little old cat ladies. Are there seriously 6 RSPCA cases concluding in the courts every day they are sitting.
I know the answer just want to see if its sunk in yet!! A little hint though I didnt use google!! I got it straight from the horses mouth so to speak!


----------



## popsdosh (9 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Very often,  yes it is.  Very often when life is overbearing for some their priorities lie elsewhere and they simply neglect their duty of care to their charges.  It's all too easy to sit in judgement of them.  Asking for help is all so often an admission of failure and would be unthinkable for many.  Sad though it is,  it's a fact.

A few years ago,  near to Thetford,  an otherwise lovely man fell on hard times,  he was himself an elderly man,  a bachelor and was caring for his dying mother.  His sheep were in a pretty awful state.  Thankfully,  it wasn't the rspca but the Farm Team from Trading Standards who visited him.  The story made the national news.  There were those who made representations to TS,  every assistance was offered locally,  the sheep were removed,  'put right' and sold,  the man concerned signed a declaration to the effect that he would never keep livestock again.  That was the end of the matter.  All credit to Trading Standards for taking such a humane and decent approach.  Prosecution was a guaranteed route and success would have been a certainty,  but they took a more pragmatic view,  and the man is still with us.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Yes indeed Alec luckily for us farmers TS are mainly responsible for welfare matters with farm animals and yes they are far more understanding and helpful in their dealings with people! Very rarely do they prosecute and when they do they are usually supported 100% by other farmers as they only do it as a last resort!


----------



## Sussexbythesea (9 January 2016)

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/owner-donkeys-lucky-survive-banned-from-keeping-animals-462108

Has this petition been started by the same Carolyn Shires that was prosecuted by (ironically given the statement above) Trading Standards and supported by the Donkey Sanctuary? If you Google her name you come up with various news reports about her regarding animal neglect and debt. 

Could be a different one I suppose but seems a bit of a coincidence.


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Yes indeed Alec luckily for us farmers TS are mainly responsible for welfare matters with farm animals and yes they are far more understanding and helpful in their dealings with people! Very rarely do they prosecute and when they do they are usually supported 100% by other farmers as they only do it as a last resort!
		
Click to expand...

It's not luck. There's a reason trading standards do farm animals and not the RSPCA.  it's an economic necessity. It is impossible to farm animals for meat to the same welfare standards as are expected of pet and horse owners, people would simply never be able to afford to eat meat.

This isn't necessarily wrong, it just is.


----------



## popsdosh (9 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			It's not luck. There's a reason trading standards do farm animals and not the RSPCA.  it's an economic necessity. It is impossible to farm animals for meat to the same welfare standards as are expected of pet and horse owners, people would simply never be able to afford to eat meat.

This isn't necessarily wrong, it just is.
		
Click to expand...

Of course it would be wrong if it was true

See the argument is because us farmers operate under exactly the same rules as any animal. Why can one agency treat people so differently to another and it has nothing to do with the standards they are upholding.I keep all my animals in exactly the same way either domestic or farm .I have to I can have TS or other Government agencies turn up at any time without notice to inspect my stock. A lame cow to them is just as important to them as a lame horse is to the RSPCA. The difference is one agency makes allowances for the things that be fall all animal owners and educate,whilst another acts heavy handed and rushes to prosecuting people when it is not really in anybodies interest apart from seemingly their own. 
Hopefully with a new man at the Helm the RSPCA may go back to the respected organisation they were was there really a public interest in a lot of the prosecutions they took on . I am pleased to say they now seem to accept that themselves.

 Do you really see animal welfare getting worse if the RSPCA start cutting back on what they take to prosecution or is the perception that it has got worse because for whatever reason they have gone through a period of unprecedented growth in the prosecutions they pursue. So making things look worse.A lot of these prosecutions have been easy targets often prosecuted because for example an old animal needed putting down a few weeks earlier what benefit do animals in general get from the owner being prosecuted long after the animal has gone. We have all probably been guilty of that one at one stage or another.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (9 January 2016)

Lizzie66 said:



			The CPS was set up to be independent to the police to enable the gathering of evidence and prosecution to be done by separate bodies thereby allowing a one step removed approach that enabled a more fair approach. This should be the same for the RSPCA.
		
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The RSPCA should investigate and then pass their findings onto the CPS.


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2016)

Oh popsdosh, of course it's true. What is the point of pretending it's not?


Before I give you this example, I will tell you that I am a fully paid up meat eater of intensively farmed animals. I know that if they were farmed by the same standards of welfare as horses are kept, I could not afford to eat it. I'm going to give you one example of many.

Now imagine a scenario where someone has managed to selectively breed mares to routinely give birth to multiple foals, twins being the ideal. So now they turn out several hundred of these mares into areas where the ground is not as flat as a bowling green. As the mares advance in pregnancy, the have a bump on either side, and when they roll in a dip they get stuck on their backs. If no-one finds them in time (overnight, for example) they die on their backs and if they are lucky they are dead before the crows take their eyes. This situation, as you and I well know, is impossible to avoid if farming sheep in commercial numbers. It would never be tolerated as a normal occurrence on a horse breeding premises.

We can only have a proper discussion of the RSPCA if we are honest about animal welfare and how it is applied to different aspects of animal management.

I'll repeat, just in case you haven't got it. I eat meat. I am not saying it is wrong. But it doesn't make sense to say it isn't true.


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2016)

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and the difference between Trading Standards and the RSPCA has really taxed my brain. Is it possibly that the RSPCA don't actually have ENOUGH powers?

Let's take the example of a mentally ill person hoarding cats in  bad conditions. Someone goes in to advise the person that they need to get the cats sorted. They don't do it. They are then asked if they will sign over the animals. They won't. The RSPCA seize the animals (or, rather, the police do and give them to the RSPCA to look after. What happens then if the RSPCA don't prosecute the mentally ill person? Would they simply be able to demand their animals back and go on maltreating them?

Any lawyers who can answer that one, it's too complicated for Google I think?


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2016)

Faracat said:



			I wholeheartedly agree with this. The RSPCA should investigate and then pass their findings onto the CPS.
		
Click to expand...

Me to, but there's no way the Government will find the money to do it


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2016)

Dupe


----------



## popsdosh (9 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Oh popsdosh, of course it's true. What is the point of pretending it's not?


Before I give you this example, I will tell you that I am a fully paid up meat eater of intensively farmed animals. I know that if they were farmed by the same standards of welfare as horses are kept, I could not afford to eat it. I'm going to give you one example of many.

Now imagine a scenario where someone has managed to selectively breed mares to routinely give birth to multiple foals, twins being the ideal. So now they turn out several hundred of these mares into areas where the ground is not as flat as a bowling green. As the mares advance in pregnancy, the have a bump on either side, and when they roll in a dip they get stuck on their backs. If no-one finds them in time (overnight, for example) they die on their backs and if they are lucky they are dead before the crows take their eyes. This situation, as you and I well know, is impossible to avoid if farming sheep in commercial numbers. It would never be tolerated as a normal occurrence on a horse breeding premises.

We can only have a proper discussion of the RSPCA if we are honest about animal welfare and how it is applied to different aspects of animal management.

I'll repeat, just in case you haven't got it. I eat meat. I am not saying it is wrong. But it doesn't make sense to say it isn't true.
		
Click to expand...

I hope as I have been farming since I crawled out of a pram( many years ago) you may be courteous enough to accept I do know a thing or two about the regulations we have to work too.

I find this a bizarre argument you obviously dont know a huge amount about sheep! If people have lots of sheep getting stuck on their backs (as I assume thats the analogies you are trying to draw) they are just as likely to be taken to task!  There are misapprehensions though I must put right

 1, most ewes get cast after they have  lambed it is not the belly full of lambs that cause it in fact they actually help prevent the problem as it is not so easy for them to get on their backs. 

2, most happen in the period coming up to shearing due to the sheer weight of the wool particularly if its wet.

3, We have to stick to the same standards of animal welfare as anybody else whether farmed or domestic , Please show me the statutes that are different!! The reason TS takes on farm animal welfare is simply because they have right of access I cannot refuse to let them inspect my stock at any time but I could the RSPCA so who is better equipped to deal with it ?

Theres a saying in farming if you have livestock you have dead stock you can lose them for whatever reason however a dead animal doesnt earn me a lot .Take lameness as an example right every cow that is not treated and sorted costs me money in lost production its treated because of that not because im frightened of being prosecuted. TS work with farmers fully aware of all issues that can occur and believe me they have a bigger bite than the RSPCA( potentially I can lose £250k each time they visit and that doesnt need a court case) However to play devils advocate if the RSPCA were responsible every one I lose would be a prosecution opportunity for them which in the last few years since GG was in charge for whatever reason they have been more likely to do. Its a bit like if they were the CPS everybody speeding ,riding bikes without lights or other trivial misdemeanour's would end up in court so suddenly it looks like a crime wave.
They need to tread very carefully because they are starting to bite off the hand that feeds them!!


----------



## Alec Swan (9 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			It's not luck. There's a reason trading standards do farm animals and not the RSPCA.  it's an economic necessity. It is impossible to farm animals for meat to the same welfare standards as are expected of pet and horse owners, people would simply never be able to afford to eat meat.

This isn't necessarily wrong, it just is.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry  popsdosh,  but I have to agree with ycbm on this because though not perhaps ideal,  it's just how life is.  A case in question;  I have a middle aged ewe here who I cannot get sound.  She's non-weight bearing on one front foot.  Her feet don't need trimming,  she has 'scald' which persists,  I treat her every 4 or 5 days,  and all to no avail.  Do I call a vet out to a horse which is similarly afflicted?  Of course I do.  Spending £100 on a sheep which is worth £80 doesn't make sense.  I may just as well shoot her,  but I don't (haven't yet!),  I want to win and have her come sound.  It isn't just to do with money,  either! 

Alec.


----------



## popsdosh (9 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and the difference between Trading Standards and the RSPCA has really taxed my brain. Is it possibly that the RSPCA don't actually have ENOUGH powers?

Let's take the example of a mentally ill person hoarding cats in  bad conditions. Someone goes in to advise the person that they need to get the cats sorted. They don't do it. They are then asked if they will sign over the animals. They won't. The RSPCA seize the animals (or, rather, the police do and give them to the RSPCA to look after. What happens then if the RSPCA don't prosecute the mentally ill person? Would they simply be able to demand their animals back and go on maltreating them?

Any lawyers who can answer that one, it's too complicated for Google I think?
		
Click to expand...




ycbm said:



			Oh popsdosh, of course it's true. What is the point of pretending it's not?


Before I give you this example, I will tell you that I am a fully paid up meat eater of intensively farmed animals. I know that if they were farmed by the same standards of welfare as horses are kept, I could not afford to eat it. I'm going to give you one example of many.

Now imagine a scenario where someone has managed to selectively breed mares to routinely give birth to multiple foals, twins being the ideal. So now they turn out several hundred of these mares into areas where the ground is not as flat as a bowling green. As the mares advance in pregnancy, the have a bump on either side, and when they roll in a dip they get stuck on their backs. If no-one finds them in time (overnight, for example) they die on their backs and if they are lucky they are dead before the crows take their eyes. This situation, as you and I well know, is impossible to avoid if farming sheep in commercial numbers. It would never be tolerated as a normal occurrence on a horse breeding premises.

