Wednesday, 1 December 2010


Jubilant Christine Gill after winning appeal

Who is picking up the tab for the courts costs? £120m in a year in donations and still scrounging. This money does not go the the branches, which are all independent franchised businesses responsible for their own fundraising

In 2009 the RSPCA killed a total of 63,000 animals - a rise of over 3000 on the previous year. Nice to know how your donations are spent

trickie43, coundon says...

excellent outcome , shame the RSPCA found it nessesary to spent so much money chasing their tale, still for just £2.00 a month we can all contibute to the court costs....

smokin, dh65hw says...
this has made my night these greedy people were trying to take away a daughters right to her mothers property and I hope that the costs come out of the RSPCA and not the tax payer

Cosmos, says...
It beggars belief that the RSPCA refused to accept the legal judgement in this case. This latest debacle threatens the financial future of many charities. Not only will it ensure that more people will stop donating to this greedy organisation it will also deter many from donating to those charities which supported this action. I would like to know how much more of the general public's hard-earned cash has gone on this latest appeal on top of the £1.3million costs from the previous hearings.

queenie1, Birmingham says...
Heartiest congratulations to Dr Gill and the very sensible Judge in this case. I am absolutely thrilled that it's all behind her now and that she and her son can now enjoy the farm that is so rightfully theirs.
Shame on the greedy RSPCA for pursuing this, they've put Dr Gill through a great deal of worry and anguish. I hope they will at least, have the grace to apologise, and let this be a lesson not to try to grab other people's inheritances.

simmo3578, newton aycliffe says...
they wont get a penny from me ever again, air ambulance ( which should be funded from the taxpayer and shouldn`t have to beg for clothes to sell) and any heart/cancer charity.
agreed,,,i always give the air ambulance. but now the greedy rspca get nowt. fact.

billysaid, aycliffe says...
ps,,,if they can afford to persue a case through the high courts,,,,then they obviousley do not need my,or anyone elses contributions. that is a fact.

Colcat, Teesside says...

billysaid wrote: ps,,,if they can afford to persue a case through the high courts,,,,then they obviousley do not need my,or anyone elses contributions. that is a fact.
No it's not - it's a supposition. That's a fact.
I have found that the RSPCA as an organisation is not particularly in favour of the best interests of animals, and have expressed this opinion before. I also believe them to be money grabbing, which this case has demonstrated. Instead of giving anything to them, I prefer to give to SARA. (I do agree that GNAA is also a worthy charity, but also believe it should be state funded.)

neilt63, toft hill says...

How fitting that Christine got her family farm back, the RSPCA should be ashamed of themselves, whoever decided to challenge the courts decision should resign immediately. I wonder how big that salary reduction would be? It's also nice to see that some of the courts do live in the "same world" as us

smokin, dh65hw says...

colcat you are right when you say they don't have the best interests of animals at heart
a friend of mine phoned them one day to tell them that she had found a full litter of puppies they told her to open the gate and let them out and the dog catcher will pick them up they were only a month old
I adopted one who turned out to be a Presa Canario (as was the full litter) a most beautifull dog
(why they were abandoned is a very sad story better left for another time)
but needless to say all the puppies were found homes by this lady and she immediately withdrew her direct debit donation which was £2.00 per month and she had donated this for years they are just greedy people not caring at all

No comments: