I’ve never given the RSPCA any money as far as I can remember. I followed the controversy over their prosecution (successful prosecution) of the Heythrop Hunt with only a little bit of interest. I certainly didn’t think ‘What a shocking thing for the RSPCA to do’.
But when Simon Hart, ex chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, now MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, called for absolute clarity over the RSPCA’s role in this affair I did start to pay it more attention. And for once, Simon Hart is right; it is shocking. It is shocking how much a charity needs to pay lawyers to get this sort of result. It would be much better if lawyers weren’t paid as much and then poor charities could make their money work even better. If lawyers were paid half as much then maybe the RSPCA could take twice as many successful prosecutions.
Anyway, thank you Simon for pointing this out to me. Thanks to you I became interested in this subject and so I have, for the first time ever, donated some money, £10 actually (Reference No: WB196036 and Gift Aid on top), to the RSPCA in the hope that they spend it on upholding the law.
Almost one in five of Conservative MPs have a legal background.
[registration_form]
Locally on at least two nature reserves the “sporting rights” belong to others and as a result the hunts can and are a bloody nuisance. But they do not come in following a laid trail but with a full pack looking for ; well in cannot be a fox can it because that would be illegal? However that is exactly what they are looking for, if challenged they are of course exercising the dogs, something members of those reserves are forbidden to do on site. That fox hunting was confined to the dustbin of history in most civilised countries years ago says it all, something that probably ought to happen to all those MPs Tory and otherwise who continue support it!
What is shocking is that the CPS didn’t take the case, that the legal industry charged such large bills, and that the judge in awarding costs, didn’t in anyway reflect the real costs. Finally that the judge thought it necessary to comment on the RSPCA’s correctness in bringing the action. All should be ashamed of themselves.
When apparently those who should uphold the law fail in their duty, it is absolutely correct that RSPCA stood up for animals and the law. Good on them.
Though I tend to agree with the RSPCA’s actions over the hunt prosecution (though they ought not to have been put in the position of bringing the prosecution themselves) an article in Private Eye (no 1332 p30) suggests they may be guilty of bringing ‘vexatious prosecutions’ against elderly and vulnerable people, often pushing for high costs.
Interesting that there are no MPs with a professional environmental background or at least not classified as such. Perhaps this contributes (?significantly) to the lack of understanding by Government and MPs in general.
By the way, eventually received a letter from my MP (Rachel Reeves) about the NWCU.
Richard
Where was the wildlife crime unit and the police/CPS. They are supposed to ensure the law is followed and deal with prosecutions against those who break it. It should not be left to a charity to have to take out a private prosecution. The Judge should not have questioned whether the RSPCA should have taken the action and should have ordered actual costs be paid. Rich people only seem to care about money so if the members of the hunt had actually been ordered to pay all of the RSPCA’s costs they may have a better respect for the law.
“in the hope that they spend it on upholding the law.”
Did you send your donation with a Memorandum of Understanding? If not, it will just get frittered away on killing cats, dogs and sheep.
Filbert – having worked for a charity I know how donations work. The problem is no-one sends a cheque saying ‘please spend this on cleaning the toilets, the pension fund and replacing the carpets’.
They have carpets??!! Hypothecation can’t come soon enough.
Filbert – yes, shocking isn’t it? Old carpets though.
Yes it is quite shocking that the cost of this important test case that proved the Hunting with Dogs Act to be functionally enforceable should have to be borne by the voluntary (and charitable) sector.
It wasn’t a waste of money by any means but should not have cost so much.
Well my first comment seems to have gone awol, so shall try again! I read with interest the point made about Private Eye and should point out they the RSPCA were close to suing them but had second thoughts (i’ll come to why in a bit) but in refernce to Debbies point I should point out, in a lot of cases regarding animal welfare that the police/cps are involved in the RSPCA are brought in to help collect evidence. to also offer up opinion and animal care/treatment. It doesn’t surprise me the RSPCA have come under fire from the CA and also an article in the Daily Mail (I think the DM is getting sued on that one) after all the RSPCA have been involved in many cases targetting the transportation of animals for export, Mr.Ludlow (a C.A friend) over a sick wild Golden Eagle in his aviary and seem intent on tackling the “high end” of society’s social events (fox hunting) unlike some NGO’s.
