RSPCA, UNACCOUNTABLE AND UNELECTED

The RSPCA are a particular pain to people who keep horses in fields, and the internet is awash with tales of people who’ve been on the sharp end of these powers.
As someone who works in liveries said to me, think of a horse like a car.

So, let’s suppose the RSPCC wanders past my yard and notices that I haven’t washed my car for a while, the tyres don’t have much tread on and there’s a scrape down the flank from an incident in a car park.
The RSPCC then enters my house to retrieve my car keys, and takes my car away, washes it, puts new tyres on it and patches up the body work. They then launch a private criminal prosecution against me for neglecting my car, and a civil suit against me to recoup the cost of the work they’ve done on my car and the cost of storage.
How are the RSPCA’s powers any different?
Anyway, thanks for reminding me of yet another way in which New Labour have handed unprecedented powers to unelected and unaccountable bodies.
I’d rather give my money to the Robert Mugabe Freedom Foundation.

http://aljahom.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/fuck-the-rspca/

RSPCA BIASED MAGISTRATE TRAINING

IF THE PROSECUTOR TRAINS THE MAGISTRATES, HOW CAN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS POSSIBLY BE IMPARTIAL ?

The RSPCA together with the Magistrates' Association has produced a training programme for magistrates to heighten awareness of their legal powers.
The head of the RSPCA's Prosecutions Department, Rachel Newman, said: "The RSPCA's primary concern is that animals are protected from cruelty and magistrates play a crucial role in the prevention of animal abuse.
"This training programme is designed to highlight the powers available to magistrates to impose disqualification orders and inform them about the factors and issues involved in cruelty cases."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/84597.stm

MORE RSPCA LIES, THEY ARE NOT WHAT THEY SEEM !

THE RSCPA'S role as an independent animal welfare group has come under scrutiny after the charity made "untrue and unsubstantiated" claims in a national advertising campaign.
The Advertising Standards Authority delivered its judgement in response to complaints made by the Farm-ers Union of Wales.
The union accused the RSPCA of making misleading claims in a series of high-profile newspaper advertisements designed to solicit public support against possible badger culls.
As a result, the government's consultations on anti-bovine TB measures may be flawed, said FUW president Gareth Vaughan.
He added: "The ASA ruling should serve as awarning to all pressure groups that they cannot twist the truth to subvert a public consultation process for
their own blinkered ends."
Celebrities including actress Joanna Lumley, author Jilly Cooper, ex-Spice Girl Mel C and former newsreader Angela Rippon supported the RSPCA campaign.
According to UK rural ministry Defra, it received 47,472 responses to the consultation, most of which were campaign responses prompted by, and supportive of, the RSPCA stance.
The FUW's complaint centred on the charity's assertion that cattle-to-cattle transmission of bovine TB (bTB) was the main conduit for the disease, not badger-to-cattle transmission.
In its adjudication, the ASA said: "We considered the claim did not reasonably provide
readers with an indication of the caution and uncertainty among scientists and government advisers surrounding the relative importance of the two factors in bTB transmission."
The RSPCA acknowledged that badger-to-cattle transmission was a factor in the spread of bTB, and had simply intended to alert readers to the fact that the issue of bTB was not straightforward.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/business-news/2006/09/28/rspca-claims-over-badgers-were-untrue-55578-17834527/

