RSPCA POLICY NOT TO ACCEPT ABANDONED PETS

HOW THE RSPCA DEAL WITH LOST PETS

WHAT THE RSPCA DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW

Saturday, 11 October 2008

RSPCA loses High Court case, More Donations Required ?


RSPCA loses High Court case over avian flu cull method

HOW MUCH DID THIS CASE COST THE RSPCA ?

The High Court has upheld the legality of using ventilation shutdown as a last resort for culling commercial flocks in the event of an outbreak of avian flu, according to a BBC report.
Lord Justice Auld rejected a claim from the RSPCA who brought the case to the court that ventilation shutdown was "disproportionate".

Ventilation shutdown was allowed under an amendment in April 2006 to the Welfare of Animals regulations 1995 for use in "exceptional circumstances".
After the ruling, the RSPCA stressed that it still opposed the method which it claimed would cause "substantial suffering and distress".

The charity argued that the rules were incompatable with a 1993 EU directive on the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

The judge added: "The practical difficulties of providing an all-purpose method - or variety of methods - of ventilation shutdown, so as to provide a guarantee of no distress, pain or suffering when meeting an emergency in all circumstances and countrywide are so obvious as to demonstrate the unreality and imbalance of the RSPCA's case."

Contributors to the RSPCA should be asking why so many Court Cases are being lost, and why their hard earned money is being wasted on legal fees rather than Animal Welfare !
For the court direction of the case see;

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

seems like the rspca who have had considerable imput into the animal welfare bill want to dicate amandments through the back door, this must have cost tens of thousands, what a waste !

David said...

well they wont be doing it with my money anymore

Bernard Matthews said...

in times of emmergency it may be more humane to safegaurd the entire population, perhaps at the expense of an infected minority, the RSPCA's aims are commendable, but throwing money at high court cases is deplorable, they could have psent this money far more wisely and effecitvely working with the industry to develop more humane cull methods.