We can only have a proper discussion of the RSPCA if we are honest about animal welfare and how it is applied to different aspects of animal management.

I'll repeat, just in case you haven't got it. I eat meat. I am not saying it is wrong. But it doesn't make sense to say it isn't true.
		
Click to expand...

Im starting to worry what argument you will come up with next ! said with a worried smile!!!!!!


----------



## popsdosh (9 January 2016)

[


Alec Swan said:



			I'm sorry  popsdosh,  but I have to agree with ycbm on this because though not perhaps ideal,  it's just how life is.  A case in question;  I have a middle aged ewe here who I cannot get sound.  She's non-weight bearing on one front foot.  Her feet don't need trimming,  she has 'scald' which persists,  I treat her every 4 or 5 days,  and all to no avail.  Do I call a vet out to a horse which is similarly afflicted?  Of course I do.  Spending £100 on a sheep which is worth £80 doesn't make sense.  I may just as well shoot her,  but I don't (haven't yet!),  I want to win and have her come sound.  It isn't just to do with money,  either! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

What I am saying is the rules to treat the sheep is no different to the horse . We stopped keeping sheep for the very same welfare verses cost reason. Got fed up with shooting ewes that needed ceasars! 

However because you are trying your best by the sheep TS would understand ! Can you imagine in what way the RSPCA  would react?


----------



## Alec Swan (9 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			[


However because you are trying your best by the sheep TS would understand ! Can you imagine in what way the RSPCA  would react?
		
Click to expand...

Accepted,  of course,  and reading between the lines,  your point would be accepted by all!  The simple fact is that generally,  the rspca are totally and completely inept and they have no understanding of any of the factors which influence those who farm,  they care even less,  and those 'influences' cannot be ignored.

Alec.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (9 January 2016)

Sussexbythesea said:



http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/owner-donkeys-lucky-survive-banned-from-keeping-animals-462108

Has this petition been started by the same Carolyn Shires that was prosecuted by (ironically given the statement above) Trading Standards and supported by the Donkey Sanctuary? If you Google her name you come up with various news reports about her regarding animal neglect and debt. 

Could be a different one I suppose but seems a bit of a coincidence.
		
Click to expand...

Very good spot if true.

Fenris, can you confirm or deny the Petitioner is the person involved in the above case? If it is, I shall await a petition for the curbing of opinion from the Donkey Sanctuary too.


----------



## Goldenstar (9 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Of course it would be wrong if it was true

See the argument is because us farmers operate under exactly the same rules as any animal. Why can one agency treat people so differently to another and it has nothing to do with the standards they are upholding.I keep all my animals in exactly the 
same way either domestic or farm .I have to I can have TS or other Government agencies turn up at any time without notice to inspect my stock. A lame cow to them is just as important to them as a lame horse is to the RSPCA. The difference is one agency makes allowances for the things that be fall all animal owners and educate,whilst another acts heavy handed and rushes to prosecuting people when it is not really in anybodies interest apart from seemingly their own. 
Hopefully with a new man at the Helm the RSPCA may go back to the respected organisation they were was there really a public interest in a lot of the prosecutions they took on . I am pleased to say they now seem to accept that themselves.

 Do you really see animal welfare getting worse if the RSPCA start cutting back on what they take to prosecution or is the perception that it has got worse because for whatever reason they have gone through a period of unprecedented growth in the prosecutions they pursue. So making things look worse.A lot of these prosecutions have been easy targets often prosecuted because for example an old animal needed putting down a few weeks earlier what benefit do animals in general get from the owner being prosecuted long after the animal has gone. We have all probably been guilty of that one at one stage or another.
		
Click to expand...

Well I have to disagree that we all have been in the situation of keeping animals that need PTS .
However I think that very many of the type of prosecutions of the type you talk about here are won by the RSPCA because their lawyers know their way around the laws better than the lawyers that are defending .
Then there's also the issue that if you defend the case and lose the RSPCA can come after you for the costs and as they run up some pretty ridiculous bills it's not surprising defending lawyers have to advise their clients of the risk of defending a case and that may well lead to many guilty pleas from people who are guilty of nothing more than having a different view than the norm about the taking of life to avoid suffering  
I have often thought the unnecessary suffering argument around the PTS issue is subjective in the extreme .
Suffering around death is a pretty natural thing .


----------



## chillipup (9 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Of course it would be wrong if it was true

See the argument is because us farmers operate under exactly the same rules as any animal. Why can one agency treat people so differently to another and it has nothing to do with the standards they are upholding.I keep all my animals in exactly the same way either domestic or farm .I have to I can have TS or other Government agencies turn up at any time without notice to inspect my stock. A lame cow to them is just as important to them as a lame horse is to the RSPCA. The difference is one agency makes allowances for the things that be fall all animal owners and educate,whilst another acts heavy handed and rushes to prosecuting people when it is not really in anybodies interest apart from seemingly their own. 
Hopefully with a new man at the Helm the RSPCA may go back to the respected organisation they were was there really a public interest in a lot of the prosecutions they took on . I am pleased to say they now seem to accept that themselves.

 Do you really see animal welfare getting worse if the RSPCA start cutting back on what they take to prosecution or is the perception that it has got worse because for whatever reason they have gone through a period of unprecedented growth in the prosecutions they pursue. So making things look worse.A lot of these prosecutions have been easy targets often prosecuted because for example an old animal needed putting down a few weeks earlier what benefit do animals in general get from the owner being prosecuted long after the animal has gone. We have all probably been guilty of that one at one stage or another.
		
Click to expand...

How about reading the Wooler report (the RSPCA commissioned themselves) in full? Take your time to take it all in and see what the former Director of the Crown Prosecution Service recommends they do. 


Oh and I'd be interested to know how the Trading Standards Animal Health Education team operates. Couldn't find anything on their site.  I'd be pleased to pointed in the right direction.


----------



## Alec Swan (9 January 2016)

Animal Health comes under the direction of DEFRA,  not Trading Standards.

Alec.


----------



## minesadouble (9 January 2016)

I think the one thing this thread highlights is that the RSPCA have lost their credibility. I'm presuming that most of us on here are horse/dog/livestock owners and that we are also enlightened as to the quality of life our animals deserve and make sacrifices to provide these animals with everything they need and a bit more.

That being the case surely we should all support an organisation with animal welfare at its heart? I can't speak for anyone by myself but for me the RSPCA is not worthy of my support. I don't trust them (they have been proven to lie) or any statements made by them.
I don't think they act in the best interests of animals. I know a lot of people who feel the same way I do, the RSPCA either needs a massive overhaul or should be stripped of its charitable status.


----------



## chillipup (9 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			The vast mjaority of RSPCA cases are not starving animals or tortured animals.  They revolve around disputes over whether a vet was consulted quickly enough.  Or whether the right treatment was applied by the individual.  Or whether an animal was put down at the right time.  

Many of the defendants are elderly or homeless or ill people.  Certainly many are vulnerable.  The CPS has ordered the RSPCA to drop charges in some cases and the whole case in others.  But they are dependent on being informed that there are concerns about how a case has been handled or that it does not comply with the Code  for Crown prosecutors.

It is not enough to depend on the courts to be the final arbiter.  By the time a case reaches court much of the damage will have already been done.  Elderly and much loved animals have died of old age.  Puppies have grown up in kennels instead of the family home.  

The RSPCA may well have gone to people's employers to inform them of the investigation and pending prosecution.  Jobs have been lost.

Social services is often notified if there are children or elderly people present.  Clearly precedence is given to these fights allowing the RSPCA a much easier 'win' in their case.

You will find much more information on RSPCA prosecutions in the SHG submission to the Wooler report

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

Click to expand...




Fenris said:



			Take a look at the SHG submission to the Wooler inquiry.  Then go and read the Wooler report and you will see that much of the SHG's submission has been incorporated into the final report - even allowing for the RSPCA having demanded changes in it.  If that is not sufficient for you then nothing will satisfy you.
		
Click to expand...


Thanks Fenris, I have read the Wooler report previously (more than once). However, I did feel that the SHG submission was not only amateurish but sadly, unprofessional, emotional and contentious. The employment of a professional in this instance, would no doubt, have given greater gravitas to the problems raised and could have been interpreted likewise.

That said, I am not that naive to believe there is not both good and bad RSPCA staff (as there is in all walks of life, including no doubt the SHG) However making random statements such as those above, without giving factual evidence does little to promote your cause. 

Despite the independent review (commissioned by the RSPCA itself, remember) on the activities of their Prosecutions, by the former Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution service, you appear to have issues that perhaps haven't been resolved by Mr Wooler to the SHG satisfaction, (even if the RSPCA adopt all his recommendations). I would therefore, be very interested to know what those issues are exactly.


----------



## Leo Walker (9 January 2016)

I haven't read all the replies, but I'd be surprised if anyone who has ever had any dealings with the RSPCA has not signed the petition. No one wants animals to suffer at all, but the RSPCA really cannot carry on being the people who police this! They are so corrupt, even on occasion at a local level, and I can give chapter and  verse on that if needs be! That they cannot be allowed to continue as the highest authority in the land!


----------



## matt_m (9 January 2016)

No, will not sign.

Do not agree with everything they do & how they spend their money, and yes they can be pretty useless at times, but any causes they bring forward will be seen before a court and a judgement made. The court will decide if animal cruelty has taken place, not the RSPCA.


----------



## chillipup (9 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Animal Health comes under the direction of DEFRA,  not Trading Standards.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Actually it comes under Animal Health and Plant Agency - AHPA.


----------



## Mooseontheloose (9 January 2016)

"I have often thought the unnecessary suffering argument around the PTS issue is subjective in the extreme .
Suffering around death is a pretty natural thing ."
Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/foru...RSPCA-prosecutions/page17#kSs1UkJe6p9JjLUI.99

Yes, animals in the wild may take days to die of starvation, injury, water deprivation.
Does that mean we should allow it in the domestic environment? 
Of course, it's cheaper to allow something to die 'naturally' than call in a vet.


----------



## chillipup (9 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Animal Health comes under the direction of DEFRA,  not Trading Standards.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Also check out Trading Standards, Animal Health and Welfare Team?


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (9 January 2016)

minesadouble said:



			I think the one thing this thread highlights is that the RSPCA have lost their credibility. I'm presuming that most of us on here are horse/dog/livestock owners and that we are also enlightened as to the quality of life our animals deserve and make sacrifices to provide these animals with everything they need and a bit more.

That being the case surely we should all support an organisation with animal welfare at its heart? I can't speak for anyone by myself but for me the RSPCA is not worthy of my support. I don't trust them (they have been proven to lie) or any statements made by them.
I don't think they act in the best interests of animals. I know a lot of people who feel the same way I do, the RSPCA either needs a massive overhaul or should be stripped of its charitable status.
		
Click to expand...

This thread does not highlight anything of the sort. You are quite clearly anti- RSPCA & that is your right but I will not take the written word from a handful of strangers whose anecdotes regarding alleged RSPCA corruption as truth without evidence. 

I would still like to know if Carolyn Shires, the petitioner, is the same Carolyn Shires who was found guilty in a court of law for neglecting her 80 or so animals .As a previous poster stated, I do wonder about the motives of some of those who have signed the petition & if grudges regarding the RSPCAs anti-hunting stance & their subsequent prosecutions against illegal hunting with hounds is the reason for signing & not for the sake of the average pet owner.