In reference to the RSPCA and Private Eye, the facts are this, the RSPCA came to realise as people got older certain things happens to them, dementia,senility and sadly poverty. These are all things that lead to animal cruelty/neglect. Their was an uproar from the “elderly” peoples relatives who either refused to hand over pets or prevented access, hence a rise in court cases. Now some might say this unfair etc, but the RSPCA’s role is to PREVENT CRUELTY to ANIMALS, wether that be some rich toff on a horse chasing a fox or some elderly lady who’s dog/cat which is knotted/nails uncut/flea ridden or under fed something again some NGO’s should take note from, even though it could have lost the RSPCA funding from the vast majority of it’s donor (elderly). The RSPCA didn’t deliberately target elderly, but the simple truth is look at a vets surgery and look at the age of people inside them, 90% elderly.
I’m glad Mark you donated a tenner to the RSPCA, I for one have when taking Greyhounds from one shelter to another shelter (one volunteers too y’know) have often seen some of these “victimised” elderly people and whilst it’s upsetting to see them cry over loosing a beloved pet, it’s also equally upsetting to see a dog/cat having to be destroyed as the owner can no longer look after said animal.
I am staggered that anyone was stupid enough to set this Hare running (and with coursing illegal and the RSPCA on the case it will run and run). It simply reinforces the apparent belief amongst one sector of the population that the law is a pick and mix for them – they choose the bits they like, like not being allowed to nick their Mercs & BMWs – but feel free to ignore the bits they don’t like; after all, aren’t taxes just for little people ? It is hardly surprising the RSPCA spent so much knowing it was up against the full force of the wealthy establishment – and it seems to have been very, very careful to take a cast iron case and go in so hard that it was sure to win. There’s no doubt that hunting contains a significant political element – but that is much less so with persecution of birds of prey and all concerned would do well to remember that.
Do the RSPCA cause harrassment, alarm or distress when they have elderly persons’ pets killed? Do they stalk them by having their paramilitary thugs hang about near veterinary surgeries? If a legal action is brought against a body known, for instance, for its affiliations with senior politicians, is it’s purpose to prosecute an alleged crime or is it harass or subdue a perceived adversary – aka vexatious litigation?
To borrow a phrase – “I think we should be told”
Filbert – sounds interesting but I know nothing about all that. I do know that a wildlife protection organisation spending its money to uphold the law when animals are being killed seems like the sort of thing it should be doing to me. As my blog says – I’ve never given money to the RSPCA before. That’s not because i disagree with them but because they are dealing with sumptoms not causes of problems on the whole. But an MP attacking them for doing their job just tipped me over into the ‘Yes., I’d quite like to give them a bit of a hand with this’ camp.
The RSPCA do not target elderly people Filbert. If an elderly perosn takes an animal to the vet or PDSA and that animal is in a very poor state of health the vet/pdsa are obliged (code of ethics etc) to inform the RSPCA, the RSPCA then knock and investigate. DO THEY KILL the pet, in some cases,YES because the animal is “too far gone” and the kindest thing to do is to put it down. You are of course aware there are many animal shelters operating that after a having an animal in it’s care for a while, if a suitable home can’t be found then it’s put down? So why should it be upsetting/shocking or wrong the RSPCA do so? And with so many being at 100% occupancy more and more are being put down. The RSPCA do tackle the problem Mark and not just address the symptomns, for years now they have campaigned/lobbeyed for tougher legislation aimed at dog breeders etc. As a birder I have to say the RSPB do not take such action as often as the RSPCA, did they back a well publisicsed Raptor epetition? The RSPCA have called for the neutering of cats and dogs but have come up against a brick wall, upsetting many of it’s donors and were some might have backed off through fear, they’ve carried on regardless.
Sure the CA/NFU etc have got ruffled feathers just because the RSPCA were involved recently in a farm animal exportation case they were invited by the Customs and Police to gather evidence, yet no-one from the NFU/CA have castigated the Custom Service nor Police involved in the same case…funny that! I’m not so sure why people are surprise that the RSPCA are involved in fox hunting cases/badger cull there’s a big clue in their TITLE EVERYONE!
So it’s not only old people, not only chavs with pitbulls,not only toffs on horses, not only elelphant owners,not only circus’ animals, not only badgers BUT ANIMALS IN GENERAL are under the scrutiny of the RSPCA.
It’s sad we were once labelled a nation of animal lovers, which is even a bigger shame when a country like Mexico on Thursday it became the law that anyone found guilty causing animal cruelty or death can now get a massive fine and FOUR years in jail, why doesn’t the UK have this tough legislation?
I was pleased to see the National Trust’s reaction to the Heythrop Hunt conviction: http://ntpressoffice.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/heythrop-hunt-statement/
I hope there’s a similar outcome to their leasing of Howden Moor following the conviction of gamekeeper Glenn Brown.
