Saturday, 31 October 2009


Each of the animals were found abandoned or homeless and were being cared for at the Decoy Kitten Rescue centre in Newton Abbot, Devon.

It works as an unofficial 'over flow' facility looking after animals when there is no room at other cat homes or the RSPCA.
Around 60 kittens will have to be put down by lethal injection next Wednesday if new owners aren't found.
Kittens which are due to be killed include three week old Sam, Frodo, Bilbo and Sapphire as well as a tabby called Winks.
"If they have nowhere else to live we'll have no choice but to put them to sleep. ''The RSPCA can't take them because they're full - we are usually the overflow for them.
''The credit crunch has been an absolute nightmare for animal charities.
"It's also meant there have been a lot more unwanted kittens because people can't afford to pay for vet's bills.
A spokesman for the RSPCA said its officers had visited the facility but confirmed its centres were full and a cull would not be illegal.

Friday, 30 October 2009



Following many complaints to the Chief Constable, South Wales Police have confirmed that they are investigating the RSPCA and its inspectors in relation to ten acts of alleged cruelty to German Shepherd dogs, and other welfare offences.

It has not been confirmed whether any RSPCA employees have been suspended pending the results of the police investigation into their activities.

Jayne Shenstone from German Shepherd Rescue added:

"German Shepherd Rescue is pleased that its complaint against the RSPCA is being investigated by South Wales Police. These ten poor German Shepherd dogs were treated disgracefully by the RSPCA and its employees."

"The dogs were grabbed one by one with a grasper, shot in the head with a captive bolt and then left to die."

"The RSPCA is a member of The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and the International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM) who specifically condemn any use of a captive bolt by anyone on dogs of any type."

"The RSPCA has claimed it's the only time they have heard of such a weapon being used like this, but captive bolts are routinely issued to inspectors."

"We look forward to an early confirmation that South Wales Police will proceed to PACE interviews. We believe that serious offences have been committed, and that they merit charges for both the RSPCA and the officers responsible."

Anne Kasica from the SHG said:

"It appears that South Wales Police are treating this in a professional an objective manner. We look forward to the outcome of their investigations and interviews with the RSPCA."

"We would comment that the RSPCA have recently been charging even more people -especially the young, sick and the old with new offences under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The RSPCA spent huge sums lobbying for the AWA, which criminalises any failure to meet animals' needs."

"In comparison to the RSPCA's treatment of these ten German Shepherd dogs, on 14 October 2009, farmer Ronald Norcliffe was fined £150 for failing to meet his cows 'psychological and ethological needs' following a prosecution by Kirklees Council. His failure was not providing his cattle with an electric light in the cow shed even though Mr. Norcliffe had no electricity in his farmhouse."
"Should the RSPCA be convicted of a criminal offence of cruelty to the animals then it would clearly place their position as a prosecuting authority for this specific type of offence in question."

Inspctor Mark Hobrough of South Wales police can be contacted on 01656 655555

Chief Constable of South Wales police Dr. Barbara Wilding cab be contacted by e-

For further comment please contact:

Jayne Shenstone spokeswoman for German Shepherd Rescue on 01568 797957

Or from the SHG:
Anne Kasica on 01559 371031
Ernest Vine on 01559 370566
Mobile 07534 056639.

Wednesday, 21 October 2009



A British couple have been banned from keeping horses for five years after the charity World Horse Welfare and the RSPCA removed two Shetland ponies from their care, one of whom was grossly overweight.
Keith Hall, 60, and Lynn Hall, 56, from Cleveleys in Lancashire, appeared before Blackpool Magistrates Court this week, where they admitted causing unnecessary suffering to a 21-year-old mare called April and failing to meet the needs of a 12-year-old stallion called Dale.
World Horse Welfare field officer Chris Williamson and an RSPCA inspector visited the Hall's rented field on Fleetwood Rd in Blackpool on November 4 last year and found that April's feet had not been trimmed for a very long time. She was lame and in pain.
Her companion Dale had been allowed to become grossly overweight.
Both ponies were seized and taken to World Horse Welfare's Penny Farm in Blackpool, where they immediately received the care they needed.
Dale was put on a strict diet and exercise programme and has recovered well. April did not respond to treatment and the difficult decision was made to euthanize her.
"This is one of the first cases under the new Animal Welfare Act involving an obese horse," Williams said. "I am pleased that the serious welfare implications of allowing a horse to get into this condition were taken into account in the sentence."
The Halls were ordered to pay costs of £500 each and a three-month curfew was imposed, enforcing them to be resident at their home between 10pm and 6am.
They indicated their immediate intention to appeal their five-year ban.