----------



## chillipup (10 January 2016)

minesadouble said:



			I think the one thing this thread highlights is that the RSPCA have lost their credibility. I'm presuming that most of us on here are horse/dog/livestock owners and that we are also enlightened as to the quality of life our animals deserve and make sacrifices to provide these animals with everything they need and a bit more.

That being the case surely we should all support an organisation with animal welfare at its heart? I can't speak for anyone by myself but for me the RSPCA is not worthy of my support. I don't trust them (they have been proven to lie) or any statements made by them.
I don't think they act in the best interests of animals. I know a lot of people who feel the same way I do, the RSPCA either needs a massive overhaul or should be stripped of its charitable status.
		
Click to expand...

Not according to the independent report they commissioned from the former Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service.


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2016)

ChesnutsRoasting said:



			This thread does not highlight anything of the sort. You are quite clearly anti- RSPCA & that is your right but I will not take the written word from a handful of strangers whose anecdotes regarding alleged RSPCA corruption as truth without evidence. 

I would still like to know if Carolyn Shires, the petitioner, is the same Carolyn Shires who was found guilty in a court of law for neglecting her 80 or so animals .As a previous poster stated, I do wonder about the motives of some of those who have signed the petition & if grudges regarding the RSPCAs anti-hunting stance & their subsequent prosecutions against illegal hunting with hounds is the reason for signing & not for the sake of the average pet owner.
		
Click to expand...

This ^^^^

I would prefer the CPS to prosecute; the Arab case was a total mess, but on the whole they do a great job.

The RSPCA have taken a lot of criticism on this thread for its treatment of vulnerable people. I am concerned about those cases, but before I condemn the RSPCA for it,  can anyone answer me the earlier question of whether the RSPCA are forced to prosecute vulnerable owners of animals because that's the only way they have of not having to give the animals back to be further mistreated, or new animals taken on in their place?.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			This ^^^^

.. before I condemn the RSPCA for it,  can anyone answer me the earlier question of whether the RSPCA are forced to prosecute vulnerable owners of animals because that's the only way they have of not having to give the animals back to be further mistreated, or new animals taken on in their place?.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the rspca are actually 'forced' to do anything.  When animals are signed over to them,  that is often the end of the matter.  In the most extreme cases then I suspect that prosecution follows.  Once animals are 'signed over' (gifted in other words),  then the chances of the giver being able to demand their return would be slim and the rspca would have little difficulty in satisfying a Court that the contract should not be rescinded.

Despite the fact that I'm a firm critic of the rspca and of their devious and underhand practices,  the removal of animals from those who are either unable to,  or won't care for them is,  with the provision that it's coupled to a sense of justice,  the only way forward for an animal charity which claims any degree of authority.  The temptation all so often though is that they abuse their assumed powers,  and that's the major stumbling block,  in my view.

Alec.


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			I'm not sure that the rspca are actually 'forced' to do anything.  When animals are signed over to them,  that is often the end of the matter.  In the most extreme cases then I suspect that prosecution follows.  Once animals are 'signed over' (gifted in other words),  then the chances of the giver being able to demand their return would be slim and the rspca would have little difficulty in satisfying a Court that the contract should not be rescinded.

Despite the fact that I'm a firm critic of the rspca and of their devious and underhand practices,  the removal of animals from those who are either unable to,  or won't care for them is,  with the provision that it's coupled to a sense of justice,  the only way forward for an animal charity which claims any degree of authority.  The temptation all so often though is that they abuse their assumed powers,  and that's the major stumbling block,  in my view.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


The question remains, Alec. Does anyone on the thread know if the RSPCA have any way of stopping someone from keeping animals if they DON'T prosecute them?

Because if they don't, then that would explain why they feel it necessary to prosecute vulnerable people who they believe will simply go on keeping and mistreating animals.

I've googled it to death and I can't find a definitive answer. All the Government documents suggest the answer is no, which would explain a lot.


----------



## Goldenstar (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			The question remains, Alec. Does anyone on the thread know if the RSPCA have any way of stopping someone from keeping animals if they DON'T prosecute them?

Because if they don't, then that would explain why they feel it necessary to prosecute vulnerable people who they believe will simply go on keeping and mistreating animals.

I've googled it to death and I can't find a definitive answer. All the Government documents suggest the answer is no, which would explain a lot.
		
Click to expand...

If the RSPCA remove an animal on the say so of a police officer then need to take it straight to a vet if the vet says that in his or her opinion the animal is suffering and it has to be PTS that's that at that stage .
There's no need for the RSPCA to take any further action .
The owner of the animal could sue them and then they would simply need to defend their actions they would have a paper trial and photographs and usually video and the vets notes and the vet to use to defend their actions .


----------



## Alec Swan (10 January 2016)

ycbm,  the answer to your first question is obviously;  No,  short of applying for and being granted a case by case decision that the owner should be compelled to release their animals,  prosecution is the only way forwards.

There could also be the argument put forward that the rspca have their charitable status removed,  that they are granted and assume the duties and facilities of a government sponsored and provided authority and then they will be considered as Trading Standards and be compelled to abide by the conditions which are demanded of our Courts and Society in general.  As things stand,  and there is a clear conflict of interest,  so a charity which is dependent upon charitable donations,  attempts a level of authority,  such as it is it's abused and simply because they are attempting to wear two hats.  

Perhaps giving the rspca the authority which they need would be a way forward but with that authority comes responsibility and the removal of charitable status.  Somehow I can't see that happening as it would include the disbanding of a fat-cat council.

Alec.


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			If the RSPCA remove an animal on the say so of a police officer then need to take it straight to a vet if the vet says that in his or her opinion the animal is suffering and it has to be PTS that's that at that stage .
There's no need for the RSPCA to take any further action .
The owner of the animal could sue them and then they would simply need to defend their actions they would have a paper trial and photographs and usually video and the vets notes and the vet to use to defend their actions .
		
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question.

Is it possible for the RSPCA to prevent anyone from keeping animals without prosecuting them?

If a mad old lady insists on keeping fifty cats with no litter trays, can she be prevented from doing so without prosecution, or are the RSPCA forced to prosecute a vulnerable mentally ill old lady in order to protect animals?

If not, then it isn't fair to criticise them for prosecuting vulnerable people.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 January 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

The owner of the animal could sue them and then they would simply need to defend their actions they would have a paper trial and photographs and usually video and the vets notes and the vet to use to defend their actions .
		
Click to expand...

Vets,  just like solicitors,  will act and advise on behalf of the person who's paying them,  so the evidence which is offered by an rspca paid for vet will be as biased as the vet who represents the defendant.

Ets;  At the time of rspca intervention,  they (the charity) will already have a vet standing in the wings.  Few who would be in the position of a defendant would be in that position,  and any vet who they subsequently engage could hardly be in a position to offer an opinion regarding an animal which they are likely to view days or weeks after the event.

Alec.


----------



## Goldenstar (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			That doesn't answer the question.

Is it possible for the RSPCA to prevent anyone from keeping animals without prosecuting them?

If a mad old lady insists on keeping fifty cats with no litter trays, can she be prevented from doing so without prosecution, or are the RSPCA forced to prosecute a vulnerable mentally ill old lady in order to protect animals?

If not, then it isn't fair to criticise them for prosecuting vulnerable people.
		
Click to expand...


They could remove the pets subject correct procedure being followed but they could prevent the person getting more .
They are a charity they can't  force UK subjects to do things without the sanction of the law .
The idea that they could is just awful .
There been some very very worrying cases with older people the one with the elderly vet was one that really made me wonder were on earth the charity I worked so closely with was going .
I worry very much that some defendants don't get good enough representation soon enough to give them a fair chance to defend them selves .
Or they have no money and there fore no protection .


----------



## popsdosh (10 January 2016)

chillipup said:



			How about reading the Wooler report (the RSPCA commissioned themselves) in full? Take your time to take it all in and see what the former Director of the Crown Prosecution Service recommends they do. 


Oh and I'd be interested to know how the Trading Standards Animal Health Education team operates. Couldn't find anything on their site.  I'd be pleased to pointed in the right direction.
		
Click to expand...

Two points there and I will keep it short If the RSPCA was so squeeky clean why has it announced since the report that it will no longer prosecute farm animal or hunting cases . Has animal welfare got so much better that there has been a sharp decline in the number of prosecutions they have started.

On the Trading standards question, where have I said TS have an education team? They can come onto my farm at any time unannounced (unlike the RSPCA) if they find any issues with my stock which they judge on exactly the same welfare guidelines as any other animal they will then point these out. They will then have a conversation about how to rectify whats happening and make a return visit. This is the difference they have a conversation and not dictate their officers tend to be people who have farm animal experience . Their powers are draconian( they dont need to go to court) compared to even the RSPCA however farmers on the whole have no issue with the way they deal with people.

Like I say what would I know obviously another case of the internet being right and professionals who deal with it all the time not having a clue. Still I know from previous threads you just wont believe what you are told with regard the RSPCA even when its personal experience that is involved. Practical experience means a lot more than you read on the internet. I probably would not have believed what they do till I was asked to help them out and then see what goes on from the inside. You wont change my views based on what I have seen personally in a professional environment however I do find it insulting when yourself and one other on here try your best to twist what is said to rubbish it ! I notice the other poster who knows who they are has still not answered my questions but their still googling away im sure. Maybe they already know their figures they quoted are wrong by a long way.

Enough said as we are getting away from the point of the thread, which surprisingly I haven't yet as it actually has little credibility having been started by who it was. Perhaps you might give me some credit for that. However I am sure that things are going to change on the way welfare cases are prosecuted and I hope the RSPCA survives the impact as under previous control they really lost the plot as can be born out by their drop in income. The question I ask you to answer is very straight forward why are the RSPCA not wanting the CPS to prosecute the cases they have investigated. I think I know the reason and it has nothing to do with animal welfare.


----------



## Goldenstar (10 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Vets,  just like solicitors,  will act and advise on behalf of the person who's paying them,  so the evidence which is offered by an rspca paid for vet will be as biased as the vet who represents the defendant.

Ets;  At the time of rspca intervention,  they (the charity) will already have a vet standing in the wings.  Few who would be in the position of a defendant would be in that position,  and any vet who they subsequently engage could hardly be in a position to offer an opinion regarding an animal which they are likely to view days or weeks after the event.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I think my post there was obtuse I meant the RSPCA would have to defend themselves .
Owners of course don't go through their life preparing to defend themselves from a quasi NGO .
The only thing an owner can take them to court for is the valve of the pet ( so pretty well nothing )they might try to get recompense for their emotional suffering  or if they could find some abuse of process but it's highly unlikely a pet owner would take this route .


----------



## popsdosh (10 January 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			If the RSPCA remove an animal on the say so of a police officer then need to take it straight to a vet if the vet says that in his or her opinion the animal is suffering and it has to be PTS that's that at that stage .
There's no need for the RSPCA to take any further action .
The owner of the animal could sue them and then they would simply need to defend their actions they would have a paper trial and photographs and usually video and the vets notes and the vet to use to defend their actions .
		
Click to expand...

The problem is invariably the RSPCA will use only one vet in an area usually the one that gives them the result they want. One answer would be when it comes to the destruction of an animal maybe more opinions should be sought before it happens as its sure to late once its happened and i am afraid that there is always going to be some perception that a prosecution is just an a***e covering exercise after the event .