The withdrawal of licences will hit a lot harder than the typically pathetic financial penalties incurred.
Ruth,very true and that is about as good as we can hope for as the politicians will not help wild animals and bird persecution.
I have seen fox hounds hunting on two National Nature Reserves In Cumbria both recently and in the past.
I agree with Alistair Gammell, it is shocking that a charity was left to uphold the law of the land and that they had to pay ‘commercial’ rates for it.
There is no point in having laws that cannot be or are not enforced [although MP’s often fail to realise this despite many being in the legal profession]. It seems to me that Judges and Magistrates are often very soft on wildlife/animal crime, leading to the thought that they see this as less serious crime. Perhaps an effort should be made to get the guidelines for Judges and Magistrates made more clear and toughened up so there is less opportunity for them to take the soft approach and allow wilful nasty cruel crimes to go unpunished. Alternatively such crimes could be heard by a Judge or Magistrate from an urban circuit where hopefully they would not be unduly influenced by the local ‘social’ situation.
CPS failed to act with this example of breach of the law, Natural England were ‘muzzled’ over Walshaw, Rural Payments Agency ( & Natural England) fail to investigate & recover public funds over recent damage to Thorne Moors SSSI!
Well done Mark for highlighlighting case studies of selective application of law, consistency is not something we witness very often (if ever) in terms of environmental protection.
Mudlark – welcome and thank you.
“I think we should be told”
To bugger off, in your case.
paramilitary thugs? Idiot.
If it’s idiotic to be implacably opposed to the unnessary mistreatment of the elderly and killing of animals, then I’m very happy to be called an idiot.
Ignoring your uncouth language – the boorish behaviour, faux military dressing-up and intimidation of individuals (travellers excepted) by this organisation are well-reported and a growing cause for concern. Except among misanthropes.
Mark’s earlier reference to toilet cleaning was very apt, because this organisation is going down the pan under the present management’s obsession with stage-managed sensationalism and PR pantomimes. Not to mention the haemorrhage of long-serving and respected staff – by “mutual agreement”.
http://rspcainjustice.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/yet-more-rspca-bully-boy-tactics.html
I personally think that highlighting the Heythrop case as the main reason in raising the RSPCA and the ‘Duty of prudence’ levied on the trustees of ever charity is somewhat misleading. Whether you are for or against hunting the fact that the RSPCA spent such a large sum of money on taking out a private prosecution whilst at the same time laying off frontline staff and warning that several of their branches were in danger of closing, should ring alarm bells.
The RSPCA Cambridge branch recently tweeted that in one calendar year they treated over 200,000 small animal cases, something they should be praised for. But I can’t help wondering how many foxes might be saved by the Heythrop case and how many more small animals might now perish because the RSPCA chose to pursue this case.
Obviously it also raises the question whether a welfare charity should be pursuing legal cases anyway. This isn’t the first case that the RSPCA has chosen to take to court. Last year they failed in an attempt to have a Policeman who euthanasied an animal at the roadside after it was clear that there were no vets or RSPCA officers close enough to put the animal out of its misery…The list of inappropriate RSPCA actions seem endless.
We have dogs, in fact I can’t remember a time when we didn’t have a ‘pet’ of one kind or another in the house. My wife and I have always supported the RSPCA. Every Christmas, a particularly hard time for animal welfare charities, we have donated a large amount of animal feed. This year we chose not to, it was a difficult and sad decision. But if they can waste £328,000 of supporters money on a meaningless private prosecution, regardless of the reason, they can find the money to support themselves on the frontline.
Conormead, I too have dogs and are very similar to you in the fact i can’t remember a time I didn’t have dogs. My mum (whos elderly and gets on fine with the RSPB taking in dogs temporaily for local dog rehoming shelter) is a dog breeder and shows them and is a respected “Championship” show judge including Crufts, Westminster etc in her CV.
What you have qouted is direct from the Daisy Mail I’m afraid in reference to the Hunt maybe forcing the closure of small/local centres and is one of the lies spread in the Daisy Mail article recently, firstly it’s up to the small/local centres to raise their funds though they get an amount from the main charity body, The drop in funding comes from general public (recession etc) and loss of support ie when the RSPCA and the BBC went to “town” on dog shows and breeders, which coming from a home of dog breeders I was actually encouraged yet a lot of dog show exhibitors have now stopped al donations, shame really.