Tuesday, 20 October 2009



Ian Briggs, chief inspector of the RSPCA’s Special Operations Unit, said dog-fighting is up 400 per cent in the past three years in the UK.
“Out of all the work my unit now does about 98 per cent is related to Asian gangs,” he said.
It was in the Alum Rock suburb of Birmingham three years ago that the police and RSPCA first realised the sheer scale of the problem.
Twenty-six men, all of Pakistani origin and aged 18 to 42, were arrested after being found crammed into the back of a kitchen showroom store.
Mike Butcher, of the RSPCA’s Special Operations Unit, said: “The West Midlands region is an area where we are getting a lot of intelligence about organised dog-fights in the Asian community.


Sunday, 18 October 2009



Saturday, 17 October 2009




Wednesday, 14 October 2009



A RHONDDA woman was jailed for 18 weeks for what a magistrate described as “the worst animal cruelty case in his 25 years”.
Bridget Louise Davidson, 36, pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to Franklin – a white and black bull terrier.
The seven-year-old dog was found dead by the RSPCA in the kitchen of her rubbish-strewn house on Railway Terrace, Cwmparc.
Davidson had locked Franklin in without food and water.
Prosecuting solicitor Geraint Richards told Rhondda Magistrates’ Court that Davidson “could not look after herself, let alone Franklin”.
The prosecutor said RSPCA officer Nicola Johnson found the bull terrier after looking through a window of the empty house on May 13.
“When she looked through the window she could see the body of a white dog but couldn’t tell whether he was dead or alive,” said Mr Richards.
“So the police were called and they forced entry. The dog was then taken to the veterinary surgeon for expert examination.
In interview Davidson accepted that no-one else was responsible for the dog and she couldn’t look after him.”
Mr Richards, of Martyn Prowel Solicitors Cardiff, prosecuted on behalf of the charity on a pro bono basis.
Richard Williams, defending, said Davidson was herself neglected as a child and placed in care from the age of 11.
“She appreciates that she has no business looking after animals anymore,” he said. “She’s in no state to be looking after a budgie, cat or dog.
“The only saving grace is she wasn’t looking after a child as the outcome could have been tragic.”
Summing-up, presiding magistrate Dewi Hughes said: “I have to say that in over 25 years sitting on the bench this is the worst case of animal cruelty I have seen.
“The case is so serious that only a custodial sentence is appropriate.
“It was the ill-treatment of the dog which resulted its horrific death.
“We have taken into account your early guilty plea.
“The custodial sentence will be 18 weeks; we also disqualify you from keeping or owning animals indefinitely.”
Speaking outside the court in Llwynypia, RSPCA inspector Simon Evans said: “This poor animal died a wretched and painful death. Grossly underweight, this dog suffered appalling neglect at the hands of his owner.
“The magistrate summed it up when he said it was the worst case he’d seen in 25 years.
“In 10 years I have seen maybe half a dozen people end up in prison – so it’s right up there with the worst.
“She had a number of options open to her if she couldn’t look after him. All she had to do was pick up the phone.”
In addition to the 18-week custodial sentence, the defendant was also disqualified from keeping or owning any animal until further notice.

Monday, 12 October 2009



A woman disinherited by her mother’s decision to leave the family’s £2.3 million farm to the RSPCA celebrated victory yesterday when a court declared the will invalid.
Christine Gill, an only child, wept as a judge ruled that she was entitled to inherit the 287-acre North Yorkshire farm to which she had devoted years of labour to support and care for her ageing parents. The RSPCA said that it would appeal against the ruling.
Dr Gill’s widowed mother Joyce, who died at 82, did not even support the charity. She was pro-hunting and, according to her daughter and other witnesses, thought the RSPCA “were just a bunch of townies who knew nothing about the countryside”. The High Court in Leeds ruled that the shy, reclusive mother had been bullied into the will by her ill-tempered husband, John, before his death.
The animal charity, which two years ago rejected an offer of three quarters of the estate, may have to pay both sides’ legal costs, totalling £1.3 million. The court will rule on costs later.
Dr Gill, 58, a part-time university lecturer whose 12-year-old son can now fulfil his ambition to become a farmer, said she was “shaking with relief” at the court’s decision.She felt that her heart and soul had been “ripped out” when she first learnt that the will said she would get no money or land.
As the RSPCA had made plans to sell the farm, the Gills wrote to its patrons, including the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It refused to negotiate, and the Gills sought an injunction to prevent the sale of Potto Carr Farm, near Northallerton.
The judge was satisfied that Mrs Gill had “an avowed dislike” of the RSPCA and wanted her daughter to inherit the farm, but that she had been unduly influenced by her husband.

