RSPCA; SMALL COCKS, OR JUST CHICKEN ?

IS THAT A SMALL COCK ?

WHAT WILL THE QUEEN SAY ?

VERY DIGNIFIED !

WELL THEY HAVE JUST LOST £2.34 MILLION !

DESPERATE

RSPCA WONT PROSECUTE PRINCE EDWARD

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ?

Prince dog beating claim rejected

The Earl of Wessex, Prince Edward, will not be prosecuted over allegations he beat a gun dog, the RSPCA has said.
The charity has been investigating claims the prince may have struck a Labrador with a walking stick on the Queen's Sandringham estate in Norfolk.
But it now says there is not enough evidence to support the allegation.
The investigation followed public complaints when pictures showing the prince holding a stick over a black Labrador were published in December.
Buckingham Palace said the prince had waved his stick to break up a fight between his two dogs over a dead pheasant.
In a statement, the animal charity said:
"The RSPCA has closed its investigation as there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Prince Edward beat his dog."
Buckingham Palace said it welcomed the charity's findings but did not want to comment further.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7820952.stm

RSPCA PROSECUTION SHAME

SHAME ON YOU RSPCA !
VIDEO OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS
YET ANOTHER FAILED RSPCA PROSECUTION

PETITION TO PRIME MINISTER AS RSPCA KILL PET WESTIE

As dogs owners are on honeymoon the RSPCA put down their pet dog, we support the petition to the PM to stop this attrocity happening again.

The laws relating to dogs and other animals are outdated and urgently need to be reviewed and updated. Animals are being destroyed at RSPCA and SPCA facilities all over the UK, through no fault of their own.

Documentation should be provided and be available to the public to prove that All methods of contacting the rightful owner have been used before an animal is PTS.

The current practice to hold a dog for only 7 days is wrong and totally inadequate. We, the undersigned request that the 7 day rule be changed to 28 days.

This petition has been set up in memory of Sal the 8 year West Highland terrier, from Liverpool that was sadly put to sleep at RSPCA HALEWOOD when her owners were on honeymoon and for all the other dogs who have suffered a similar fate.

Please click on the link below to sign this petition

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/28DAYSLENIENCY/

RSPCA SEIZE FAT PONY

RSPCA CONDEMNED FOR FAT PONY SWOOP AS THEY IGNORE INJURED ANIMALS.
THE RSPCA have swooped to confiscate a Shetland pony amid accusations the animal had been over-fed by the public.
This happens as in only several weeks they fail to come out to distressed and injured animals as featured previously on this site
Dale, a 13-year-old stallion, is one of around six Shetland ponies in a field at Fleetwood Road, Thornton, which regularly attract members of the public who stroke and feed them.
But angry owner Keith Hall, of Anchorsholme Lane East, Cleveleys, claimed he was doing all he could to stop the public feeding the animals.
He said: "It's the general public feeding them and making them overweight."I have put signs up saying 'Please do not feed the horses' and I find signs thrown over the road."I'm blaming the general public, but Dale isn't hurting. If he was badly overweight he would be ill.
"They're taking my property away and are not telling me where they are taking him – is that right? He's a horse, not a child."
"Dale is a lovely animal. We have not shown him for a couple of years but previously he has won every show we have entered him for."An RSPCA inspector arrived at the field yesterday morning accompanied by police and a vet was on hand to examine the animals.
Eventually Dale was led away into a horse box belonging to the RSPCA at about 2pm.
The RSPCA declined to comment. ( What, No Film Crew !)
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Welfare-swoop-on-overfed-animals.4666763.jp

IS THE RSPCA, ANTI PET ? OH YES !

RSPCA POLICIES ANGER AQUATICS OWNERS, HOW LONG BEFORE THEY SEIZE FISH ?