STOP THE KILLING NOW, STOP DONATING TO THE RSPCA

RSPCA Statement regarding 10 German Shepherd dogs in South Wales 16.7.09

We received a call on 23 June this year from a member of the public relating to 10 German Shepherd dogs at an address in Pontardawe, in south Wales. The caller said the dogs’ owner, a relative, had died and the dogs had been living on their own.
Q: How long had the dogs been living on their own and who if anyone was providing food and water and letting the dogs out to go to the toilet?
An RSPCA inspector visited the premises that day and assessed the animals. The inspector took the decision that none of the dogs were at all suitable for rehoming due to concerns about their aggressive behaviour and lack of socialisation with people. The dogs were also suffering from a severe skin condition.
Q: How did the inspector assess these dogs and come to the conclusion they were unsuitable for re-homing? Did he approach each dog to give a thorough examination to determine the aggressive state and skin condition of each dog or did he just view them through a window? Ten dogs locked up together and a stranger approaches their home, how do you think they are going to react. Of course there are going to be signs of aggression. These dogs were obviously scared and stressed especially if they were not being cared for. If the Inspector had concerns about the dogs skin condition then why wasn’t a vet called in to examine the dogs. Skin conditions in dogs are caused by many things including bad diet, stress, fleas, all of which are indicative of the way these dogs were living. Bearing in mind that a RSPCA Inspector trains for 6 months and a vet for four years, surely it was in the best interest of the dogs to call in an expert to rule out anything more sinister.
The same thing applies to Canine Behaviour. Precious little time is spent during the Inspectors training on this topic and is itself one that can take years to actually master as there are so many facets to this subject. It is therefore easy for the inexperienced person to assume that because a dog barks he is aggressive. When one dog starts the domino effect takes over and all ten dogs will react as a pack thus given the impression that all were aggressive when this could have been very far from the truth. Again, was each dog taken outside individually and his behaviour assessed or were they all simply viewed from afar and as a pack?
We explained the next-of-kin that they should contact other rescue groups for help. The next-of-kin were made fully aware that if the RSPCA became involved, the dogs would be euthanased.
Q: The RSPCA – Royal Society for the PREVENTION of CRUELTY to ANIMALS. Why was the onus on the relatives to re-home these dogs and not the RSPCA. who’s sole purpose is purported to protecting animals at all costs. It also reads that by involving the RSPCA was to seal these dogs fate to a death sentence. This from an organization that is supposed to protect ALL animals. Why wasn’t the Inspector able to pick up a phone to any GSD rescue for assistance?
The owner’s next-of-kin later contacted the RSPCA again and said they had been turned down by other charities, including the Dogs Trust, who were unwilling to take on the animals and they signed over the dogs, fully aware of what would happen.
Q: At no time was German Shepherd Dog Rescue contacted re these dogs. If they had been then the outcome would have been totally different. Again, it is quite clear that the RSPCA were not prepared to do anything to help in re-homing these dogs and were quite determined to follow through on their threat to kill these poor dogs.
A decision was made following a discussion between eight RSPCA officers that the most humane form of euthanasia would be to use a captive bolt. This would minimise distress to the dogs, while also being the safest method for those people responsible for dealing with the animals. Restraining the dogs and then shaving a limb to prepare for a lethal injection would have caused these animals unnecessary suffering, due to the animals suffering from a severe skin condition.
Q: First of all the captive bolt is not the most humane method of euthanasia because as we all know, it does not always work first time and is used more to stun than to kill. Secondly, the dogs, who were deemed to be so aggressive even though it appears this had not been assessed properly, would have to have been restrained somehow whether it was to be examined, a limb shaved or in this case euthanized. Once again, a veterinary surgeon had not been consulted as to the dogs skin condition so it is unknown whether shaving the dogs limb would have been distressful or cause unnecessary suffering or not.
The inspector euthanased the dogs using a captive bolt. After a discussion between eight officers, this was decided to be the most humane method. It was also the most suitable as the dogs were too dangerous to approach for a vet to administer a sedative, to allow for a lethal injection.
Q: Why were eight officers in the decision making process and was the option of contacting a rescue ever placed on the table for discussion. It appears from what has already been stated in this statement that this was never going to be an alternative, the death penalty being the only answer. Once again, these dogs were never assessed for aggression yet this is the assumption being put forward all through this statement. If the RSPCA were so concerned for these dogs welfare, then why were they not taken away to be fully assessed by properly qualified professionals.
The dogs were taken outside into the garden of the house on a grasper, given a few moments of exercise (it is unlikely they had been outside in weeks, if not months) and then the inspector used a captive bolt.
Q: A few moments of exercise…….by that I suppose you mean the time it took to take each dog from the house to the place of its execution. Were the dogs even allowed to relieve themselves?
A grasper is not the kindest of ways to restrain any dog and so would have caused a huge amount of stress. These so called aggressive dogs that apparently could not be approached by a vet to administer a sedative even when being held in a grasper, would have to be approached by the Inspector as the captive bolt is placed against the forehead. It begs the question, if the dogs could be restrained this way to be euthanized, then why not to be examined by a vet for their skin conditions.
The house was in a remote and isolated situation, away from any other properties. Each dog was euthanased away from the rest of the dogs which were kept in the house. They would have been unable to hear the captive bolt being used as it is a very quiet method.
Q: Hearing is only one of the dogs senses. Dogs can and will smell death same as most animals. They would have known that something was about to happen adding to the stress they were obviously already under.
The dogs were only handled for a very short amount of time, on the grasper, and stress was kept to an absolute minimum. Nobody was injured and the dogs appeared to be oblivious to the fact that this was anything other than being taken into the garden.
Q: Being oblivious to anything other than being taken out into the garden does not denote to me an aggressive dog. As a qualified and experienced Canine Behaviourist and Trainer who specializes in dog aggression predominately in GSD’s, your description here does not in anyway convince me that these dogs were aggressive, in fact quite the opposite. If these dogs had been as aggressive as you state then they would have been fighting the grasper, intent on getting at whoever or getting away and yet you state they were oblivious. Obviously there is something very amiss here.
It is the RSPCA’s raison d’être to prevent cruelty to animals, and it was decided this sad, but ultimately necessary, outcome for the dogs was the best way to prevent the animals any further suffering. The decision was not made lightly and, as always, it was made with the best interests of the animal at heart.
Q: This was by no means a necessary outcome for these dogs rather a quick, cheap and easy way out for the RSPCA. At no point were qualified professionals involved in the decision making process and the way these dogs were euthanized was despicable.
The RSPCA in my opinion, no longer has the best interests of animals at heart and should have the good grace to return its Royal Patronage and leave the welfare of animals to those who actually care. If the RSPCA were doing their job properly, that of ‘preventing cruelty to animals’ then there would be no need for all the animal rescues that have sprung up all over the country. Rescues who do not have the benefit of millions in their coffers, who are run by dedicated volunteers prepared to meet costs out of their own pockets for the benefit of the animals they love. This is the difference between a Rescue and the RSPCA.The rescue is contacted about ten GSD’s. The rescue then contacts all volunteers within the surrounding area and a team of volunteers is mobilized. The dogs are collected and homed either in foster homes or kennels where they would be looked at and treated by a vet. They would be cared for and eventually homes found for them with back up should any problems arise.
The RSPCA is contacted about ten GSD’s. They send an Inspector who shoots all ten.

Just about says it all.
David EganMOC MFSTR Dip.Dog.Psy

Comment:

The RSPCA are currently mass mailing all households begging for donations. Rather than just throwing it in the bin, here are some pdf files that you might want to place in an envelope and send back to them...I'll be sending one of each!!!!Don't put a stamp on either.

http://www.thehappygsd.co.uk/RSPCA_LIES.html

http://www.germanshepherdrescue.co.uk/statement-rspca-expert-witness.html

WHY DO THE RSPCA HAVE ACCESS TO EMERGENCY SERVICE NETWORK ?

Airwave, the new telecommunications system used by the emergency services plus some other public sector organisations like local authorities.

The only private organisation which is allowed to use the emergency services network is the RSPCA.

Other apparently worthwhile potential users like mountain rescue units are denied access.

What is so special about the RSPCA? They are a private charity but they seem to have privileges not afforded to other charitable groups who do just as good a job in their field.

The Airwave service is a sophisticated communications system for the emergency and other public safety ('blue light') services operated by O2 Airwave. It will help make Great Britain safer by facilitating more effective and efficient ways of working for the emergency services, and the opportunity for more 'joined up' public safety services.Key Benefits
O2 Airwave will enable emergency services to communicate seamlessly regardless of location for the first time ever
Because all communications over the Airwave service are encrypted, they cannot be scanned or monitored by outsiders. The network is highly resilient
The system enables both voice and data communications and gives the emergency services wide flexibility in choosing how to communicate.

The Airwave service has the capability to provide true interoperability between all the agencies involved in public protection by enabling everyone to work together at the scene of major and minor incidents alike, as well as co-operate in forward planning to meet new obligations under the Civil Contingencies Act.

The Airwave service is available to organisations with a public safety role and already being used by the MOD, the Highways Agency, UK Immigration and several Local Authorities.

Contact:Susan Moore O2 Airwave Tel: 07764 350834

The RSPCA seem to be allowed to initiate private criminal prosecutions and they are not struck out by the DPP with a nolle prosequi.