Friday, 9 October 2009



Much-loved: 'Jenny's' parents are devoted to their daughter
The recording begins with the sound of a child's voice. It belongs to a little girl and she is clearly bewildered and distressed.
At one point she begins to cry. At other times she is sobbing uncontrollably. 'Have you seen the judge yet?' she can be heard asking pitifully in between the tears before pleading: 'I want to go home with [you] Mummy and Daddy.'
The recording - and dozens of others just like it - was made during a supervised meeting between the youngster and her parents after their daughter was taken away from them by social workers.
They are known as 'contact visits' in the soulless vernacular of the care system, and took place in a room with a table and chairs and a few toys.
One hour. Once a month. That's the extent of the relationship now between this little seven-year-old girl and her traumatised parents.
There are some parents who do not deserve to see their children more than once a month. Irresponsible parents. Neglectful parents. Abusive parents.
According to care workers, the mother and father of this little girl were found to fall into this category after their home was raided by the RSPCA and at least 18 police officers to deal with a complaint about supposed mistreatment of dogs.
But what if social workers have got it wrong? In the light of Baby P and so many other scandals, it's hardly impossible is it?
Certainly, the recordings stored on a computer at! the family's home on the South Coast seem to contradict the damaging claims by social services that the girl, whom we shall call Jenny - the girl's real identity has been suppressed by the courts - did not wish to return to live with her parents.
Jenny's father spent months taking down every word of the recordings by hand, only to be told by a judge that they had to be professionally transcribed.
By the time they were, it was too late. Moves to put Jenny up for adoption were under way.
This week, after 74 separate court hearings over two harrowing years, the family finally lost their fight to have Jenny returned to them.
The Court of Appeal in London ruled that their daughter must be given up for adoption. If and when she is, they may never see her again.
Jenny was five when she was taken away, and seven now. Before we examine the peculiarly troubling details of this case, it is worth considering the comments of the family's MP, Charles Hendry.
He says: 'This case has concerned me more than any other in my 13 years as a member of Parliament.' And, he went on to describe Jenny's mother and father as 'devoted parents'.
Furthermore, one of the experts brought in to examine the child's removal, a psychiatric social worker, concluded the local authority had 'mismanaged the case'. Needless to say, his advice was ignored.
They are not lone voices: more than 200 local people, including neighbours, friends and members of the couple's church, planned to take part in a march through their village shortly after the family's ordeal began in April 2007.
Posters were printed, which read 'Social Services Have Kidnapped Our Daughter. Please Help The Fight To Get Her Back Where She Belongs.' Above the words was a picture of Jenny.
Of course, you won't have read about the protest, because it never took place. The march was just about to begin when the police, acting on the advice of social services, stepped in.
'It's hard to go into my girl's room! without crying'
They warned Jenny's parents they risked being jailed, as they had broken the law by identifying their daughter on the placards.
Just another example of the terrifying lack of transparency that now surrounds the removal of children from their families.
Reforms to open up cases such as Jenny's to public scrutiny were introduced earlier this year. But the truth is, an almost Stalinist culture of secrecy still exists in family courts.
Jenny was never physically harmed, and was 'thriving and happy before being taken away', the Court of Appeal was told.
One of the reasons for the decision was that Jenny's father had been unwilling to undergo a further assessment.
Wouldn't other parents in his position have done the same?
After all, the case had already dragged on for two years and he believed yet another 'assessment' would delay the tortuous process even more.
Yet, here we are today on the cusp of Jenny being spirited away from her family for ever.
No one suggests that Jenny's parents - whom we'll call Susan and Richard - are perfect. But over the past few weeks, our reporters have come to know the family. And one thing seems undeniable - their love for their daughter, and her love for them.
Jenny is a beautiful child with a mop of chestnut hair. She loved ballet, swimming and Susan and Richard paid for her to have private tennis lessons.
Her bedroom - with her own ensuite bathroom - in the family's home is almost unchanged from the day she last slept there.
Her favourite pink teddy bear is still sitting under the windowsill. And a collection of her videos are on a shelf.
'She loved Grease and pretending to be Olivia Newton-John,' her mother told me last night as her eyes filled up with tears. 'It's hard to come into my daughter's room without crying.'
Susan, in her 40s and involved in her local Conservative Association, used to be a beautician before becoming a fulltime mother - that was how important her child was to her.