'The more I learn about the RSPCA and its policies, the more I think it is anti-pet', says Jeremy Gay.
I've just returned from the fourth Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association (OATA) conference in Buxton, Derbyshire. OATA do many key things to aid the aquatics industry and its members, like working with CEFAS and DEFRA, making sure that imports of fish are allowed through, and basically lots of behind the scenes stuff that makes sure that our hobby continues to be what it is today, and could grow to be in the future.They are a trade organisation, so only retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers can join. Many of their policies concur with what shops, experts and hobbyists feel is fair to fish and the right way to handle and sell them. They address many crucial matters along the supply chain too as the fish travel from reef or river to retailer.You would think then that such an organisation would be able to work closely with the RSPCA, who are essentially an animal welfare organisation, and probably the most famous animal charity in the world. But the answer is, apparently not.
RSPCA policies
The RSPCA have several policies that if OATA adhered to, and we all had to adhere to, the fishkeeping hobby in the UK would be a very different place indeed. In my opinion, and the opinion of many OATA delegates, that is certainly not a place where we want to be.Referring to my news story on the OATA event, I've highlighted several RSPCA policies that John Rolls, RSPCA Director of Animal Welfare Promotion, read out to the OATA delegates, which he believed were relevant to them.
Confinement
The first is policy that raised my eyebrows was policy 3.1.2 that states: "The RSPCA is opposed to any degree of confinement which is likely to cause distress or suffering to the animals concerned."Whether we all admit to it or not, fish tanks cause confinement and can cause distress or suffering to fish so if you want to stick with the RSPCA and their thoughts on animal welfare, you had better ditch that tank.
Purchase from the breeder
The next one to catch my significant attention was policy number 3.2.1 which states that: "The RSPCA advocates that all animals should be acquired by the prospective owner from the place where they were born or from an RSPCA animal centre (or other reputable rescue organisation)."For those who know anything at all about our hobby, they will know that many fish species are wild caught, and even though many more are captive bred, the majority are bred in hot countries far away from the UK. To acquire a Platy we would have to travel to Singapore to go and get it, as that is where the owner will be, and that is where it would have been born. And correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of any RSPCA animal centres that re-home fish (although such a place would be a great idea - you could go and buy a rehomed Oscar for instance.)
Opposed to wild caught animals
Policy 9.6.1 states that: "The RSPCA is opposed to the trade in wild caught animals and products derived from them."This is great in respect to seahorses taken in their millions for the Chinese medicine trade, or shark finning, for example, that every fishkeeper is absolutely opposed to. But follow it word for word and you can say 'goodbye' to your plecs, most of your marines and in fact, most of your catfish and hundreds if not thousands of other wild caught, traded species.Furthermore, on the morning before Mr Rolls speech, Project Piaba advised that the trade in wild caught cardinal tetras on the Rio Negro is both sustainable and supports thousands of people, helping to alleviate poverty and protecting natural resources and biodiversity by preventing the local populations from logging, mining and generally wrecking the natural environment around them.
Opposed to captive-bred wild animals
And lastly Policy 9.6.2 reads that: "The RSPCA is opposed to the trade in captive-bred wild animals and products derived from them, where there are grounds for believing that suffering may in practice be caused as a result of breeding, holding, transportation or use of the animal."I read in to this that they should only be opposed to captive bred wild type animals if they believe that trade in them causes suffering, but then that leads to me the first policy that I highlighted, that I read into meaning that tanks, vats etc cause stress and suffering so if everyone adhered to that all that was left in the hobby that wasn't wild caught, but was bred from stocks that once were, there would be no species left. This has further connotations and meanings for the rest of the pet trade too, as every animal that is in captivity had ancestors that were once wild, and can now be classed as confined.
Unworkable for the aquatic trade
I made a statement to John Rolls that in my opinion, the aquatics trade could not adhere to the above four policies, and also put it to him that in my opinion, although I would not hesitate in going to the RSPCA over matters of furry animal welfare like cats dogs, horses etc, I believe that few if any RSPCA representatives know anything at all about the proper welfare of fish. I also asked who they would get involved in matters of fish welfare cases and how they would prosecute a retailer for example on a matter that they seem to know very little about. Mr Rolls stated that he would not be pressed to an answer there and then but that they would probably consult a vet. I put it to him that even the vets know very little about fish in the majority of cases and that if there was a welfare issue that the best organisation to consult would be OATA.
Prosecution
He replied that there had not been a prosecution in 11 years, which I interpreted to mean that given their lack of prosecutions and seeming lack of experience in fish, to ignore anything that the RSPCA has to say about our hobby.Keith Davenport of OATA asked Mr Rolls if the RSPCA would rather that fish were not sold in shops. He did not offer an answer, but in answer to many of the questions posed to him he invited OATA delegates to write to him. No one cares more about the welfare of animals than me. I love natural history and have several pets, but the more I learn about the RSPCA and its policies on the keeping of animals in captivity, the more I feel that it is anti-pet.


http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/blog.php?blogid=212

RSPCA DONT OPERATE IN SCOTLAND

BUT THEY TAKE DONATIONS FROM THE SCOTS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SCOTTISH SPCA DO ALL THE WORK !


Charities that receive donations from people living outside their areas of operation must let donors know if there are other organisations with similar missions in their area, according to the Institute of Fundraising's new best practice guide on cross-border fundraising.
The guide, published today, is a response to concerns from some Scottish charities about English charities that fundraise in Scotland even though they don't operate north of the border. Last year the Scottish SPCA ran a poster campaign alerting Scots to the fact that the RSPCA does not operate in Scotland (Third Sector, 22 August 2007, page 5). "Many Scots don't understand that we are entirely separate from the RSPCA, which adds to the confusion by continuing to advertise in Scotland," said Mike Flynn, chief superintendent of the Scottish SPCA. "The fact they care only for animals in England and Wales is only ever in the small print. This leads to many donations going south of the border."