They seem to have powers of search and entry which no other private organisation has. They dress their inspectors up to look like policemen which would probably be an offence for anyone else.

http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/57685-what-legal-status-rspca.html

http://www.tribal-living.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=3953&page=4

FALSEHOOD DOG DESTROYER JOINS RSPCA

Nigel Yeo, dubbed "Mr Clean Up" against whom there was evidence of criminal misfeasance and falsehood following a shooting incident in Sussex and who previously ordered the destruction of a police dog for biting a teenage lad has won a top job with the RSPCA.

Sussex Police Assistant Chief Constable Nigel Yeo, who was attacked by the RSPCA for authorising the dog's death, is to be the charity's new South East regional manager.
Animal groups called for the RSPCA to rescind the offer.
Roger Musselle, who runs a wildlife rescue group, said: "This is anything but tactful and they should stop the appointment."
There were protests from around the world when Mr Yeo ordered Bruce be put down.
When the Alsatian bit off part of the teenage attacker's ear, Mr Yeo described Bruce as just a "piece of equipment" which had failed and must be scrapped.
Mr Yeo, later apologised for his "insensitive and clumsy"comments but stood by his decision.

Anonymous said...
turalaYeo - as evil as they get!!

This will be out protest site for the short term Protest about RSPCA killing german shepherds with a bolt gun.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=275050270436

For the longer term, this will be where we target the RSPCA

National Dog Rescue Forum

http://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Dog-Rescue-Forum/139770977483?ref=mf

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/980325.man_blamed_for_dogs_death_joins_rspca/

http://www.bushywood.com/sussex/katrina_taylor.htm

RSPCA EXPERT WITNESSES ARE BIASED

COURTING DISASTER: ETHICS WARNING FOR WITNESS VETS.

VETERINARY surgeons are being urged to act "professionaly, ethically and morally" when appearing as expert witnesses amid reports of bias, witness coaching and withholding evidence. Magistrates, Solicitors and leading veterinarains have also encouraged vets to seek advice and training before standing as witness, following accusations against RSPCA legal department.

Clive Rees who has acted as defence barrister in cases brought be the RSPCA, believes vets can become partisan if they have not received adequate training. He explained: Although [veterinary surgeons] are accurate with factual evidence, the interpretation put on it, or the opinion given, can be baised eaither way, usually towards the RSPCA.

Mr Rees accused the RSPCA of attempts to "make sure it's vets are pretty baised" He continued: Some Birds cases have seen some of the prosecution vets becoming quiet partisan, and they were quiet eminent vets who should have known better. I have heard of other cases where the RSPCA have told vets what to say, and they have gone along with it. The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA, (SHG) - which provides advice for people facing RSPCA led prosecution - also claims the society influenced witnesses and withheld evidence. The SHG has highlighted two cases - in which Annette Nally, and Martin and Gina Griffin were accused of failing to provide treatment for their dog and horse respectively - where the judge criticised the animals welfare charity for "the non-disclosure of documents" and failing to accept prior veterinary opinion. SHG member Ernest Vine said: "It seems that the RSPCA's team may have regrettably, again lost sight of the duty to be fair to the defendant, against who it makes grotesque allegations of cruelty." However, an RSPCA spokesman has denied it has purposefully infuenced witnesses of with held evidence. "The RSPCA takes it's roll of prosecutor extremely seriously and follows a set of principles based on those of the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service)" The society instructs independent solicitors and barristers to act on it's behalf, and around 95 per cent of cases brought be the society results in conviction. This is, infact, considerably higher than the CPS conviction rate" "However, the society resorts to prosecution only as a last resort. After all, the 'P' in RSPCA stands for prevention - We much prefer to improve animal welfare through education and advice." The allegations have promped veterinary surgeon and barrister, Madeleine Forsyth to call on any vet who is called as an expert witness to ensure he or she understands the roll. She explained that any vet could be called as an expert witness, and added: Recent cases make it clear that many veterinary surgeons dont understand their duty to the court, their status as a witness and the effect of their opinion: it is just as clear that the moral and professional dilemmas that often arise haven't been considered before the expert exposes himself or herself enivitable criticism." Ms Forsyth explained that due to the weight a vets opinion holds in court, it is vital it is correct. She also criticised the RSPCA for influencing vets who were called upon to give evidence. She said: Giving an opinion that may result in someone receiving a criminal record carries with it a very heavy burden of responsibility to ensure that the opinion is objective, educated, considered and truthful, and these duties are laied down by law. The RSPCA has a coaching document which has been instrumental in two cases recently being thrown out of court completely. The judge believed the document was not just a helpful paper to assist them to offer their opinion, but was directing them using pejorative phraseology. Due to the important roll of the expert witness in court proceeding, Peter Jinman, who sits on the committee of the Veterinary Association of Arbitration and Jurisprudence (VAAJ), believes that vets must look for advice before giving evidence. He said: I do not think vets understand the process of what is expected of them.Although some legal training is given at veterinary school, it is only a glimps. Before getting involved in any legal process, understand what is expected of you, as well as the difference between being a witness of fact and an expert witness. All to often particularly in the magistrates court, it is likely that the vet appearing as a witness of fact may well be asked for opinion, and the key is never to give opinion outside of true knowledge. The moment you start to wonder outside of areas of your competence, their is a risk of misleading the court." Mr Jinman advised veterinary practitioners to talk to anybody who has appeared as an expert witness in the past. While pointing them in the direction of the Council for Registration of forensic practitioners, VAAJ courses and the RCVS code of practice for further information.The code stated: "Care should be taken not to show bias in the report. Matters which do not assist your argument, should be disclosed since failure to do so could damage your credibility. Extreme language should be avoided and personal opinions should be muted "

RSPCA PET MASSACRE SPARKS CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION

CALLS FOR CHARITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION INTO RSPCA ACTIVITIES

In June 2009 the RSPCA’s ‘hit squad’ slaughtered 10 German Shepherd dogs after their owner had died and a relative had contacted the RSPCA for assistance.

The RSPCA have admitted the atrocity

Instead of sedating these poor dogs and removing them to a place of safety, prior to contacting German Shepherd Dog rescues which would have been willing to help, the RSPCA chose instead to shoot all 10 dogs with a captive bolt.

Their excuse was that this was kinder to the animals and safer for the inspectors. This begs the question – if it was safe enough to get as close as it is necessary for the use of a captive bolt, then why was it not safe enough to get equally near to these dogs and sedate them?