On a technicality which the RSPCA hide behind only the police have the power to seize the animal so you would need to sue the police authiority.


----------



## honetpot (10 January 2016)

When you criticise the RSPCA for how they handle a case or cases you are accused that you are not interested in animal welfare and they are defended by some with almost religious fervour,' how can this organisation that does so much good do anything wrong?'
  Well history is littered with organisations that did the wrong things with what started out with the best intentions, government, social services, children's charities, the police, NHS, religious bodies,etc. I suppose the RSPCA has been not under much scrutiny because of its charitable biases  and these cases are often spread out geographically and not well reported in the national press and perhaps only affect a relatively small amount of people  who has very little understanding of the media and how to use it.
  Well scrutiny is a good thing. It makes you examine your views, work out how to more effectively achieve your aims, makes you communicate effectively, invest in training and you have to justify your actions and their outcomes. This usually leads to a more effective organisation that serves its clients better.
  If the RSPCA had been part of government services like the NHS all it employees would have had to under go training in what ever their role was, and this training is often updated yearly or when ever guidelines change. I as a professional have to be accountable for my actions and actually ask for feedback from the public, document it and then reflect on it. I can not understand how RSPCA employees who have very little understanding or experience of large animals can be allowed to go to people homes and land and make judgements about best practice when the person being visited because of their actions end up, signing over their animals, or in the worst case could end up in court and there appears to be little ability for anyone to examine their actions. Why do they wear a pseudo police  uniform that infers authority, when even vets, doctors, social services do not wear a uniform and the ones that do like paramedics have a uniform that is based on practicality not intimidation? 
  I think there needs to be a review of how they operate, how their charitable donations are spent, and do they actually prevent cruelty? Target areas with poor animal welfare history and target interventions and record what happens. I can not understand why anyone wanting to prevent cruelty would advise not giving and animal in distress food or water, I am not interested in taking someone to court I would want to see that animal treated quickly who ever owned it.


----------



## Goldenstar (10 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			The problem is invariably the RSPCA will use only one vet in an area usually the one that gives them the result they want. One answer would be when it comes to the destruction of an animal maybe more opinions should be sought before it happens as its sure to late once its happened and i am afraid that there is always going to be some perception that a prosecution is just an a***e covering exercise after the event .
		
Click to expand...

I agree the area of when to PTS is highly subjective .
I have often thought the whole unnecessary suffering thing is a bit of a red herring from the time I lived in another culture where many would not end a life this made examine my beliefs with I had formed based on our norms of our society .
Suffering at the time of death is normal and natural this whole area is a very interesting subject to explore .


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			I agree the area of when to PTS is highly subjective .
I have often thought the whole unnecessary suffering thing is a bit of a red herring from the time I lived in another culture where many would not end a life this made examine my beliefs with I had formed based on our norms of our society .
Suffering at the time of death is normal and natural this whole area is a very interesting subject to explore .
		
Click to expand...


It wouldn't matter to me where I lived or for how long, natural or not, I could never, ever, allow a dying animal to continue to suffer when I had it in my power to end that suffering.


----------



## eahotson (10 January 2016)

I have been keeping a small number of animals for a number of years.The RSPCA haven't been round to remove them or prosecute me.Why is that as they seem to be targeting all sorts of innocent people? Should I feel offended? Are they prejudiced against me for some reason?


----------



## popsdosh (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			It wouldn't matter to me where I lived or for how long, natural or not, I could never, ever, allow a dying animal to continue to suffer when I had it in my power to end that suffering.
		
Click to expand...

However your perception of when to call it a day will be different to somebody else. Thats why I say the decision should not be down to just one Vet when the animal is seized obviously there are clear cut cases but also others that are not so easy to judge.
More often than not the animal is very well looked after and much loved and suddenly that owner has their decision making options taken away from them rather than somebody spending time with them and trying to persuade them in a caring and sympathetic way what the correct thing may be .


----------



## Goldenstar (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			It wouldn't matter to me where I lived or for how long, natural or not, I could never, ever, allow a dying animal to continue to suffer when I had it in my power to end that suffering.
		
Click to expand...

But that's a subjective opinion .
The law is not clear on the subject because it can't be , however if you say , keep your dog going after the vet has said PTS you had better be able to defend your course of action if necessary .
Other cultures take very different views on this .
My mother takes a very different view keeping dogs going long after I would have PTS .
Everyone's view on what's acceptable varies .
And tbh it's exactly the same with humans I consider what many people go through as unacceptable and inhumane many people believe that what I believe is unacceptable


----------



## Alec Swan (10 January 2016)

eahotson said:



			I have been keeping a small number of animals for a number of years.The RSPCA haven't been round to remove them or prosecute me.Why is that as they seem to be targeting all sorts of innocent people? Should I feel offended? Are they prejudiced against me for some reason?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you haven't irritated any neighbours,  and sufficiently so that they report you! 

Alec.


----------



## windand rain (10 January 2016)

As an animal welfare charity, and as the majority on here are animal lovers if the RSPCA were squeaky clean and never did any wrong then the majority would be hailing how wonderful they are and supporting them in every way. The fact is that the majority want the review and have less than faith in the organisation. The persuance of the old, frail, ill and weak is the problem they are abusing their powers as when it comes to the ones that fight back they are less than effective. The best way forward for them and one which I would support is they become excusively animal welfare officers with the proper training needed for every animal they may come across. They may prepare prosecutions if deemed necessary and then present a case to the CPS for further review, who then could proceed as needed or not. Having watched the American system it seems a much fairer way forward. They have police officers that do have powers of arrest that are specialists in animal welfare and as such are in a better position to bring forward prosecution.
The issue that I perceive to the biggest one is one of ignorance on the part of the RSPCA officers. Having heard of one who was called to some young native horses wintering out in 50 acres of rough grazing, with coats like Yaks advise a very experienced horse owner they need to be rugged. The ponies may well have been a wefare ase in the spring when the grass came through as they were hail and hearty enjoying life to the full. Feet trimmed vaccinated etc as they were show stock wintering out. Once heard of a young lass who had an old dog thrown from a car at her feet she lived in a no pets rental, it was apparent the dog was seriously injured, she was on low income the RSPCA informed her they didnt deal with dogs anymore and to call the dog warden the following monday (it was friday evening). I am sure these are not isolated incidents but an example of why a lot of animal lovers do not support the RSPCA. Maybe it is a question of training being inadequate that is at the heart of distrust. If the cases were prepared for scrutiny and an indepedant body filtered them for prosecution then justice would be seen to be done and the RSPCA would be respected by animal lovers instead of being appalled by their behaviour. Still there is no cure for stupid


----------



## Fenris (10 January 2016)

Regandal said:



			I'm afraid it is.  In my previous job, I had to attend various protection policy steering groups.  It was recognised then, and that must be 7-8 years ago.
 A quick look through the reports available on the NSPCC website shows numerous reports highlighting this.  They put 'neglect' under the umberella of 'abuse'.  I tried to link one, but it came up huge.
		
Click to expand...

Not suggesting for a minute that organisations like the NSPCC (who were, incidentally, started by the RSPCA) do not claim that there re 'links' and that there has not been a huge amount of literature produced claiming that there are.  The point is that when you actually read the content of the research it is not up to standard and easily debunked as in the article by Heather Piper posted earlier.  She is not the only expert who is critical of the situation, and if you do a search you will find many such.

The problem is that when this sort of misinformation becomes mainstream and 'everybody' 'knows' it to be true it leads to real horrors of injustice, like the Satanic Panic, and unfortunately, because of the secrecy of the family courts system most of the facts can never be known, including the RSPCA's involvement.

Here are reports of just one such case.  Be aware that only a fraction of what was done to these people has been reported.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...58902/Evil-destruction-of-a-happy-family.html

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


----------



## Fenris (10 January 2016)

Sussexbythesea said:



http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/owner-donkeys-lucky-survive-banned-from-keeping-animals-462108

Has this petition been started by the same Carolyn Shires that was prosecuted by (ironically given the statement above) Trading Standards and supported by the Donkey Sanctuary? If you Google her name you come up with various news reports about her regarding animal neglect and debt. 

Could be a different one I suppose but seems a bit of a coincidence.
		
Click to expand...

I will certainly ask but can you tell me why it should matter who started the petition?  The whole point is that the issues are important and need addressing, hence the interest from government, the possible EFRA inquiry and the Wooler report.


----------



## Fenris (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			It's not luck. There's a reason trading standards do farm animals and not the RSPCA.  it's an economic necessity. It is impossible to farm animals for meat to the same welfare standards as are expected of pet and horse owners, people would simply never be able to afford to eat meat.

This isn't necessarily wrong, it just is.
		
Click to expand...

Trading standards are supposed to do farm animals but I have personally been told by several TS departments that it is surprising how many times the RSPCA move in on a Friday afternoon having know about the issues for long enough to have informed them, manage to get hold of the animals and go on to prosecute and only inform TS after the event if at all.


----------



## Fenris (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			It's not luck. There's a reason trading standards do farm animals and not the RSPCA.  it's an economic necessity. It is impossible to farm animals for meat to the same welfare standards as are expected of pet and horse owners, people would simply never be able to afford to eat meat.

This isn't necessarily wrong, it just is.
		
Click to expand...

Try using that a a defence in an RSPCA prosecution.  The AWA is very clear.  Any unnecessary suffering is sufficient to produce a guilty verdict.  The RSPCA do not differentiate between a lame dog, horse or sheep.  If the owner is aware of the lameness or should reasonably have known that it was present then they must seek veterinary advice.


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2016)

The fact is that the majority want the review and have less than faith in the organisation. The persuance of the old, frail, ill and weak is the problem they are abusing their powers as when it comes to the ones that fight back they are less than effective.
		
Click to expand...


Can you point me to your statistical evidence for this statement?

Can you also answer my question whether the only way to stop the old, frail, ill and weak from being allowed to mistreat further animals is to prosecute them, because a banning order is only available after conviction.

The old, frail, ill and weak are, unfortunately, far from immune from mistreating animals.


----------



## popsdosh (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Can you point me to your statistical evidence for this statement?

Can you also answer my question whether the only way to stop the old, frail, ill and weak from being allowed to mistreat further animals is to prosecute them, because a banning order is only available after conviction.

The old, frail, ill and weak are, unfortunately, far from immune from mistreating animals.
		
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered mine perhaps you dont want too.


----------



## Fenris (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and the difference between Trading Standards and the RSPCA has really taxed my brain. Is it possibly that the RSPCA don't actually have ENOUGH powers?

Let's take the example of a mentally ill person hoarding cats in  bad conditions. Someone goes in to advise the person that they need to get the cats sorted. They don't do it. They are then asked if they will sign over the animals. They won't. The RSPCA seize the animals (or, rather, the police do and give them to the RSPCA to look after. What happens then if the RSPCA don't prosecute the mentally ill person? Would they simply be able to demand their animals back and go on maltreating them?

Any lawyers who can answer that one, it's too complicated for Google I think?
		
Click to expand...

There have been a number of cases in which the RSPCA have gone for a S.20 to dispose of the animals and have never gone on to prosecute.  The problem with this approach is that it has been used on people who did not have mental health problems as well as those who did.

Does anyone here really believe that serious accusations of animal neglect or cruelty should be decided to the civil standard or proof instead of the much more stringent criminal standard?

If all of your breeding stock, or show ponies were seized, would you be happy if a magistrate decided they could go for horse meat or be sold on to your rivals?

In cases involving the mentally ill there are usually other agencies involved, and if there are not the RSPCA most certainly notifies them.

Landlords are informed or the council or housing association.  The RSPCA puts pressure on them to enforce a No Animals tenancy even when there have been prior agreements that the person can keep a small number of animals.

If there is an issue with environment or untidiness, again landlords are involved along with environmental health etc.

Many other variations but effectively all suspend the individuals rights, and although there are times that it is the only way to deal with the situation it should not be for a charity to decide to put all of these things in motion when there is no proper oversight of that charity.


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			Try using that a a defence in an RSPCA prosecution.  The AWA is very clear.  Any unnecessary suffering is sufficient to produce a guilty verdict.  The RSPCA do not differentiate between a lame dog, horse or sheep.  If the owner is aware of the lameness or should reasonably have known that it was present then they must seek veterinary advice.
		
Click to expand...

If the RSPCA routinely prosecuted farmers whose sheep have foot rot, sheep who died on their backs due to not having been supervised, sheep left unsheared on a sweltering summer day, sheep left without shade from sunburn after being newly sheared, sheep left out in freezing weather after being newly sheared, sheep with bits of plastic tied into their vaginas with a bit of baling twine in an effort to stop them prolapsing before they can be lambed, sheep routinely nicked and blooded by shearers who pride themselves on the number they can get through,  etcetera, etcetera

Then the courts would be full of farmers and none of us would be able to afford to eat lamb.

It is laughable to claim that farming is subject to the same application of welfare standards as per animals. 

It isn't wrong, it just is. If it wasn't, meat would be the preserve of the very rich.

And in case anyone has forgotten, I buy and eat intensively farmed meat and poultry.


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2016)

My question still has not been answered. Is there any other way that the RSPCA can obtain a banning order against a vulnerable person other than as an ancillary order to a successful prosecution?

I'd really like to know the answer, because if not, then it seems very unfair to criticise them for prosecuting people.


----------



## Fenris (10 January 2016)

chillipup said:



			Thanks Fenris, I have read the Wooler report previously (more than once). However, I did feel that the SHG submission was not only amateurish but sadly, unprofessional, emotional and contentious. The employment of a professional in this instance, would no doubt, have given greater gravitas to the problems raised and could have been interpreted likewise.

That said, I am not that naive to believe there is not both good and bad RSPCA staff (as there is in all walks of life, including no doubt the SHG) However making random statements such as those above, without giving factual evidence does little to promote your cause. 

Despite the independent review (commissioned by the RSPCA itself, remember) on the activities of their Prosecutions, by the former Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution service, you appear to have issues that perhaps haven't been resolved by Mr Wooler to the SHG satisfaction, (even if the RSPCA adopt all his recommendations). I would therefore, be very interested to know what those issues are exactly.
		
Click to expand...

Of course it was emotional.  If we take emotion out of animal welfare then there is absolutely no reason for welfare at all.  Why not just shoot all stray dogs and cats or poison them?  What does it mater if a farmer starves his sheep?  After all, he will just go bankrupt.  Problem solved.

Note that the RSPCA depends on tweaking people's emotions in order to gain support for their prosecutions, drive donations and alienate support form anyone in their firing line.

Mr. Wooler took on board much of what the SHG had to say.  Did you know that he met with some of the people who featured in the SHG
submission along with the RSPCA?  That further investigations took place?

Yes, there are many issues with the RSPCA, but the overwhelming problem is that there is no proper oversight of the RSPCA or any other charity.  A charities ombudsman would give people the opportunity to have problems dealt with and would undoubtedly have prevented most of the problems that now exist from getting to the stage they have.


----------



## blueboy day (10 January 2016)

What is also now coming to light especially for people who follow the Farming Forum

http://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index....arm-finance-des-phillips-beware.9953/page-165

That is the fact that the LPA receiver in these cases of repossession of the farms uses the RSPCA, Trading Standards, Environmental Health and DEFRA, the owners are constantly reported for animal welfare issues, to get the various authorities to seize the animals and therefore get vacant possession much cheaper than going through the correct channels. Why should he go to court, when a phone call to the relevant authorities works just as well. Is that really what the people are giving their donations to the RSPCA for?


----------



## Fenris (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			The question remains, Alec. Does anyone on the thread know if the RSPCA have any way of stopping someone from keeping animals if they DON'T prosecute them?

Because if they don't, then that would explain why they feel it necessary to prosecute vulnerable people who they believe will simply go on keeping and mistreating animals.

I've googled it to death and I can't find a definitive answer. All the Government documents suggest the answer is no, which would explain a lot.
		
Click to expand...

There is another major problem with using prosecution and a banning order to deal with people who have mental health problems.  Just like women who have baby after bay taken from them by social services because they are replacing the child they have lost, people who have every animal removed just go out and get more irrespective of the law.

It should be noted that when defence legal teams tried to arrange limited numbers orders to ensure that people who had desperate needs to keep something with them it was the RSPCA who took appeals to get a determination that it could not be done.  They simply do not care about people just about getting a total ban.


----------



## Fenris (10 January 2016)

eahotson said:



			I have been keeping a small number of animals for a number of years.The RSPCA haven't been round to remove them or prosecute me.Why is that as they seem to be targeting all sorts of innocent people? Should I feel offended? Are they prejudiced against me for some reason?
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA don't just drop out of the sky.   People get a visit if they have upset a neighbour or an ex is looking for vengeance.  The other scenario is where someone passing by sees a thin animal or one in a situation they don't understand and rings.  That is why some suffering goes on for years undetected.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			If the RSPCA routinely prosecuted farmers whose sheep have foot rot, sheep who died on their backs due to not having been supervised, sheep left unsheared on a sweltering summer day, sheep left without shade from sunburn after being newly sheared, sheep left out in freezing weather after being newly sheared, sheep with bits of plastic tied into their vaginas with a bit of baling twine in an effort to stop them prolapsing before they can be lambed, sheep routinely nicked and blooded by shearers who pride themselves on the number they can get through,  etcetera, etcetera

Then the courts would be full of farmers and none of us would be able to afford to eat lamb.

It is laughable to claim that farming is subject to the same application of welfare standards as per animals. 

It isn't wrong, it just is. If it wasn't, meat would be the preserve of the very rich.

And in case anyone has forgotten, I buy and eat intensively farmed meat and poultry.
		
Click to expand...

There's nothing in your post above with which I'd argue,  but the problem that I have is that you seem to swing from the realities to rather strange extremes.  Don't ask me to go back and source the references,  because I cba!  I don't understand the points which you make as they seem to be contradictory.  Perhaps it's just me ! 

I wonder how you see the ideal world,  regarding the subject in hand.  Would you have the rspca 'controlled' or would you give them greater powers still?  Explain to me,  if you will.

Alec.


----------



## Fenris (10 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			If the RSPCA routinely prosecuted farmers whose sheep have foot rot, sheep who died on their backs due to not having been supervised, sheep left unsheared on a sweltering summer day, sheep left without shade from sunburn after being newly sheared, sheep left out in freezing weather after being newly sheared, sheep with bits of plastic tied into their vaginas with a bit of baling twine in an effort to stop them prolapsing before they can be lambed, sheep routinely nicked and blooded by shearers who pride themselves on the number they can get through,  etcetera, etcetera

Then the courts would be full of farmers and none of us would be able to afford to eat lamb.

It is laughable to claim that farming is subject to the same application of welfare standards as per animals. 

It isn't wrong, it just is. If it wasn't, meat would be the preserve of the very rich.

And in case anyone has forgotten, I buy and eat intensively farmed meat and poultry.
		
Click to expand...

The relevant point is not that they do not prosecute everyone but that they can prosecute for all of those situations if they so wish and that they do not seem to prosecute the worst offenders but the most vulnerable and those likely to bring in publicity.

They do not prosecute every dog and cat owner who has left their animals without water for instance.  But if they take an interest in your dog or cat then you can expect to be prosecuted for that oversight, even if it was only for a few minutes.


----------



## Fenris (10 January 2016)

I have a question for all of those who are suggesting that the petition is somehow tainted if it has been started by someone who has had previous problems with the RSPCA.

Would you suggest that the same criteria should be applied to animal welfare and rights issues just because governments or organisations that were dodgy or absolutely appalling started them?

http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2016/01/10/the-hypocrisy-of-the-animal-rights-movement/


----------



## popsdosh (10 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			I have a question for all of those who are suggesting that the petition is somehow tainted if it has been started by someone who has had previous problems with the RSPCA.

Would you suggest that the same criteria should be applied to animal welfare and rights issues just because governments or organisations that were dodgy or absolutely appalling started them?

http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2016/01/10/the-hypocrisy-of-the-animal-rights-movement/

Click to expand...

Not quite sure how to answer that! I dont believe the aims are tainted at all , I just believe with past history maybe the whole petitions aims could be easily discredited if people think the petition is for the wrong reason which it could be perceived as being! I am probably wrong but thats the tack the opponents will take and in a small way its been made easier for them.


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			There's nothing in your post above with which I'd argue,  but the problem that I have is that you seem to swing from the realities to rather strange extremes.  Don't ask me to go back and source the references,  because I cba!  I don't understand the points which you make as they seem to be contradictory.  Perhaps it's just me ! 

I wonder how you see the ideal world,  regarding the subject in hand.  Would you have the rspca 'controlled' or would you give them greater powers still?  Explain to me,  if you will.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

 Alec, I don't claim to know the answer to the issues. I believe that they aren't as bad as some people are trying to make out, and that some have causes that we do not fully understand.  I think they need debating, but in a more rational way than on this thread at times. I  believe that there are things that need changing and I am hoping that the Select Committee can address them without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			I have a question for all of those who are suggesting that the petition is somehow tainted if it has been started by someone who has had previous problems with the RSPCA.

Would you suggest that the same criteria should be applied to animal welfare and rights issues just because governments or organisations that were dodgy or absolutely appalling started them?

* no, just to petitions started by one person trying to drum up support to a cause of the cause is not just*

http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2016/01/10/the-hypocrisy-of-the-animal-rights-movement/

Click to expand...

I'll quote the last paragraph of that article, just to give people a flavor of what they'll be reading of they wade through the entire diatribe, which begins with Hitler and the Nazis, yes in an article about animal rights they thought that was a good starting point.


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2016)

The false piety of animal rights conglomerations have been used in the &#8216;30s and &#8216;40s by Hitler and the Nazis to help further their genocidal policies, more recently to brainwash adults and particularly children and create a dangerous and an unsustainable military industrial complex in Africa that sounds like what you would get if you combined the nightmares of Eisenhower and Patrice Lumumba. The most fanatical proponents of misanthropy didn&#8217;t care if you burned into nothingness, as long as you weren&#8217;t a lobster.
		
Click to expand...


It also begins with Hitler and the Nazis. This is the final paragraph of a very long article on a similar vein. I found the comparison between poaching elephant for ivory and dealing cocaine very amusing. Apparently people only deal cocaine because they are poor


----------



## fburton (11 January 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law


----------



## Fenris (11 January 2016)

fburton said:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

Click to expand...