Recent research suggests, for instance, that a majority of Scots are unaware of the fact that the RSCPA does not operate in Scotland. Partly in response to that research, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is running an awareness campaign on inflatable billboards in Scotland that bears the message: "The SSPCA starts where the RSPCA finishes ... at the border!"
Michelle Feenie, marketing manager of the SSPCA, said: "It is vital that we not only continue to raise the SSPCA's profile, but that we also do so in a context that makes it clear that the society is Scotland's national animal welfare charity."
Feenie said that an argument could be made for stopping English and Welsh charities from fundraising in Scotland, but the most important thing was to ensure that any advertising informed the public about where charities operate.

The code, which has been drawn up by a working group including institute members from across the UK, says donors must be told where their donations will be spent, and charities must be sensitive to their expectations.A spokeswoman for the RSPCA said the charity fully supported the open and honest approach promoted by the code, which it helped to create. She said: "We have always been mindful of the damage that sister charities operating on either side of the border could do to each other and have for many years operated informal procedures with the SSPCA very close to those advocated in the code. Despite not being registered in the whole of the UK, the RSPCA is regarded by many as a national brand."
The guide says:
Donors must know where their money will be spent
Charities must be sensitive to donor's expectations of where their money will be spent
Charities receiving donations from donors residing outside their areas of operation must make them aware of services offered by any sister organisations offering equivalent services there
All parties should be involved in joint working from the earliest stages and throughout the process
The institute's code of practice on accountability and transparency must be followed
Any agreements or protocols between sister organisations must be endorsed by all high-level stakeholders, particularly chief executives and trustees
Information and publicity materials must make clear the agreement between cross-border charities.
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/DailyBulletin/858919/Institute-unveils-code-cross-border-fundraising/85A2C16B3675C33360C84E2246235455/?DCMP=EMC-DailyBulletin

RSPCA WASTE MORE POLICE TIME !

Police have been accused of wasting their time targeting hare coursing when they should be attending burglaries instead.

Wantage Pcs Darren James and Marc Lester were singled out by the Self Help for Farmers Group in an attack against police spending too much time on "animal crime".
The SHG criticised Operation Migrate, claiming the officers should not be patrolling the countryside looking for hare coursing but concentrate on investigating assaults and burglaries instead.
The group also claimed policing priorities were being set by the RSPCA — an allegation refuted by Thames Valley Police.
Pc James said Operation Migrate involved more than just tackling hare coursers.
He added: "My role is not solely focused on hare coursing. As a neighbourhood specialist officer, it's my job to tackle the crimes and problems highlighted by our communities.
"In this way, we get many complaints by local landowners about hare coursers operating illegally on their land and causing damage to their properties and it's our duty to deal with this illegal activity.
"Also, Operation Migrate is not primarily for hare coursing but is about us tackling all kinds of rural crime in the Wantage area, such as metal theft, criminal damage and farm burglaries.
"While we work closely with them, it's completely incorrect to suggest that our policing priorities are dictated by the RSPCA."
The SHG was formed by a group of farmers to campaign against what they see as RSPCA campaigns affecting people who live in the countryside.
They criticised Pcs James and Lester, claiming they were two examples of officers who were concentrating on the wrong types of crime, after they featured in an Oxford Mail report on the hare coursing operation two weeks ago.
Spokesman Anne Kasica said: "We now have far too many demands on the time and resources of the police.
"One of their biggest problems is that highly funded animal rights campaign groups, such as the RSPCA, put intense pressure on the police to concentrate on more minor offences, instead of dealing with burglaries and assaults.
"We need to know how police priorities are decided. Surely the main priority must be community safety, not assisting the RSPCA."
Pc James said policing priorities were set during Neighbourhood Action Group meetings made up of residents, councillors and other members of the public.


Neighbourhood Sgt for Hungerford, Andy Bone, said: “All hare coursing is illegal in this country and yet there are people who still participate in the activity.
“They are nothing but a nuisance to local farmers. They damage crops, fences and buildings and are very often in breach of various traffic laws. The hare coursers are also illegally using The Ridgeway.
“Hare coursing happens in an area which borders both Oxfordshire and West Berkshire which is why we are doing this operation jointly.
“We are also able to cover a greater area with more officers enabling us to provide a visible presence and increase our ability to arrest as many offenders as possible.
“Anybody caught hare coursing will be arrested and their vehicles and dogs will be seized. We are working jointly with the RSPCA actively patrolling the areas targeting those responsible.