This is not the first time the RSPCA have killed companion animals unnecessarily, and it will not be the last. In 2008, they killed 8,313 dogs and 12,329 cats. An unacceptable number of these animals were perfectly healthy.

By their own admission, the RSPCA admit they ‘reluctantly’ euthanize healthy animals because they (RSPCA) believe it is cruel to keep dogs and cats confined for too long in kennels. How long is too long? The local (franchised) branches of the RSPCA usually have policies which enable animals to fund the care of animals for several months. However, the National Policy is very different, particularly in the case of animals of ‘unknown origin’. With the latter, the RSPCA shows no compunction when declaring that these will be euthanized after 7 days. Why is it that small, underfunded animal charities and other rescue centres have a policy of not euthanizing a healthy animal or a sick animal that can be nursed back to health, yet the RSPCA needlessly kills so many healthy or treatable animals whilst stashing away millions of pounds of OUR money donated by US the gullible GENERAL PUBLIC in the mistaken belief that all animals will not only be safe in their care but will always be treated with compassion??

It is all about cost. It is much cheaper to euthanize a cat or a dog than it is to spend time and money on boarding costs or rehabilitation.

As for the 10 tragic German Shepherds, it was definitely cheaper to shoot these terrified animals than to spend time and money on calming or sedating them before euthanizing them properly and allowing them a dignified death. And it was infinitely cheaper than spending even more time and money in sedating and removing the dogs to a safe place prior to contacting the appropriate German Shepherd rescues for assistance from people who have experience of the breed and who have indicated they would have been more than happy to have taken all of the dogs. Nothing in fact has changed.

In 1984 the RSPCA ‘hit squad’ went in to the Gwent RSPCA branch and killed many dogs because they decreed that this particular branch had broken the rules on how many dogs should be kept. (Please see second attachment) This was during the time of the miners’ strikes when more animals were being abandoned or signed over to the branch which found itself in the unenviable position of having to take in an increased number of dogs or turn them away to an uncertain fate. The branch chose to help as many dogs as it could. There were no offers of help to alleviate the situation from the RSPCA’s Central Office. Instead, after initial letters, they sent in the ‘hit squad’ who arrived unannounced one day and proceeded to cull the surplus dogs. The staff were distraught as they pleaded for these animals lives. Some of them felt they had to make sure the animals were truly dead by checking their still-warm bodies in the black bin bags. Bernice Jones posted the whole story on the internet. She has since died, but I have personally spoken to a man who confirmed that this terrible incident took place. When challenged about these and other similar cases, the RSPCA will have a ready answer. When asked about poor response times or, in many cases, no response times at all, the RSPCA will plead their case that, as a charity which relies on public donations, there is a limit to what they can achieve. It will also explain that it only has 325 inspectors covering the whole of England and Wales (a figure that has not changed in at least ten years despite annual increases in income) and it is therefore difficult if not impossible to attend to every report of alleged cruelty. In other words, their constant excuses revolve around a lack of sufficient funding. The following figures show the RSPCA’s income for the last four years:

2005 £99,959,000

2006 £110,669,000

2007 £114,110,000

2008 £119,926,000

The bulk of that income came from the general public apart from investment income as follows: 2005 £3,495,000

2006 £6,171,000

2007 £5,049,000

2008 £5,971,000

Their balance sheets for the last two years show:

Total Fixed assets 2007 £206,532,000

2008 £164,824,000

Total Current Assets including cash on deposit, cash in bank and in hand

2007 £28,090,000 (Including £9,509, 000 on deposit and £10,179,000 cash at bank and in hand)

2008 £32,970,000 (Including £3,056,000 on deposit and £13,444,000 cash at bank and in hand)

Net Current Assets 2007 £12,085,000

2008 £16,242,000

The above figures are not complete but give an indication of the vast wealth accumulated by the RSPCA as a result of donations made by the general public. It can be seen that, despite the current financial climate, and apart from their fixed asset figures, this wealth has continued to increase annually.

However, the RSPCA have not used any of this publicly donated wealth to increase the numbers of inspectors they employ in the field but in fact have suspended further recruitment of inspectors for 12 months.

This is in spite of their vigorous TV campaign earlier this year in which they pleaded with the general public to dig even deeper into pockets to enable the RSPCA to employ more inspectors because of an increase in animal cruelty.

In other words, they conned the general public into giving even more money for this specific cause and then blatantly breached the Trades Description Act by suspending further recruitment.

Finally, none of the RSPCA’s vast wealth goes to any of the 174 RSPCA branches which are all separately registered charities run mostly by volunteers who have to raise all their own funding and (as I understand it) have to pay a sum of money each year to the RSPCA’s Central Office towards the costs of inspectors. It is the local (franchised) branches, who struggle financially, but which do the bulk of the good work normally associated with the RSPCA.

The above information is just the tip of the iceberg. We hope you will agree that, as a matter of public interest, it is time for the Charities Commission and government to investigate.

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Society/RSPCA_SLAUGHTER_TEN_GERMAN_SHEPHERD_DOGS_AFTER_THEIR_OWNER_DIES_360000.html

RSPCA ADMIT DOG KILLING AGENDA, THEY'VE BEEN KILLING FOR YEARS

RSPCA POSTER ADVERT


Some time around the turn of the 1980s Britain’s leading animal welfare charity, the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), produced a striking and controversial poster that positioned it as a campaigning organisation too. The advertisement featured what appeared to be a photograph of a huge pile of carcasses, the bodies of hundreds of dead dogs. The headline proclaimed, ‘When they killed the dog licence they left us to kill the dogs’. This ad created a storm of controversy when it appeared. A 48-sheet billboard displaying this message was strategically placed outside Cruft’s Dog Show. These dramatic ads changed the way many British people felt about one of their most respected, most ‘establishment’ charities. Hopefully someone from RSPCA or someone involved in the campaign at the time will come forward to tell the full story.