The problem with that is that it has become a ay of getting out of dealing with the direct comparisons and issues that are relevant.  Do you believe that the petition should be ignored simply because people don't like the person who started it or because they think the very serious issues raised in the petition should be ignored because the person who started it 'might' have had a run in with the RSPCA?  If so, why do you not believe that animals rights issues should not be tarnished in the same way due to their origins and associations?


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			The problem with that is that it has become a ay of getting out of dealing with the direct comparisons and issues that are relevant.  Do you believe that the petition should be ignored simply because people don't like the person who started it or because they think the very serious issues raised in the petition should be ignored because the person who started it 'might' have had a run in with the RSPCA?  If so, why do you not believe that animals rights issues should not be tarnished in the same way due to their origins and associations?
		
Click to expand...

Do you believe that animals have no rights worth holding humans to account for, which is basically the gist of the rabid rant that you quoted?


----------



## Wagtail (11 January 2016)

You know, the more we learn about just what animals are capable of and feeling (yes they are self aware and have an idea of fairness, and emotions such as jealousy, and even love), the more I am disgusted by the attitudes of some fellow humans.


----------



## blueboy day (11 January 2016)

The threads on here assume, that because the person that started this petition has been found guilty, it means they were guilty, when in fact this may NOT have been the case. There are many reasons why a person is found guilty, or pleads guilty. 

An honest person that is taken to court, whether by Trading Standards, The RSPCA or any other agency, is at a disadvantage before they even reach court. Firstly the RSPCA know exactly how to take the perfect picture for court, whether that means them lying flat on the floor to get a really bad picture of a deep litter, when in fact had they taken the picture in the normal position, it would have shown a lovely thick bed of clean straw.

A bent over nail head in a barn of 48 sq mtres, looks so much worse magnified to the extreme.

These people are trained in how to make a normal situation look like a crime. 

Then there is the whole court process, for a normal person, they do not have untold amounts of charity money to spend, and therefore, the fact that the RSPCA file ridiculously high costs, it is made quite clear, that if you plead guilty, the costs will be kept to a minimum, and therefore the RSPCA get a number of guilty convictions, purely on this fact along

It is also common knowledge, and statistics, that the RSPCA usually pick on old animals, or animals that are already sick, a classic example of this is the waste of money they spent on the persecution of the owners of the well publicised owners of Claude the cat.

This post could go on and on about the things the RSPCA has done, to convict people. 

The whole point of the petition is to get an investigation into the activities, of the RSPCA, and whether, they should be able to investigate and prosecute, which is very unfair for the innocent people that have found themselves at the mercy of what is a charity. It is far better for them to seize an animal that is already under treatment by a vet, than a animal which is truly suffering, and even more convenient if that person has property that they can then put a claim on.

If the RSPCA were that transparent, they would not be afraid to show their figures for the animals they destroy, they would not be afraid to show their figures for their costs for convictions, they would not be afraid to show their figures for how many OAP's they convict. As they are only regulated by the Charity Commission, who have limited resources, there is no one to oversee how they are really conducting themselves, and  this form of regulation is always open to abuse.


----------



## Fenris (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Do you believe that animals have no rights worth holding humans to account for, which is basically the gist of the rabid rant that you quoted?
		
Click to expand...

As usual it all depends.  A tame pet rat has more protections (not rights) than its wild counterpart who can be poisoned and killed with impunity, and indeed, if someone cared for a colony of wild rats in their house they could be ordered to destroy them as pests.

There is a great difference between cases where someone has beaten their dog to a pulp, set it on fire and chucked it off the roof of a tower block and cases where someone's dog tipped its water bowl over and didn't have any water for an hour or so.

Everyone will have their own range of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour towards animals.  How much of that should be enshrined in law ought to reflect the wishes of the public in general, unfortunately it tends to reflect the wishes of the most vocal minority.

Personally I do not believe that animals should have rights, they should have protections within the law.

Even humans do not have rights unless they or someone on their behalf is prepared to fight to uphold those rights.  For instance, go and demand your right to life in a war zone or even some of our big cities.


----------



## Wagtail (11 January 2016)

Thankfully this petition only has 955 signatures. If the right of the RSPCA to prosecute was revoked, it would be a very sad day for animals. Investigating and prosecuting people for crimes of animal cruelty and neglect is time consuming and expensive. The police have very limited resources as it is and animals would be their very lowest priority. The RSPCA performs a very valuable role in doing the work that would otherwise need to be done (but most likely wouldn't) by the police. No, they are not perfect, and like any organisation, including the police, will no doubt have some dubious and less than honest individuals in it. But it is the best hope the animals have got. I do think the instigator of the petition and their supporters have ulterior  motives such as wanting to illegally hunt, or keep their animals to a less than ideal standards without risk of prosecution.


----------



## eahotson (11 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			Thankfully this petition only has 955 signatures. If the right of the RSPCA to prosecute was revoked, it would be a very sad day for animals. Investigating and prosecuting people for crimes of animal cruelty and neglect is time consuming and expensive. The police have very limited resources as it is and animals would be their very lowest priority. The RSPCA performs a very valuable role in doing the work that would otherwise need to be done (but most likely wouldn't) by the police. No, they are not perfect, and like any organisation, including the police, will no doubt have some dubious and less than honest individuals in it. But it is the best hope the animals have got. I do think the instigator of the petition and their supporters have ulterior  motives such as wanting to illegally hunt, or keep their animals to a less than ideal standards without risk of prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

This


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			Thankfully this petition only has 955 signatures. If the right of the RSPCA to prosecute was revoked, it would be a very sad day for animals. Investigating and prosecuting people for crimes of animal cruelty and neglect is time consuming and expensive. The police have very limited resources as it is and animals would be their very lowest priority. The RSPCA performs a very valuable role in doing the work that would otherwise need to be done (but most likely wouldn't) by the police. No, they are not perfect, and like any organisation, including the police, will no doubt have some dubious and less than honest individuals in it. But it is the best hope the animals have got. I do think the instigator of the petition and their supporters have ulterior  motives such as wanting to illegally hunt, or keep their animals to a less than ideal standards without risk of prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

I have not seen one poster on here who has suggested the RSPCA should not investigate. The point is their  prosecutions should come under more scrutiny .Why is there such a big issue with the CPS taking over the prosecution as it is unlikely to cost the tax payer any more than it does already and possibly less. 

Just for your Info the instigator runs a donkey sanctuary and do not as far as I am aware have anything to do with hunting and neither does the petition. You may not be aware also the RSPCA has already stated it will not prosecute any more hunting cases so thats not really a valid point.


----------



## Wagtail (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			I have not seen one poster on here who has suggested the RSPCA should not investigate. The point is their  prosecutions should come under more scrutiny .Why is there such a big issue with the CPS taking over the prosecution as it is unlikely to cost the tax payer any more than it does already and possibly less. 

Just for your Info the instigator runs a donkey sanctuary and do not as far as I am aware have anything to do with hunting and neither does the petition. You may not be aware also the RSPCA has already stated it will not prosecute any more hunting cases so thats not really a valid point.
		
Click to expand...

It is naïve to think that removing the prosecution powers of the RSPCA would cost the tax payer less. It is not just investigation which takes time and money, but prosecution too. Time and money which our already stretched police force does not have. Where do you think the money is going to come from which the RSPCA currently provides? The answer is nowhere, and the reality is that cases of cruelty will be dropped when they shouldn't be due to lack of resources, time and money. Animals will suffer as a result.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			The point is their  prosecutions should come under more scrutiny .Why is there such a big issue with the CPS taking over the prosecution as it is unlikely to cost the tax payer any more than it does already and possibly less.
		
Click to expand...

I would just love to hear your explanation as to how the CPS can take on animal cruelty cases and have it cost the taxpayer less. While you're about it, you might send me your design for a perpetual motion machine or explain your cold fusion generation of energy 

Earlier on this thread you expressed disbelief that there are six cases a day in court. I did some research on that. It's believed that there are 14 or 15 million animal owning households in this country. The surprise to me is how there are so few, not so many!


Blueboy Day, when a person is found guilty in this country, they are guilty until they prove otherwise by appealing their conviction. Are you seriously suggesting that someone found guilty of EIGHTY counts of animal cruelty is simply the poor victim of an RSPCA vendetta? Don't make me laugh!


----------



## Lizzie66 (11 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			Thankfully this petition only has 955 signatures. If the right of the RSPCA to prosecute was revoked, it would be a very sad day for animals. Investigating and prosecuting people for crimes of animal cruelty and neglect is time consuming and expensive. The police have very limited resources as it is and animals would be their very lowest priority. The RSPCA performs a very valuable role in doing the work that would otherwise need to be done (but most likely wouldn't) by the police. No, they are not perfect, and like any organisation, including the police, will no doubt have some dubious and less than honest individuals in it. But it is the best hope the animals have got. I do think the instigator of the petition and their supporters have ulterior  motives such as wanting to illegally hunt, or keep their animals to a less than ideal standards without risk of prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

No one (as far as I can tell) is suggesting that people shouldn't be prosecuted what we are querying is who should do it. The RSPCA have no legal right of entry no more rights than a normal civilian, therefore they have to work with the Police to get right of entry and to serve a S20. 

What I would like to see is the RSPCA work more on education with people where neglect or lack of knowledge is the issue and where this fails or where deliberate cruelty is concerned (cat in the microwave) then they should be handing the case over to the police and CPS and providing expert witness statements.

S20 should only be applied for by the Police and should have a 7 day maximum duration without further evidence being provided by both parties. Cases where animals have been held for more than a year on a S20 where the owner has then been found to not have a case to answer are appalling. Imagine having a 12 year old family pet taken off you held in kennels for over a year and then dying before the case comes to court. These type of cases might be relatively rare but the level of distress caused not only to the family but to the dog itself would be huge. If the RSPCA wants its reputation back then it needs to be prioritising the welfare of animals and pushing charging people to the CPS.
Maybe what we should be petitioning for is making a S20 a criminal not civil matter.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

Lizzie66 said:



			What I would like to see is the RSPCA work more on education with people where neglect or lack of knowledge is the issue
		
Click to expand...

Are you aware of what they do already, at least in my area?

I reported a neighbour for the appalling state of her horses' feet and their extreme overweight. They didn't prosecute her, they advised her and she put things right.

The thin dog case I referred to earlier, they tried very hard to work with the owners, and got the dog right without removing it or prosecuting them. They were only prosecuted when they failed to continue with the expensive food which the dog required and it became extremely thin again.

My experience is that they do try to educate if the owners will listen and that they don't rush to prosecute in my area.

They aren't perfect but I simply don't recognise the organisation that some people on this thread are describing.


----------



## Wagtail (11 January 2016)

Lizzie66 said:



			No one (as far as I can tell) is suggesting that people shouldn't be prosecuted what we are querying is who should do it. The RSPCA have no legal right of entry no more rights than a normal civilian, therefore they have to work with the Police to get right of entry and to serve a S20. 

What I would like to see is the RSPCA work more on education with people where neglect or lack of knowledge is the issue and where this fails or where deliberate cruelty is concerned (cat in the microwave) then they should be handing the case over to the police and CPS and providing expert witness statements.