Filbert, I will say again (politely unlike some 🙂 ) that the RSPCA donot hassle old ladies nor old men, you of all people (as you semm very sensible) should know to believe everything you read in a ragtop……
“Filbert, I will say again”
Repetition doesn’t change anything – when I said implacably, I meant implacably. But thank you for your civility, which of course, is the norm for this blog. I think you have omitted the word “not” where it should have preceded “believe”. I assume you also mean “redtop” – for the gutter press, as “ragtop” is an americanism for a convertible jamjar. I don’t read the redtops, but I do read a lot of other stuff online, where it is often a good idea not to believe anything, especially in blogs. This can save a lot of time later.
However I do believe that smoke results from fire, or at least smouldering. When there are lots of fires, there is usually something going on.
http://katharinequarmby.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/why-the-rspca-should-stop-its-private-prosecutions/
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8835631/off-the-leash/#comments
And finally – I am mortally wounded that you think I seem “very sensible”. I haven’t been so distressed since that kindly chap Dennis Ames alluded to one of my posts as “intellectual”.
Ok the second link for the Spectator higlights perfectly what I’ve said Filbert, the RSPCA have upset a certain “class” of people and also think the law doen’t apply to them (RALPH, he shoots, he scores!!) Didn’t have to read to far into the article to see the mention of hunting,farming and animal exportation. But for good measure the Spectator spreads a little Black Propaganda for good measure ie the mention of Horse Racing and the Grand National, well to my knowledge the RSPCA have been present at both horse racing meets and greyhound racing meets..haven’t they Mark?
Kaths article I would have loved to seen on air, but I have toa ask, WHY was she so quick to point out she has no interest in hunting? Maybe as a journalist she is all to aware of media stories coming from the pro-hunt lobby against the RSPCA and wanted to distance herself. But her points are flawed, why if a child has commited a crime should they not be punish, yes te CPS do drop cases they “deem” to not suitable, for a varying reasons ranging from costs to quality of evidence BUT the CPS have dropped case unrelated to animal welfare that have caused “public uproar” haven’t they?
I’ll repeat my point the RSPCA donot hassle old ladies (and men) let me just say will you concede to following issues have been widely reported about OAP’s, “the rise in dementia/senility issues and altzheimers”, “the problems facing the elderly in mobility” and finally “the rise of poverty in elderly” so given these stories and issues would it not be a dereliction of duty on behalf of the Royal Society for the PREVENTION of CRuelty of Animals if they were simply to ignore them?
“the rise of poverty in elderly”
If they have so much money, why don’t they give it to poor people so that they can look after their animals, instead of seizing and killing them (the animals), prosecuting the elderly and the infirm and the dementing, and applying to courts to turn over their property to pay the RSPCAs costs. That might help prevent some animal suffering. Prosecution and killing after the event is not prevention.
http://rspcathetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/rspca-target-disabled.html
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1332
Don’t tell me, tell them.
Horse Racing – black propaganda? Cherry-pick the animal killing you don’t mind.
The police man at the side of the road does sound pathetic as it was his call maybe a member of public witnessed it and felt more could’ve been done and made a complaint so the RSPCA were obliged to investigate, but won’t mention which animal charity brought prosecution against the police force on 8 seperate counts and 5 different area forces over the training methods, treatment of police dogs and the fact until this year were kept locked up in vans with no ventilation resulting in many deaths of police dogs during summer months
Oh Filbert you’ve fallen into a trap people often make about myself, I shall expand, I do not like the killing of animals other then that for food as I’m not a Veggie-osaur, more meatandveg-osaur, so that’s the only “cherry-picking” I will do. You don’t have to link me to the RSPCA(the truth about) blogspot site there are indeed some fascinating storries in there, for example I signed a CAGED petition to stop the RSPCA using bolt guns on Greyhounds (The dogs I own and YES SOME ARE RACERS, go figure!) and a friend exhibits GSD’s and supplies the police force and Armed services with so the bolt gun issue was brought to my attention by her and their site, and if I remember was the first blog, I might be wrong and if I could be bothered would check. BUT WHO OWNS THE BLOG? Come on how many blogs out there on the net, there’s a snippet of info about the author/owner/organisation behind the blog, not in there.