RSPCA SITE HIJACKED AFTER DOG KILLINGS

The RSPCA’s Facebook fan page has been hijacked by protestors criticising some of the charity’s practices.
Since the beginning of this month, protestors have been repeatedly posting critical comments about the RSPCA on its Facebook fan page.
Jayne Shenstone, chief executive of German Shepherd Dog Rescue, told Charity News Alert that protestors were able to take over the site over the bank holiday weekend whilst no moderator was monitoring the page. Shenstone has taken issue with the RSPCA's recent decision to euthanise ten German Shepherd dogs with a captive bolt.
Since then, some posts by Shenstone and other protestors have been deleted, however the detractors are continuing to voice their concerns via the official RSPCA Facebook fan page and those of RSPCA regional branches.
One protestor, Kathleen Moodie, wrote yesterday: “Can the moderator please explain why you keep removing the information I have supplied about the RSPCA not employing enough inspectors to meet demand. It is truthful and factual.”
In response, the RSPCA moderator said: “Kathleen - whether your belief is that the RSPCA does or does not employ enough inspectors, your post is being removed because it contains defamatory comments. Once those are removed, you will be able to express your opinion.”
Other concerns included the nature of the relationship between RSPCA's headquarters and its regional branches.
In response to concerns about the euthanasia method for the ten German Shepherd dogs, the RSPCA said: "In this extremely difficult situation, the dogs were aggressive and difficult to handle, restraining them and shaving a limb to prepare for the lethal injection would have caused them more even stress. It was therefore decided that using a captive bolt would be the quickest and most humane method."
The RSPCA added that its Facebook fan page existed for members to view information and updates as well as have open and frank discussions about animal welfare.
"The only moderation that has gone on has been to do with either foul or abusive language," said an RSPCA spokeswoman, "or abusive comments towards an individual or organisation - this has been clearly explained on the Facebook page."
Full details on RSPCA's Facebook moderation policy can be found on RSPCA's Facebook fan page under the discussion tab.
Further, an online petition urging the British government and Charity Commission to investigate the RSPCA has been launched by Keith Protheroe, another frequent commentator on the Facebook fan page, and has attracted more than 880 signatures in just under two weeks.
The petition accuses the RSPCA of systematically slaughtering healthy animals without trying to rehome or rehabilitate them.
An RSPCA spokeswoman said the charity was always happy to listen and take on board people's concerns.

http://www.charityfinance.co.uk/home/content.php?id=3163&pg=15&cat=58

SCANDAL OF THE RSPCA HOSPITAL WHERE THEY KILL KITTENS AND PUPS

Scandal of the RSPCA hospital where they kill kittens and pups
Sunday Mirror, Jul 5, 1998 by DOUG KEMPSTER
A CATALOGUE of cruelty and a callous disregard for the care of animals is exposed today by RSPCA workers at one of the charity's biggest hospitals.
The four staff decided to speak out after being sickened by what they claim is a deliberate policy to kill stray kittens and pups because it's cheaper than caring for them.
They reveal how:
NINE pups handed into a police station were put down almost as soon as they arrived at the hospital, even though several policeman wanted to give them homes.
BOSSES ordered pigeons nesting on the hospital roof to be killed.
A LOST labrador with a twisted leg was dissected and its bones boiled so the hospital could study the unusual break before his owner could claim him.
RSPCA staff were told not to become too friendly with strays and were made to put them down if they did.
Staff smuggled kittens to rival charities to save their lives.
"I can't watch Rolf Harris's Animal Hospital when they show you a wild bird having its wings pinned, or broken leg mended," says former RSPCA ambulance driver Debbie Pearman
"I never saw that happen in my time at the hospital. It would have been bumped (put down).'It wasn't so much the care of animals, but the balancing of books that was more important.
"The place became a financial concern. It's as if the hospital had lost sight of its objectives.
"It cost pennies to put down a litter of kittens, but time and effort to care for and rehouse them. Yet it wouldn't have cost the hospital much money because we had loads of people happy to give them homes.
"But we were told it was not policy to do that, so they were put down."'
The hospital where Debbie and her three other colleagues worked until they couldn't take it any more is at Barnes Hill, Weoley Castle, on the outskirts of Birmingham.
It is a huge complex with four wards and operating theatres, dealing with more than 50 animal patients each day.
Yet Debbie, 32, says money, rather than caring for animals, was often the main concern.
She remembers being sent on a 50-mile round trip to collect an injured pigeon from an elderly lady. "'The view was taken that if we presented a caring image this lady might remember us in her will.
"So I was sent in the ambulance with my uniform on to collect this bird in a big show of compassion." added Debbie, who worked for the RSPCA for eight years. "That bird was put down as soon as it reached the hospital."'
The very same day fellow officer Sharon Fox, 28, was ordered to round up pigeons nesting on the hospital roof and kill them. "It was typical," said Sharon, 28, who had been with the RSPCA for seven years before leaving two months ago. "Debbie was making this big show while at the hospital we were supposed to be culling birds.
"I didn't do it, I rounded them up and released them in a field. But as far as the management was concerned they were killed."
Senior staff also discouraged anyone becoming too attached to the animals. Ambulanceman Alan Johnson, 36, who worked with the RSPCA for eight years, made the mistake of showing affection to a stray greyhound.
"I was told that I'd have to bump it. That's what I was made to do," he said."
Strays are supposed to be kept for seven days to see if they are claimed before they are put down, but Alan said that rarely happened.
"'One evening I was called to a police station near Smethwick where officers had found nine pups," he said. "The police were really making a fuss of them. A few officers said they'd be happy to give them homes once they had been checked by our vet.
"I took them to the hospital and told a superior about the police offer. That night the pups were put down.'In the following days the police started ringing and asking what was happening to the dogs.'We were told to tell them that they were fine and that they'd been given new homes."'
Debbie had a similar experience when she was called to collect a dog from the police in Brierley Hill.
"They had found a labrador cross, about 10 years old, with a twisted leg," she said.'"As soon as I saw it I knew it was an old wound. 'It was perfectly healthy and obviously no stray.
"I took it for a check-up at the hospital before ending my shift. 'The next night I discovered the dog had been put down, dissected and its bones were being boiled so the hospital could have the skeleton to study the unusual break. Days later the owners surfaced and the staff were told to say the dog had been badly-injured in a roadaccident and had to be put down. I feel I took that dog to its death.'
Debbie's colleague Paul Marshall, 37, an RSPCA worker for 11 years, said: "'It got to the stage where I was appalled by what was going on."
"People would ring the hospital and say they had found a nest of birds and could we collect them. I would say I would, but pointed out the birds would be put down. I got into trouble for saying this.
"Members of the public would bring in injured animals in the belief they would be nursed back to health and re-released.'But I'd say that in a majority of cases those animals would be put down without a second thought. "Every member of staff would smuggle kittens out of the hospital. Many of us refused to enter them in the admissions book as it would have been signing their death warrants. I know one woman who has re- housed more than 30 cats.
"It was all about money. When I first started we would take fox cubs to release them into the wild, or geese to a bird sanctuary after they had been treated. That has all stopped.
"When we bring in an animal the first thing we are asked is, 'Is it owned or is it a stray?' The hospital has to pay for stray or wild animals itself. So they were just patched up then bumped."
Staff were incensed at the way the hospital's own alsatian, Major was treated. Debbie said: "'He was cooped up in a tiny, filthy run. If a member of the public had been caught by our inspectors keeping a dog like that, they could have been prosecuted.
"Eventually a nurse persuaded the management to let him adopt Major. He had hip problems and the nurse was told he would have to pay for treatment."
Last night RSPCA Chief Veterinary Officer Jim Phillips said: "If these people were genuinely concerned they would have said something long before this, but there will be a full and frank investigation."
He admitted there were occasions when the number of puppies and kittens in a litter had to be reduced
"This is generally where the mother is not in the best of conditions. We have to reduce the number in the litter so that the mother and the other offspring have a chance.
"I can almost certainly say we never killed a dog deliberately to keep its skeleton. The hospital dog belonged to one of these ambulance staff. He offered to take this dog on and promised he would look after it.
"He was cautioned several times because the condition of the kennel was unacceptable. Eventually one of the hospital nursing staff took it on"
Last night the four insisted that none of them had owned the dog.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19980705/ai_n14481373/?tag=content;col1