S20 should only be applied for by the Police and should have a 7 day maximum duration without further evidence being provided by both parties. Cases where animals have been held for more than a year on a S20 where the owner has then been found to not have a case to answer are appalling. Imagine having a 12 year old family pet taken off you held in kennels for over a year and then dying before the case comes to court. These type of cases might be relatively rare but the level of distress caused not only to the family but to the dog itself would be huge. If the RSPCA wants its reputation back then it needs to be prioritising the welfare of animals and pushing charging people to the CPS.
Maybe what we should be petitioning for is making a S20 a criminal not civil matter.
		
Click to expand...

Everyone, including other charities and organisations, have the right make private prosecutions. You cannot just single out one and revoke this right because you are biased against them. I have had nothing but good dealings with them, both when I was reported for keeping my dogs in a kennel and run during the day, and when I have reported cruelty to them, or asked for their help with wild animals and birds. They have been brilliant. Now I understand that this is not always the case and that there are some bad eggs in the organisation, but the same can be said for almost any company or organisation.


----------



## fburton (11 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			The problem with that is that it has become a ay of getting out of dealing with the direct comparisons and issues that are relevant.  Do you believe that the petition should be ignored simply because people don't like the person who started it or because they think the very serious issues raised in the petition should be ignored because the person who started it 'might' have had a run in with the RSPCA?  If so, why do you not believe that animals rights issues should not be tarnished in the same way due to their origins and associations?
		
Click to expand...

If the petition raises serious issue I don't think it should be ignored, no - regardless of who started it. That knowledge would naturally cause me to read the wording more closely and critically, but wouldn't stop me from supporting the cause if I thought it was a worthy one. A true statement is not made wrong just because someone vile makes it. (It may be wrong for other reasons, of course.)


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			I would just love to hear your explanation as to how the CPS can take on animal cruelty cases and have it cost the taxpayer less. While you're about it, you might send me your design for a perpetual motion machine or explain your cold fusion generation of energy 

Earlier on this thread you expressed disbelief that there are six cases a day in court. I did some research on that. It's believed that there are 14 or 15 million animal owning households in this country. The surprise to me is how there are so few, not so many!


Blueboy Day, when a person is found guilty in this country, they are guilty until they prove otherwise by appealing their conviction. Are you seriously suggesting that someone found guilty of EIGHTY counts of animal cruelty is simply the poor victim of an RSPCA vendetta? Don't make me laugh!
		
Click to expand...

Yes you also stated that there were over 2000 cases prosecuted in that period with only 2% acquitted yet even the RSPCA only claim 1029 convictions so theres a discrepancy in the figures somewhere. 

So may I ask are you assuming that the RSPCA are not having their prosecution costs paid out of central funds as all private prosecutions can claim as long as they are not a public body . I am sure that will now drag down the speed of google. Thats why I made that comment.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Yes you also stated that there were over 2000 cases prosecuted in that period with only 2% acquitted yet even the RSPCA only claim 1029 convictions so theres a discrepancy in the figures somewhere.
		
Click to expand...

In what period? I think you are talking about two different time periods.


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

I will hold my own hands up they are not claiming all their prosecution costs however in 2013 this figure was in excess of £431,000

Thats from the wooler report!


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			In what period? I think you are talking about two different time periods. 




Are you assuming they do?  From everything I have read so far, it is not possible to recover costs for a private prosecution from anyone but the offender. Please point me to the information you have that the RSPCA are repaid from public funds.
		
Click to expand...

My conviction figure was 2014 given to me on friday from within the organisation.
The Wooler report has a very interesting chart that gives you all the prosecution data page 72 talk about confusing .


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			So may I ask are you assuming that the RSPCA are not having their prosecution costs paid out of central funds as all private prosecutions can claim as long as they are not a public body . I am sure that will now drag down the speed of google. Thats why I made that comment.
		
Click to expand...

If you Google up the Government publication relating to the payment of costs from the public purse for private prosecutions, if I am understanding it correctly,  costs can only be claimed for offences in the High Court, and for some Magistrates Court cases which have been sent to a higher court for sentencing after a guilty verdict.

The vast majority of RSPCA prosecutions take place in the lower courts, as far as I can see entirely at the RSPCA's expense in the many cases where the costs are too high for the offender to be required to pay them all.

I'd be happy for a lawyer to correct me on that if I have misread it.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...HH-Jv4sbdUd6gso7g&sig2=XZJd-dbzv4C0atZnvNbi-w


This is the reference.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			I will hold my own hands up they are not claiming all their prosecution costs however in 2013 this figure was in excess of £431,000

Thats from the wooler report!
		
Click to expand...

Did that not include over £300,000 from one hunting prosecution, never to be repeated?


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...HH-Jv4sbdUd6gso7g&sig2=XZJd-dbzv4C0atZnvNbi-w


This is the reference.
		
Click to expand...

2.6.1 There is no power to order the payment of costs out of Central Funds of any
prosecutor who is a public authority, a person acting on behalf of a public
authority, or acting as an official appointed by a public authority as defined in
the Act. In the limited number of cases in which a prosecutor's costs may be
awarded out of Central Funds, an application is to be made by the prosecution
in each case. An order should be made save where there is good reason for not
doing so, for example, where proceedings have been instituted or continued
without good cause. This provision applies to proceedings in respect of an
indictable offence or proceedings before the High Court in respect of a
summary offence. Regulation 14(1) of the General Regulations extends it to
certain committals for sentence from a Magistrates&#8217; Court. 

I wonder if you may have misread as its easy to. The high court bit refers to summary offences all indictable offences allow the payment of costs from central funds for private prosecutors. I think that means ?


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Did that not include over £300,000 from one hunting prosecution, never to be repeated?
		
Click to expand...

That would have been 2012 I believe


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			2.6.1 There is no power to order the payment of costs out of Central Funds of any
prosecutor who is a public authority, a person acting on behalf of a public
authority, or acting as an official appointed by a public authority as defined in
the Act. In the limited number of cases in which a prosecutor's costs may be
awarded out of Central Funds, an application is to be made by the prosecution
in each case. An order should be made save where there is good reason for not
doing so, for example, where proceedings have been instituted or continued
without good cause. This provision applies to proceedings in respect of an
indictable offence or proceedings before the High Court in respect of a
summary offence. Regulation 14(1) of the General Regulations extends it to
certain committals for sentence from a Magistrates Court. 

I wonder if you may have misread as its easy to. The high court bit refers to summary offences all indictable offences allow the payment of costs from central funds for private prosecutors. I think that means ?
		
Click to expand...


Indictable only offences are always heard in a higher court. Magistrates courts cannot hear indictable only offences.  Animal welfare cases are rarely indictable only, therefore the vast majority of cases are held in Magistrates courts and costs do not appear to be able to be claimed from the public purse for those, except for when they are passed to a higher court for sentencing.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			That would have been 2012 I believe
		
Click to expand...

I doubt it, the conviction was too late in 2012 for them to have been paid out in 2012, given how fast tyres things work.  But before quoting that figure, don't you think you should have known, since your anger against the RSPCA is so clearly generated by that one case?


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

http://media.rspca.org.uk/media/facts

This is my source for 2014 convictions. Is it possible that you asked how many people were convicted instead of how many charges people were convicted of?


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Did that not include over £300,000 from one hunting prosecution, never to be repeated?
		
Click to expand...

£46,000 was the figure for the Heythrop case from central funds


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

Fine. If you think that the CPS can secure prosecutions for around 2,000 offences a year for £125 per case, you are dreaming.

If you are arguing that money will be saved because fewer people will be prosecuted, then I think that is still unlikely, though potentially possible,  and that many animals will suffer badly because of it.


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



http://media.rspca.org.uk/media/facts

This is my source for 2014 convictions. Is it possible that you asked how many people were convicted instead of how many charges people were convicted of?
		
Click to expand...

This little snipet I think confirms my figures. published 2015 so I assume 2014 figures .

The number of animal owners prosecuted by the RSPCA for offences such as cruelty or neglect has dropped by a quarter in just a year despite an upward trend in allegations of mistreatment reported to the charity, new figures show.
It follows the departure of the controversial former chief executive, Gavin Grant, who left just over a year ago after a turbulent tenure which saw the RSPCA accused of pursuing an overly aggressive prosecution strategy and becoming &#8220;political&#8221;.
The charity said there had been no change in prosecution policy and that the drop in convictions reflected greater success by its officers in stepping in early and persuading pet owners to take advice on caring for their animals.
Gavin Grant
But the figures show a striking decline in cases brought to court by the RSPCA . Just 1,029 people were convicted of animal welfare offences last year compared to 1,552 in 2012, Mr Grant&#8217;s first year in charge.
Figures show prosecutions jumped by 15 per cent after his arrival.
The charity faced calls for it to be stripped of its role in prosecutions amid claims it had become too &#8220;political&#8221; in the wake of the prosecution of David Cameron&#8217;s local hunt and suggestions that farmers who supported the Government&#8217;s badger cull should be named and shamed.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			This little snipet I think confirms my figures. published 2015 so I assume 2014 figures .

The number of animal owners prosecuted by the RSPCA for offences such as cruelty or neglect has dropped by a quarter in just a year despite an upward trend in allegations of mistreatment reported to the charity, new figures show.
It follows the departure of the controversial former chief executive, Gavin Grant, who left just over a year ago after a turbulent tenure which saw the RSPCA accused of pursuing an overly aggressive prosecution strategy and becoming &#8220;political&#8221;.
The charity said there had been no change in prosecution policy and that the drop in convictions reflected greater success by its officers in stepping in early and persuading pet owners to take advice on caring for their animals.
Gavin Grant
But the figures show a striking decline in cases brought to court by the RSPCA . Just 1,029 people were convicted of animal welfare offences last year compared to 1,552 in 2012, Mr Grant&#8217;s first year in charge.
Figures show prosecutions jumped by 15 per cent after his arrival.
The charity faced calls for it to be stripped of its role in prosecutions amid claims it had become too &#8220;political&#8221; in the wake of the prosecution of David Cameron&#8217;s local hunt and suggestions that farmers who supported the Government&#8217;s badger cull should be named and shamed.
		
Click to expand...


You must be very happy with that news. Why, then, are you so vehemently against the RSPCA on this thread.  (Can I remind you I signed the petition).


----------



## chillipup (11 January 2016)

Another Daily Fail or Telegraph story I suspect.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

chillipup said:



			Another Daily Fail or Telegraph story I suspect.
		
Click to expand...

Don't you mean Daily Fail or Torygraph  ?


----------



## chillipup (11 January 2016)

Oh yes, sorry my mistake


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Fine. If you think that the CPS can secure prosecutions for around 2,000 offences a year for £125 per case, you are dreaming.

If you are arguing that money will be saved because fewer people will be prosecuted, then I think that is still unlikely, though potentially possible,  and that many animals will suffer badly because of it.
		
Click to expand...

Why should more animals suffer , My argument is their efforts should be more targeted do you really think that however many extra prosecutions they secure will stop people abusing animals . Clearly from the figures since 2012 thats not happening. Can you really put your hand on your heart and say everybody taken to court is an animal abuser as such . There are plenty of cases that in my mind should have gone to court however never were pursued for what ever reason. I have very personal experience of one of those. when I asked the inspector why it didnt go to court his exact words were its not valuable enough for us. I still have the horse at home totally unrideable 8yo now never has got over what he was put through.