Her husband Richard, 32, runs a dog breeding business from their home. They have been married for 13 years.They were just a normal, happy family, it seems, until the RSPCA, backed up by 18 police officers, arrived at their house early one April morning in 2007, following a tip-off that dogs were being mistreated, and that there might be guns in the house.
No guns were ever found. No criminal charges were brought, nor does Richard have a criminal record.
He was later, however, convicted of docking the tails of his puppies. But the raid was to have far more catastrophic consequences.
Both Richard and Susan were arrested for failing to cooperate with officers. By the time they were released from custody later that day, Jenny was the subject of an emergency protection order.
So an operation which had begun for entirely different reasons had ended with the heartbreak of their daughter being taken away.
There were two reasons for what happened, and both have been bitterly contested by the family.
The first was the state of the house. Police said it was covered in rabbit entrails - used as food for the dogs they raised - and animal excrement.
The couple claim most of the mess was caused during the raid. They say, the doors were left open, allowing the dogs in. Normally, they insisted, their home was 'clean and tidy'.
Only a few weeks earlier a policewoman had visited them - after a puppy had been stolen - and backed up what they said.
She also said that Jenny was 'happy'. Their home, it should also be stressed, was always immaculate when we visited the couple.
Attention was drawn to the fact that there was a hole in a downstairs bedroom ceiling. But the family point out that a pipe had recently leaked and could not be repaired until the beams had dried out. It has now been fixed.
Nor, it was claimed by the authorities, were there any clothes for Jenny in her wardrobe. Did the police look in the wrong wardrobe - the one in her parent's bedroom?
The wardrobe in Jenny's own bedroom, her parents say, was full of her belongings.
'We always put Jenny first,' said Susan. 'We have receipts from Monsoon [the fashion store] proving we spent hundreds of pounds on Jenny in the couple of months before she was taken from us. If anything, we spoilt her.'
The second reason, according to social services, that Jenny was not returned to her parents, was that she had apparently made it clear she didn't want to return to the house.
But why would she? Jenny was later diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) following the raid.
'They were raided like criminals, it is disgusting'
In fact, it would be impossible to imagine a more traumatic situation than the 'chaotic scenes' which unfolded at the house that morning and which culminated in her mother and father being led away in handcuffs.
In other words, not wanting to return home didn't necessarily mean she didn't want to be with her parents.
Those tapes made during 'contact meetings' in which she tearfully begs to be returned to her 'Mummy and Daddy' would seem to confirm this.
'She was hysterical when the police came in,' says Susan. 'It's the damage they have done to our little girl which really concerns us. I fear she will never be the same.'
There is also another sad twist to this troubling story. Susan and Richard didn't just lose Jenny that day.
Susan was three months pregnant with twins. She ! says she was in a police cell when she began to miscarry. !
'I started bleeding heavily and knew that could only mean one thing,' she said. 'I was taken to hospital where doctors confirmed my worst fears.'
Even so, she was taken back to the police station later, where she says she suffered another haemorrhage. 'I rang the buzzer and they brought me sanitary towels. Later, I was allowed home.'
But another nightmare was just unfolding. Susan was charged with neglecting Jenny - on the strength, she says, of the conditions in the house.
Three months later, all the charges were dropped.
Many would also argue that this is when the social services case against the couple should also have been dropped.
But, like other families who have been through a similar experience, once they were in the 'system' they found it impossible to get out.
It is a view supported by their MP. 'I was very concerned about the case from the outset,' says Mr Hendry.
'Every time I have attempted to discuss it with the ! director of children's services for the county council, I have been told they cannot discuss it because of the legal proceedings.
'What it has brought home to me is how difficult it is for parents to get back a child once a decision has been made to take the child away.
'It is clear to me they are devoted parents whose only goal is get their child returned. I have never seen the evidence to justify taking their daughter away from them.'
In fact, the 'evidence' is based on the testimony of two independent experts. Two others gave the couple positive assessments. But let's deal with the critical reports.
One 'expert' suggested, after spending just one hour with Jenny, that she had been sexually abused by her father.
And the proof? He came to this conclusion, it seems, after Jenny had described choking on a lollipop which, so the expert said, could 'signify the child being forced to have oral sex with her father'.
There was indeed! an incident, says her mother, in which Jenny got a lolly (a sugar-fre e one from the health shop, incidentally) stuck in her throat when she was playing.