RSPCA KILL 29 DOGS

We feel you should be aware of the true facts behind the disbanding of the Gwent Branch Committee by the Council of the RSPCA. Briefly the RSPCA structure is:–
PAID STAFF:- The HQ being in Manor House, Horsham with paid Inspectors in each Branch and Regional Organisers - in Gwent’s case, Captain Rowland James of Carmarthenshire, whose job it is to help Branches with fund-raising etc. Field Officers employed from HQ to visit Shelters - we had a Mr. Adams.
COUNCIL:– Vo1untary people, around 23, elected every 3 years responsible for governing the Society. About 8 of these are known as Group Representatives (of which I was one representing Wa1es until I resigned in 1980 because I did not like what I saw). These are voted on by the Branches concerned. The rest are people who put themselves forward for election in the postal vote sent to all members of the Society. Some may know nothing about Shelters or the running of a Branch.
BRANCH:- This comprises of a Committee, free to raise money but its first commitment being the £4,050 quota to be sent to HQ towards the upkeep of its Inspector, What is over it can use in any way it thinks fit. We ran many functions, our turnover being around £30,000 a year, the Shelter costing us £600 a week to run.
This Branch was one of the most active voluntary-run Branches. We ran a Shelter employing a resident Supervisor and 3 Kennelgirls (a clinic, until the lease ran out a few years ago). We were receiving over 1,000 te1ephone calls annua11y for help and dea1t with over 1,000 letters a year, ran a Bird Hospital and helped many people with spaying, vets bills and with unwanted animals. We could not have done more. We were all voluntary helpers. Nearly 1,500 animals were successfully homed a year, most checked, the name of the Gwent Branch being respected in Gwent. This was obvious because we were financially secure and because of the amount of legacies left to us.
We received much publicity, both newspaper and TV wise and indeed, when the adverse publicity was raging against the Society a few years ago, one letter appeared in the Radio Times in its favour and that was from a man in Devon, praising the dedication of the Gwent Shelter. We received a glowing write-up of our Shelter in a recent RSPCA magazine "Today".
I had been Branch Secretary for about 28 years, having worked for the Society for about 33 years, almost all my adult life. When l became Secretary (everything was destroyed before then) I used to board animals in the private kennels above my home, pending re-homing. From there the Branch took over the Police Pound in Newport until money became available for the present Shelter on land we found, about 18 years ago. The policy we maintained over all these years was not to destroy a healthy anima1 that had a chance of finding a home or a sick one that cou1d be nursed back to health. WE HAVE NEVER CHANGED THAT POLICY. Any animal destroyed was only on the advice of our Veterinary Surgeon in consultation with our Supervisor who had been there 11 years. All dogs were inoculated against distemper and parvo. We had never been faulted by the Field Officer on his unannounced visits for anything other than clean kennels. He, in consultation with our Veterinary Surgeon, had originally decided that the number of dogs we could keep should not exceed 140.
In May 1984 a Mrs. Rachel Smith then Council Chairman, visited the Shelter at about 9 a.m. on her way to a meeting. Then 4 months later she put in a report (never seen by us) that we had too many dogs (cats were ignored). I received a confidential letter from the regiona1 organiser Captain Rowland James on September 7th it read: – "I attended a meeting of the Animal Welfare Establishments Committee in London on Wednesday where the question of the renewal of the licence for your Shelter was raised. At first it was only a matter of the number of animals that you would be permitted to house but later it developed into a discussion of the report submitted by Mrs. Rachel Smith after her visit in May. There was some opposition to the report and eventually I was instructed to compile a report in detail regarding the Shelter. With this in mind I wonder If I could visit you on Friday next, September. 14th, so that we could both take walk around the Shelter?…… etc. This is in fact no bad thing. The ball is in our court and we will be in a position to submit an accurate and unbiased report. In addition Capt. de Geus (the present regional representative) is very angry that part of Mrs. Smith’s report, which he has not seen, contains allegations submitted direct by another Branch against both your home and the Cardiff home.In his view any Branch wishing to complain should do so through him and he is determined to put a stop to the direct link which has been established The initiative rests between him and I and I can not see how anything but good can come of it...... etc." signed Gareth Rowland James.
However, with no consultation with the Branch or our Veterinary Surgeon a letter was received in December from HQ saying the Council had decided to cut our number from 140 to 100, preferably getting down to 70, Our Veterinary Surgeon immediate1y wrote back a strong letter upholding the Shelter and the number 140, but this was ignored. I wrote back saying we would do all we could to comply with this and gradually we stopped taking in unwanted pets from the Gwent people, the dogs from Blackwood Police at the end of their 7 days to save destruction (the Police had asked us to help) and we took only the Police strays in Newport, for which we had a contract of around £2.17 per day for 7 days, any of our own returned and the odd dog brought in by the Inspector. OUR RECORD CARDS PROVED THIS. EVERYTHING WE COULD POSSIBLY DO WE DID.
The Field Officer continued to visit, the numbers wou1d go up and down, sometimes to 120, but with as many as 40 dogs coming in per week if the dog wardens had a purge, the figure climbed back up again until it was reduced by substantial press advertising, homing many. He was due to come again in August 1985, one of the few times we knew ahead of his visit. We had about 20 dogs over the 100 and by now we were getting very tired and under stress with the constant counting. I had asked him what did they want us to do. DID THEY WANT US TO START DESTROYING?? – HIS ANSWER WAS NO. This indeed was in line with the Official RSPCA Policy Book.
We even considered hiding the 20 surplus dogs and I mentioned this to our Inspector as we felt that until the "magic number" of 100 could be reached they would continue with their counting. However, we decided not to worry and I rang him back. It was only a small number over. IT WAS TOO LATE THOUGH AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD HE HAD ALREADY PUT 1N HIS REPORT! So Mr. Adams visited, found spotless kennels, but with about 20 dogs over. A week later the Shelter received a lunch hour visit by a Council Member called Forster, who happened to be a Vet, saying he was on holiday. He did not contact our Veterinary Surgeon or have the elementary courtesy to send us a copy of his report, but that report of too many dogs resulted in the Council, without question, suspending the Gwent Branch Committee.
At about 8.40 a.m. two days after the Council Meeting I received a visit from Captain Rowland James the Regional Organiser, with a letter stating this. I was not allowed to answer the Branch telephone, deal with the post, carry on the plans of our Christmas Fair (later he called and asked me to run it!), Shelter food appeal, or to hold the Pippa Dee Party arranged for the next day. The Branch was FROZEN. At the same time, the "Hit Team" arrived at the Shelter. The Supervisor was told (four times) not to ring me or talk to the Press or TV., 29 dogs were destroyed and 49 removed in a large waiting RSPCA ambulance to be re-homed, she was told. Particularly distressing was the plea of the Supervisor to leave Gemma and her puppies – a bitch brought in starving who adored the Supervisor. She and her puppies had homes waiting as soon as the puppies were ready. This was ignored and Gemma was dragged into the waiting van. 27 of the dogs destroyed were under treatment by our Veterinary Surgeon for curable skin trouble (which often happens when a dog has been abandoned and lives out of refuse bins) and all wou1d have recovered. Our Vet. Surgeon put a letter in upholding this. The dogs were put into plastic bags before rigor mortis had set in (against strictest ruling) and the young upset girls had to remove them from the large bin, open the bags and were shattered to see many favourite dogs who they had been treating daily. The woman with the ambulance I was told was surprised the dogs mouths weren’t taped to be destroyed, she was told – no – they trust so much they just stand. She also rang later to say she had never seen such well-fed happy dogs as the ones removed – they even knew their names! Our local paper had Placards and front-page story "RSPCA Squad in Kennels Killing Orgy"