My point about the Grand National I admit was convuluted I was trying to suggest that CA/NFU have all critisced the RSPCA over fox hunting investigations/snooping, call it what you want, and are trying to galvanise opposition to the RSPCA by seeking support from sport watchers such as horse racing, spreading fear with falsehoods, its not the duty of the RSPCA to fund/subside the elderly, isn’t that the GOVERNMENTS job/AGE CONCERN and dare I say the WELFARE SYSTEM? It is the job of the RSPCA however (I SAY AGAIN!!!) to prevnt animal cruelty, wether that be to take an elderly pesons dog/cat/gerbil etc because they can no longer provide adequate care, adequate care is for the record is to feed/water regulary, provide warm,dry and suitable living conditions, regular exercise, picking up/cleaning after the pet has spoiled inside or out of the home, to keep clean from infestation and regular grooming and provide suitable care ie not to wallop or mistreat the pet, anyone unable to do that OLD/YOUNG/RICH/POOR etc can expect the RSPCA to confisticate the animal and take it into care and despite what you might read ANYWHERE ELSE can appeal that decision. I know I keep harping on abit but as I’ve stated I HAVE owned and raced dogs so have first hand experience with the RSPCA and if anyone would critise them it would be someone of “my type” but I have to say apart from BOLTGUNS my experience with the organisation has been “SPOT-ON” and contribute more than just donations and I can tell you Filbert if half of the stories about the RSPCA were factual and weren’t from people with an axe to grind, I wouldn’t contirbute, for example I wasn’t happy with the RSPB so handed in my membership and don’t visit their reserves and yet I bird watch…go figure!
“you’ve fallen into a trap people often make about myself,”
This is not the case. I admire your outstanding bird photographs – so on the one hand I rate you highly as a photographer, on the other I don’t agree with your take on the current operational style of the RSPCA – implacably. That’s it – no more no less.
Good for you Mark, and good for the RSPCA standing up for themselves against this shameful witchhunt by the media, countryside alliance, et al.
I’ve also made a donation.
Gavin Grant, the new CEO at the RSPCA, has done a job of raising the profile of an NGO/Charity (I think almost) against a background of falling membership and I suspect income. This has been his primary motivation in my option. He has gone for the easiest targets which has maximised the profile of the RSPCA in the media, regardless of the long term damage caused.
His first easy target was the TB and badger debate where he raised the game by telling farmers involved in the cull that “their hands would be soaked in blood” and that they would be “named and shamed”. He knew exactly what he was doing and that there would be a clear link made with the animal rights protests (most especially the Huntington Life Science case) and the threat was designed to be intimidating He then went after the dairy farmers by threatening to organise a milk boycott from the cull areas (probably impracticable but never the less intimidating for an industry on its knees financially and whose main competitors are France and New Zealand who both cull wildlife vectors for TB). The second target was live exports, an issue he knew would get media attention. This culminated in the shooting of 40 or so sheep at the docks in confusing circumstances and the use of the pictures of the carcasses (shot by the RSPCA + Govt vets) in a lurid add campaign. Target three was of course the Heythrop Hunt of which much has been said, but it was a carefully targeted action against a high profile target. He could have picked say the Braes of Derwent Hunt in Co Durham, an ex-coal mining area but for obvious reasons he chose the Heythrop.
All this is rather obvious and very self-explanatory, after all the law is the law and what’s wrong with a bit a campaigning zeal anyway ? The bit that really upsets though is when you start to look behind the obvious and start to see how manipulative and single minded these campaigns have been in serving the new RSPCA’s cause. Instead of taking a balanced view he has directly played on the our unique national social identity to hit those targets which would get him the highest response. When you stand back and look at it rationally; both the most socialist country in Europe, France, and the most class aware society in Europe, Ireland, both allow hunting ? Foxes can still be shot and trapped, they are not offered the protection of say badgers nor will they be as the agenda is not about the fox as the RSPCA is well aware. Badgers are a vector for TB, fine they are protected and that is a different argument, but 28,000 cattle a year are culled and wasted. Again the argument isn’t about the problem, just a self-serving attack on one of the symptoms of that issue which frankly has contributed nothing to the issue. Live exports, again just an attack on the symptoms not the cause using the most emotive language (“a vile and barbaric trade”) just to raise the RSPCA’s profile with no thought at all as to how local markets, for instance, could reduce exports etc.
The RSPCA’s standing in the farming sector has obviously hit rock bottom with several reports of producers pulling out of the “Freedom Foods” scheme and I suspect we will see more of Mr. Grant’s unique brand of targeting easy sectors of the industry in the future.
Can you imagine the RSPB being hauled through the media and up in front of the Charity Commission or in the dock in a Commons vote as the RSPCA has been recently ?
A great comment
Hell hath no fury like a Lib Dem candidate scorned. Twice.
Filbert, agreed, poor old Liberals they all seem a bit lost at the moment. !