MP Charles Hendry said the case has concerned him more than any other in 13 years as a member of Parliament
'She started coughing,' says Susan. I thought: "Oh my God, she is choking." I patted her on the back and she was OK.'
The second expert concluded that Susan and Richard were suffering from 'paranoid personality disorders'.
On one occasion, the police were called when Richard began taking photographs of the social services centre where a 'contact meeting' with Jenny was taking place.
Why? Because the grounds of the building were littered with syringes and mounds of rubbish - not a fit place! , he claimed, for them to meet their bewildered child.
'The social workers didn't want to challenge these experts, at all,' says Richard. 'I would say to them: "Where is the evidence for this allegation or that allegation?" Or "produce a witness".
'They felt we were being obstructive to the local authority's care plan. But what we supposed to do? Just give up. We would never do that.'
The allegations about the sexual abuse and the paranoia were dismissed by other experts, including Dr Peter Dale, a psychiatric social worker, who concluded the local authority had 'mismanaged the case'.
They made, he said, fixed assumptions about the parents at the outset, and had not done the necessary investigations to check whether those assumptions were correct.
Dr Dale said: 'Jenny had suffered significant harm as a result of being removed from her parents, and was likely to suffer fears of abandonment by them for some time to come and would be particul! arly at risk during adolescence.
'She needed urgent therapeutic input to help her make sense of what had happened to her.'
He continued: 'Plans for reunification [with her parents] should be established on a very urgent basis.'
Instead, Jenny is being put up for adoption. If Susan and Richard refuse to accept the decision, they could be prevented from ever seeing their daughter again. It is an outcome which their neighbours and friends can barely contemplate.
One couple are among dozens of people who have supported the couple in their desperate fight to get their only daughter back.
The pair, who have both worked in social services, say they are 'disgusted' with the way the case has been handled, and yesterday insisted the parents were 'the best mother and father a child could wish for'.
The 44-year-old woman, says: 'I worked with children in social services for 25 years and I have never seen anything like this.
'We have been friends with the family for about five years and the only critici! sm I could ever make of them is that they love their little girl too much. They spoil her rotten.
'She has spent a lot of time in our home playing with our daughter, who is a bit older, and our daughter was always over at their home.
'She is a bright, funny, intelligent child. She is always happy and giggling. Every time we saw her she was immaculately dressed, often showing off a new frock or jewellery.
'The way they were raided like criminals and their child snatched from their arms is disgusting.
'There are so many children out there who do need to be monitored by social services, as demonstrated by Baby P. This little girl is not one of them.'
Last night, Jenny's mother, tears rolling down her cheeks, described the impact on the family.
'I go to bed thinking about Jenny and I wake up thinking about Jenny,' she said. 'There's hardly a moment in the day when we are not thinking about her. It's torture.
'To think that our be! autiful daughter is probably going to be advertised on a socia! l servic es website is unbearably painful.'
No one - particularly a newspaper - has a copyright on wisdom in tragic cases such as this. But surely - in the name of justice - there are too many questions raised by the couple's MP, neighbours and independent experts, for anyone to be certain that it's right for Jenny to be torn away from her biological family.

Thursday, 8 October 2009



The German Shepherd Rescue network (“GSR”) has, during the course of a superb and highly-successful internet-based campaign, drawn international attention to the RSPCA’s hypocritical annual slaughter of many thousands of healthy dogs. The GSR campaign focuses on ten German Shepherd dogs (“GSDs”) who were slaughtered together in Pontadarwe in July this year by RSPCA inspectors using a captive bolt pistol.