Forster’s complaint was based on overcrowding. The actual kennels are exceptionally large, being 8 ft by 4 ft wide with a door leading straight into a covered run 15ft long, so that the movement area was 23ft by 4ft, the dogs being treated were kept separate from others. The decision of the Council was based on the PERSONAL VIEW OF FORSTER in direct contradiction to our experienced local vet. At what stage does the alleged overcrowding cause physical suffering? Is it better for a dog to be killed rather than put up with others in a kennel with it for a few weeks? Is this a logical decision when a Vet or Inspector cannot take a man to Court who ties up his dog on a short chain all its life? Remember also, a dog is a pack animal.
So, without warning (no letter of warning was received except the December letter telling us to cut our numbers from 140 to 100 and this had been confirmed when our President wrote asking for copies of the alleged warnings – there were none) the Committee was suspended.
I requested to appear before the Council, the plan was for our Vet. Surgeon to attend to disprove Forster’s complaint, the Shelter Supervisor and our President Mr. John Hobhouse (who is the Bath RSPCA Chairman and runs a large Shelter there and once was the National Council Chairman). However the Council Officers appear to have decided to hide behind the exact wording of the rules that only Committee Members could appear and the three main witnesses were therefore refused. Even if this decision was legally correct there was nothing to prevent them being asked to give evidence on crucial points of facts. So a1l basic rules of natural justice were ignored. I entered the Council room with Mrs. Green, a Committee Member, as Major Langham, the paid Branch Liaison Officer shouted at our President in front of the Overseas Club Visitors.
It would appear from questions asked at the meeting that few of the approx. 20 members present had much idea of what was going on, although I had written to everyone with the background, with the exception of Mr. Richard Ryder. Miss Celia Hammond and Miss Walder. Not one person asked the basic question – What written warning did the Branch receive? Answer None, other than the note of Council decision in December 1984 to restrict the licence to 100, not one person asked if the Council had made any offer to help the Branch cope with their problems by adding extra kennels. I have never had anyone speak to me before like Mrs. Joan Felthouse, deputy Chairman, Mrs. Rachel Smith or the Vet. Mr. Forster and indeed at one point Mr. Richard Ryder jumped to his feet and said that it was more of an inquisition than an enquiry. My own feeling was I was wasting my time. No help or word was forthcoming from our Regional Representative, Captain de Geus. The result of this was the disbanding of the Gwent Branch Committee. No letter was written to me personally, just a carbon copy of a letter sent to our Chairman.
In an area such as Gwent, following the Miners’ strike, the pressure on the kennels was immense. MANY DOGS HAD BEEN TAKEN IN FROM SURROUNDING AREAS THAT HAD NO KENNELS and it takes a hard heart to turn away animals that could be homed, simply because of an instruction from HQ. which flew in the face of any humanitarian policy and the advice and support of their own experienced Vet.. It would take a very hard heart to nurse a little dog and then, as happened in the case of "Pelican", remove her card comment on her length of stay and advise destruction, as Captain Rowland James the Regional Organiser did, when he (with no experience) took over the running of the Shelter. Yes, she had been there a while because of re-occuring throat trouble which our Vet. decided to operate on, successfully. She was 12 months old. However, I rescued her and homed her. Even our Vet said "Don’t ask me to destroy her.’ The same with "Nelson" saved from a life on a chain, with one eye knocked out, "No one wi1l take him". said the powers that be, he was rescued too and immediately homed. Likewise a shaggy bitch with a little fur off one ear that the staff patiently combed over, hoping it wouldn’t be noticed. Our President has her in his own home.
This is the true story After we were disbanded and only 50 dogs remained in the Shelter, over 100 dogs were turned away last November to December. My "Emotive" adverts as they were called, stopped. We had to do something immediately so we started to form the GWENT ANIMAL RESCUE, We commenced by homing Rex, the beloved pet of an old lady entering a home. The Police rang me about him, what else could we do? He couldn’t enter the Shelter. Letters and telephone calls poured in supporting us and begging us to do something. A gentleman from Hereford missed our adverts in his paper and went to the Shelter thinking it was lack of finance, offered Capt. Rowland James £200 for the adverts to continue – he was willing to accept the money, but not to advertise. Fortunately the gentleman rang me and I was able to tell him what was happening and the money was put at our disposal.
WILL YOU HELP US PLEASE?
All we want to do is to help animals. A Bank Account has been opened at the Midland Bank and we hope to register as a charity. We need : –
Money – sorry, but it’s vital. Enough and we can have our own Shelter.
We are making Membership £5.00 a year, but donations also welcome however small.
Helpers – Foster Homes needed until animals can be re-homed (we’ll provide the food)
Has anyone room for a Kennel to be built?
Help at our Fund-raising? We intend to continue with the Dog Show and Fete and Christmas Fair, we need, helpers and goods.
Place our Collecting Boxes?
Sometimes pick up a dog or cat?
Vet homes occasionally?
Have you any ideas at all? We badly need our own Shelter to hold the animals. Do you know of an existing kennels who perhaps could help us?
If there is anything at all you would like clarified, do please let me know, we have nothing to hide. What we would like to know is: –
Who is the Branch responsible for all this and who is the "direct line" in HQ? We believe we know. Why, after over 20 years of never changing our policy were we suddenly pounced on? The 140 dogs were always coped with successfully. Why should the Regional Organiser instruct our Supervisor not to home any of our unwanted dogs in the Mid-Glamorgan area? (whose Branch have no kennels). There were people from the above area who had a dog from us approx. 12 years ago, wanting another and we had to turn them away. Cardiff Shelter is allowed to home there – why is Gwent banned?
Why was the Swan Rescue Group not allowed to continue building their little pond and enclosure at the bottom of our Shelter? This wonderful group, doing so much under the leadership of Mr. Graham Phillips and Mr. Boulton needed a small patch of land – we had so much. They were indeed saving the Inspector work rescuing swans. It seemed only right to offer this little unwanted patch.
Why was Forster’s personal advice taken and not our own Veterinary Surgeon? We are not the only Branch, by the way, to receive this upset. Our President has written to every Branch Chairman and separately Secretary in the country with the truth and there is a move apparently at the forthcoming Secretaries’ Conference in London to get the rulebook changed to allow a Branch a fair trial before an impartial body and to be allowed independent witnesses such as their Veterinary Surgeon. Oh dear, even reading this makes me wonder what on earth is happening, hundreds of people have written in expressing their disgust and many have cancelled wills in favour of the RSPCA for other charities to benefit instead. Our President alone has cancelled a half a million pound will.
Please help us to get the Gwent Animal Rescue Shelter. Yours sincerely,
All mail welcome
Bernice Jones.
(on behalf of the ex-Gwent Branch Committee)
Gwent Animal Rescue Home Page http://www.webtribe.net/~animadversion/bernice.htm