----------



## Lizzie66 (11 January 2016)

Wagtail said:



			Everyone, including other charities and organisations, have the right make private prosecutions. You cannot just single out one and revoke this right because you are biased against them. I have had nothing but good dealings with them, both when I was reported for keeping my dogs in a kennel and run during the day, and when I have reported cruelty to them, or asked for their help with wild animals and birds. They have been brilliant. Now I understand that this is not always the case and that there are some bad eggs in the organisation, but the same can be said for almost any company or organisation.
		
Click to expand...

I am not biased against them per se. I believe their aims to improve animal welfare are excellent. However I am concerned that over the last 15 years their focus has shifted towards animal rights. Removing their award for animal welfare from farmers involved in the badger cull being a case in point.

The RSPCA is the only charity that regularly prosecutes its own cases. The vast majority of other charities and individuals leave criminal prosecution to the CPS. 

If the RSPCA wants to regain the excellent reputation it used to have then it needs to reinvent itself and to my mind stay with welfare not rights.


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			You must be very happy with that news. Why, then, are you so vehemently against the RSPCA on this thread.  (Can I remind you I signed the petition).
		
Click to expand...

I think you will find if you go back through my post at no point have I said the RSPCA should be disbanded for want of a better word. I am against the direction they have gone off in which has had a detrimental effect on them as an organisation. We are not a million miles apart its just sometimes you need to look carefully at their motives.
Luckily it does look like the message is getting home.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Why should more animals suffer , My argument is their efforts should be more targeted do you really think that however many extra prosecutions they secure that it will stop people abusing animals
		
Click to expand...

Yes. I believe that some people can only be prevented from abusing animals by banning orders. And I believe that every person prosecuted acts as a warning to everyone in the neighbourhood that might mistreat an animal.




			. Clearly from the figures since 2012 thats not happening.
		
Click to expand...

You don't have the information to make that assumption. More reported cruelty does not mean more cruelty.  It  means only that more people have made reports. As we know, these days people will report an unrugged pony, out of ignorance. You have to know what the reports actually were before you can know whether there has been a real increase. The reported increase came at a time when new animal welfare law was all over the news. It has to be connected.




			Can you really put your hand on your heart and say everybody taken to court is an animal abuser as such .
		
Click to expand...

The fox hunting cases aside. Probably, not all intentionally though.Unfortunately 'I really thought it was a forty limit' is not a defence to speeding in a thirty.




			There are plenty of cases that in my mind should have gone to court however never were pursued for what ever reason. I have very personal experience of one of those. when I asked the inspector why it didnt go to court his exact words were its not valuable enough for us. I still have the horse at home totally unrideable 8yo now never has got over what he was put through.
		
Click to expand...

Is that where you get your information from to make the outrageous allegation that the RSPCA take prosecutions in order to make a profit?  I dare say you either misheard him/her or misconstrued what s/he meant, but of course I wasn't there, so I don't know.


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Yes. 







Is that where you get your information from to make the outrageous allegation that the RSPCA take prosecutions in order to make a profit?  I dare say you either misheard him/her or misconstrued what s/he meant, but of course I wasn't there, so I don't know.
		
Click to expand...

No that comes from doing expert witness reports for them and being asked to put certain things in and leave others out thats why we fell out. I still support their aims . I heard him very clearly by the way 
but of course you only have my word for it so its bound to be wrong!


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			No that comes from doing expert witness reports for them and being asked to put certain things in and leave others out thats why we fell out. I still support their aims . I heard him very clearly by the way 
but of course you only have my word for it so its bound to be wrong!
		
Click to expand...


Well, yes, expert witnesses are produced to support the side they are representing   And subject to cross examination too, of course.


Can you please explain to me how the RSPCA makes a profit out of  prosecuting anyone?  I'm not talking about using a high profile case to make PR to raise donations, that just good sound business sense. How does it make a profit from a prosecution?


----------



## popsdosh (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			Well, yes, expert witnesses are produced to support the side they are representing   And subject to cross examination too, of course.


/QUOTE]

Still have to tell the truth though ,but thats a different matter!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Still have to tell the truth though ,but thats a different matter!
		
Click to expand...


 They have to give their interpretation of the facts. They can still be wrong, which is why they are subject to cross examination.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

???




ycbm said:



			Can you please explain to me how the RSPCA makes a profit out of  prosecuting anyone?  I'm not talking about using a high profile case to make PR to raise donations, that just good sound business sense. How does it make a profit from a prosecution?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			..


Can you please explain to me how the RSPCA makes a profit out of  prosecuting anyone?  I'm not talking about using a high profile case to make PR to raise donations, that just good sound business sense. How does it make a profit from a prosecution?
		
Click to expand...

I wonder if you haven't just answered your own question!  Good business sense?  Do you not consider that any authority with the power to prosecute should be focused upon '_justice_',  rather than '_profit_'?  

The whole idea of a charity which is wholly dependent upon fund raising having responsibility for prosecution work is corrupt,   in the extreme,  and it seems that Parliament and our entire judicial system,  are slowly reaching the same view.

Alec.


----------



## chillipup (11 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			I wonder if you haven't just answered your own question!  Good business sense?  Do you not consider that any authority with the power to prosecute should be focused upon '_justice_',  rather than '_profit_'?  

The whole idea of a charity which is wholly dependent upon fund raising having responsibility for prosecution work is corrupt,   in the extreme,  and it seems that Parliament and our entire judicial system,  are slowly reaching the same view.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I was going to reply but quite honestly I'm can't be bothered to put my point across anymore. No body is interested in another point of view. What will be will be. It's just a shame you call people out on their remarks but ignore when the tables are turned.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			I wonder if you haven't just answered your own question!  Good business sense?  Do you not consider that any authority with the power to prosecute should be focused upon '_justice_',  rather than '_profit_'?
		
Click to expand...

I have seen a great deal of inflammatory hyperbole on this thread but precious little evidence to suggest that RSPCA prosecutions are not focussed on justice.




			The whole idea of a charity which is wholly dependent upon fund raising having responsibility for prosecution work is corrupt,   in the extreme,  and it seems that Parliament and our entire judicial system,  are slowly reaching the same view.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I think the situation is regrettable but it was cost saving by  governments over decades which allowed it to happen.  I don't think there is the slightest justification for calling it 'corrupt in the extreme'.

I'm with chillipup now, I am tired of attempting to obtain any basis for their claims from people making hysterical statements against the RSPCA, who on the whole, in my opinion, do a great job.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 January 2016)

ycbm,  when one side accuses the other,  of making hysterical statements while displaying a level of blind faith which ignores the shameful conduct of the rspca and at a level which brings discredit to an otherwise worthwhile and needed body of people,  then as you say,  further discussion is pointless! 

Alec.


----------



## minesadouble (11 January 2016)

ycbm said:



			I have seen a great deal of inflammatory hyperbole on this thread but precious little evidence to suggest that RSPCA prosecutions are not focussed on justice.


I think the situation is regrettable but it was cost saving by  governments over decades which allowed it to happen.  I don't think there is the slightest justification for calling it 'corrupt in the extreme'.

I'm with chillipup now, I am tired of attempting to obtain any basis for their claims from people making hysterical statements against the RSPCA, who on the whole, in my opinion, do a great job.
		
Click to expand...

So claiming keep expenses and worming expenses for long since dead horses is not corruption??


----------



## chillipup (11 January 2016)

chillipup said:



			I was going to reply but quite honestly I'm can't be bothered to put my point across anymore. No body is interested in another point of view. What will be will be. It's just a shame you call people out on their remarks but ignore when the tables are turned.
		
Click to expand...

I rest my case.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 January 2016)

minesadouble said:



			So claiming keep expenses and worming expenses for long since dead horses is not corruption??
		
Click to expand...

I suspect that the problem arises when we have a charitable body which employs 'tactics',  tactics which are as far removed from any consideration of ethical conduct and also include perjury before our Courts,  that we have a growing swell of the general public,  and Parliament too,  who demand that the rspca consider and return to their charter.

Again,  we need an RSPCA,  just not in its current form,  nor led by a council who,  it seems to many,  have lost their way and the very reason for their existence.  Our current rspca display a level of arrogance and disregard for humanity and justice which will bring about the downfall of an otherwise needed and some may say,  vital body.

Alec.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2016)

minesadouble said:



			So claiming keep expenses and worming expenses for long since dead horses is not corruption??
		
Click to expand...

Of course it is. But it is one case in thousands, it was done by probably a rogue tiny number of people, it is not evidence of systemic corruption, far less of systemic persecution of the frail and ill. 

 I have always said that there are issues to be sorted, which is why I signed the petition.

A parliamentary enquiry is scheduled. The hysterical claims on this thread are, ime, so far as the evidence we have available, unfounded. On the whole, the RSPCA does a great job.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (12 January 2016)

Fenris said:



			I will certainly ask but can you tell me why it should matter who started the petition?  The whole point is that the issues are important and need addressing, hence the interest from government, the possible EFRA inquiry and the Wooler report.
		
Click to expand...

because if the petitioner is the Carolyn Shires responsible for neglecting her many, many animals for which she was found guilty by a court of law, then I wouldn't wee on her if she was on fire, let alone sign anything with her name on it.


----------



## Wagtail (12 January 2016)

ChesnutsRoasting said:



			because if the petitioner is the Carolyn Shires responsible for neglecting her many, many animals for which she was found guilty by a court of law, then I wouldn't wee on her if she was on fire, let alone sign anything with her name on it.
		
Click to expand...

*like*


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (12 January 2016)

popsdosh said:



			I have not seen one poster on here who has suggested the RSPCA should not investigate. The point is their  prosecutions should come under more scrutiny .Why is there such a big issue with the CPS taking over the prosecution as it is unlikely to cost the tax payer any more than it does already and possibly less. 

Just for your Info the instigator runs a donkey sanctuary and do not as far as I am aware have anything to do with hunting and neither does the petition. You may not be aware also the RSPCA has already stated it will not prosecute any more hunting cases so thats not really a valid point.
		
Click to expand...

Is this the 'instigator?' https://m.facebook.com/vanah.horses/posts/870593609659654 She's got it in for The Donkey Sanctuary too. It must be a conspiracy.(rolls eyes)


----------



## blueboy day (12 January 2016)

ChesnutsRoasting said:



			Is this the 'instigator?' https://m.facebook.com/vanah.horses/posts/870593609659654 She's got it in for The Donkey Sanctuary too. It must be a conspiracy.(rolls eyes)
		
Click to expand...


Maybe theres more to her case than has come to light

http://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/nosey-people-who-dont-have-a-clue.99906/page-3


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (12 January 2016)

blueboy day said:



			Maybe theres more to her case than has come to light

http://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/nosey-people-who-dont-have-a-clue.99906/page-3

Click to expand...

And? A forum user called Poison Pen has stated an opinion about the Donkey Sanctuary vet & linked an article regarding the seizure of donkey. That's what happens if you don't provide appropriate care. Half the field was a flood plain, no solid shelter from the rain & overgrown feet. Plus this donkey was elderly. Donkeys require shelter from rain as they have no waterproofing in their coats & if soaked through & cold (& especially if they elderly) are highly susceptible to pneumonia. Donkeys feet need dry standing. They are, again, highly susceptible to seedy toe. Nigel Weller may be an expert on law but he needs to brush up on his knowledge regarding looking after donkeys.


----------