The national outcry and response from the national media has been huge. The RSPCA seems to have lost patience. Nothing they have said or done has been able to stem the flow of criticism.

Things have now taken a darker tone. The charity’s highly-paid lawyers have written to Jayne Shenstone of the GSR in threatening tones.

They claim that the RSPCA owns the trade mark of the acronym RSPCA “in both upper and lower case”. Part of a communication from top RSPCA commercial lawyer Amanda Gibbs states:

"In the circumstances, please provide me, by no later than 5pm today with details of how and when you acquired the RSPCA's approval and permission to use the RSPCA's registered trade marks on your website and/or any publications associated with your company. If we do not hear from you, we will have no option but to assume that you do not have any such permission. When reconsidering the content of your website and publications, please note that the protection afforded by the trade mark registration process and the Trade Marks Act 1994 effectively covers the use of the RSPCA acronym in upper and lower case."

Facebook has also been the subject of RSPCA action to try to muzzle the complaints and are removing content critical of the charity which uses the acronym “RSPCA” having received a notice that the content “infringes their copyright(s).”

Anne Kasica of the SHG said:

"We know that the RSPCA threatens journalists, defence lawyers and veterinary surgeons. However, if the state of our law is now, as the RSPCA’s highly-paid lawyers claim, that one needs permission from the RSPCA to use the acronym ‘RSPCA’ then no criticism of this political and highly-secretive ‘charity’ will ever see the light of day. The acronym ‘RSPCA’ has been in public use for years and we believe that people will keep using it. To do otherwise would mean the end of the right to comment – there would be no more cartoons in your local paper, no more columns and no more internet blogs

"We think we have the freedom to make fair comment in the UK. Have we finally lost the right to freedom of speech to those organisations, like the RSPCA, with the financial clout to bully people like Jayne Shenstone into submission?”

The SHG’s Ernest Vine, invited people to go to the German Shepherd rescue site at
straight away and said:

"People should go there while they still can and see what the RSPCA did to those poor dogs.”

“Ask yourself whether this is really an issue about trademark infringement.”

“ The SHG is encouraging everyone to go to their MP or Assembly Member and raise these very serious issues. Do we really want so-called charities like the RSPCA to be completely immune from legitimate criticism?”

“We at the SHG have been demanding a full public inquiry into the RSPCA and their activities for years.”

Tuesday, 6 October 2009


A SUPERMARKET worker was stung by a scorpion that had hidden in some bananas.
The produce section worker at Sainsbury’s on Team Valley, in Gateshead, was lifting a box of the fruit when the exotic predator scuttled out and stung him in the stomach.
Shocked co-workers quickly pounced on the creature before it could escape and the injured man, who is in his 40s, was taken to Gateshead’s Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
The scorpion, which was nicknamed “Colin” by Accident and Emergency staff, was taken away by the RSPCA and a vet put it to sleep.
RSPCA animal collection officer Dave Dawson explained: “The scorpion had to be put down, as it is a non-indigenous species.” Scorpions are found across the southern hemisphere including parts of the USA, Africa and Asia.
Sainsbury’s said they were working to find out where the insect had come from.
“The RSPCA has confirmed that the scorpion is not poisonous and the sting is no worse than that of a wasp or bee,” a spokesperson said.

Friday, 2 October 2009




RSPCA come under fire

A broke dog owner has criticized the RSPCA for not helping him with a vet bill.
Jonathan Drake had to turn to his sister for financial help after his three-legged dog broke a back leg.
Bures resident Mr Drake, 34, was made redundant from his scaffolding job two months ago.
He contacted the RSPCA, but said he was told there was “no one in his area who could help”.
Mr Drake said: “If Roo was four-legged, the operation would have been cheaper.
“The RSPCA were useless and to think my gran used to donate to them on a monthly basis. She would turn in her grave."
Mr Drake said the operation, which took place yesterday cost about £1,1000.
Fenris, says...
Perhaps Klare Kennett could tell us why the RSPCA HQ phone number couldn't have told Mr. Drake to ring the local branch and given him their phone number if that is where people in need of help with veterinary fees are supposed to go?Could it be that it is something that even the RSPCA help line doesn't know about?
Shame on the RSPCA who regularly tell magistrates that if the defendant in a prosecution had only asked for help it would have been available.Will they tell magistrates the truth in future, I wonder?