WELCOME TO ANOTHER ANTI RSPCA BLOG SITE

http://anon-rspcanotastheyseem.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

RSPCA; TOO MUCH POWER

Should the RSPCA be leashed ? We say muzzled and castrated !




The RSPCA is one of Britain's favourite charities, defending the welfare of animals in England and Wales.

But does it sometimes go too far?

Founded nearly 200 years ago the RSPCA claims to be the oldest and largest animal welfare organisation in the world. And with the queen as its patron it is arguably one of the most respected.
Funded largely by voluntary donations, it has a vast headquarters in Horesham in Sussex and an annual income of almost £120m.
The RSPCA's sole purpose is to protect the wellbeing of all animals in England and Wales.

But has an institution so trusted for so many years become too powerful at the expense of humans?

One of its many private prosecutions in the last year is that of 93-year-old Ken Bolton. More4 News has been out on patrol with one of Britain's most powerful organisations.

PETITION LAUNCHED TO INVESTIGATE RSPCA

To: British Government & Charities Commission

This is a petition demanding that the British Government and / or Charity Commission step in to investigate the R.S.P.C.A.

This organisation of whom the Queen is Patron and who are supposedly there to help sick, injured and abused animals has systematically slaughtered animals which are healthy without trying to rehome or re-habilitate them ready for rehoming and who have used captive bolts on many occasions to kill these animals.

The Donating Public have no clue as to how this organisation really work as all advertising is sanitised.

This is a organisation that has millions in their bank accounts and in assets and who regularly appeal for funds.

This is one of the riches charities in the UK. These funds are mainly for their HQ and not the R.S.P.C.A. shelters across the UK who have to fundraise for their own shelters, which are franchised.

RSPCA Slaughter Ten German Shepherds with Bolt Pistol

http://www.germanshepherdrescue.freeforums.org/10-german-shepherds-slaughtered-by-rspca-with-captive-bolt-t585.

html RSPCA Refuses to help dying German Shepherd http://www.germanshepherdrescue.co.uk/rspca-failing-in-their-duties2.html

RSPCA shoots basset hounds

http://www.germanshepherdrescue.freeforums.org/basset-hounds-shot-by-

... Rusty alive despite being shot by captive bolt pistol http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/a-dogs-life-aint-what-it-used-to-be-486989.

html RSPCA refuse to prosecute man who killed dog with hoe 'dog did not suffer undue pain.' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8225119.stm

RSPCA trainee inspectors are STILL practising their shooting skills on living, sentient animals. http://www.webtribe.net/~watchdog/watchdog73.htm

Read the above and please register your protest by signing our petition

Please study the links ABOVE before signing this petition to get a insight into the "real" RSPCA

THESE ARE ALL FACT BASED AND CANNOT BE DENIED..................WARNING.........YOU WILL BE SHOCKED TO THE CORE.

click link below to sign petition

http://www.petitiononline.com/bruno09/petition.html