“Operation Oust will be running right through to Spring 2009 and will involve a team of up to 20 officers working together to put a stop to this activity.”



http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/3779689.Hare_coursing_patrols____a_waste_of_time___/
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/headlines/3780883.Police_crack_down_on_hare_coursing/
http://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/3783931.Police_refute_group_s_criticisms/

RSPCA MISREPRESENT CHICKEN FIGURES

The British Poultry Council, which represents British chicken farmers and processors, has challenged the RSPCA’s claims today that there had been a huge change in shoppers’ buying preferences for chicken.
BPC chief executive, Peter Bradnock, said,”The RSPCA conclusion from its own survey is misleading and is not being reflected in the marketplace. The RSPCA is misrepresenting the good standards already in place on British chicken farms to promote its own “Freedom Food” brand and is ignoring the fact that the major retailers are already selling British chickens reared to standards that exceed the “Freedom Food” requirements“.
British chickens sold in supermarkets are reared to rigorous Red Tractor Chicken Assurance standards, which cover both indoor and free-range chickens. These Standards are owned and managed independently from the chicken industry, and every farm is inspected at least once every year by independent auditors.
The Red Tractor Assured Chicken Standards are more comprehensive than the RSPCA “Freedom Food” brand requirements ensuring high levels of farm hygiene and food safety for consumers, as well as providing a protective environment for the chickens to be able to express their natural behaviors.
Commenting further, Bradnock said: “The RSPCA’s claims about a sudden amazing change in shoppers’ behaviour based on its own survey are not borne out by consumers’ actual buying decisions in supermarkets.
"Free range chicken sales under Red Tractor standards had been increasing consistently throughout last year, long before the Channel 4 celebrity chefs’ entertainment programmes screened in January this year.“
January 2008 sales for free range have shown a 35% increase on January 2007 but only an 11% increase on November 2007, showing there was already a significant growth trend.
However, free range chicken sales, at just 6% of total UK chicken sales are still only a small, albeit growing, part of the national shoppers’ buying preferences.

http://www.meatinfo.co.uk/articles/57912/BPC-queries-RSPCA-figures.aspx?categoryid=9017

SEXUAL HARASSMENT & BULLYING COST RSPCA £30K

Animal lovers will not be pleased to learn of pay-outs to disgruntled employees by pet charities.

This includes the RSPCA: one of its inspectors was awarded constructive dismissal damages after a saga that included attempting suicide with medication designed to put down animals.

Will Clayton, partner in employment law at the Manchester office of national law firm Hill Dickinson, recently brought a successful claim to tribunal on behalf of former RSPCA Inspector, Dimity Crowley.

Crowley reported sexual harassment and bullying by a chief inspector (who resigned prior to disciplinary proceedings), and medical experts said the experience triggered a “short-term adjustment disorder”.

In October 2004 she attempted suicide. She was successfully treated and her consultant occupational psychiatrist said she had emerged both mentally and emotionally stronger, suggesting in January 2006 that she could return to work. An occupational health expert for the RSPCA disputed Crowley's suitability as an inspector.

Following an appeal by Crowley, a second adviser accepted she could return to work, but insisted on changes to her contract and an agreement from Crowley (who was pregnant at the time) that her GP could report any signs of psychological illness directly to the RSPCA. Crowley resigned a short while later before her maternity leave was due to begin.Trial“I was devastated to lose my job as it was my true vocation,” said Crowley.

“The RSPCA"s treatment towards me has been grossly unfair, enormously upsetting and demoralising given that I was a dedicated Inspector. I received no compassion and little support. I am left exasperated by the way in which I was treated.” After a four-day trial in December 2007, the tribunal agreed that Crowley had been constructively dismissed, that the GP consent issue was an unjustified invasion of privacy and represented a fundamental breach of her employment contract and consequently awarded her £30,000 in compensation. “This case is a severe warning to any employer who adopts overly rigid or aggressive health management practices of employees looking to return to work after a period of long term ill-health,” Clayton commented. “I was left with no choice but to take the RSPCA to an employment tribunal.

This lengthy and daunting process was extremely stressful. “Due to a poorly managed HR department, the RSPCA wasted huge donations received from members of the public in order to fight this case.

I am obviously thrilled to have won, however it is a shame that it ended up in a costly four-day trial.” Employees are now much more aware of their rights and if employers want to avoid embarrassment and costly proceedings then they must ensure that their grounds for dismissal are fair and that their procedures are within the law.

http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.co.uk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080623/FREE/89469861/1162/TOC/-/-/the-cool-calm-and-correct-way-to-avoid-a-tribunal

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/10/08/47830/tales-from-the-tribunals.html

RSPCA FREEDOM FOOD DISGRACE

Concerns over 'overzealous' RSPCA

A recent report By Paul Burnell File On 4 highlights the need for a review of Charities powers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7632082.stm

There are critics who believe pet owners are becoming victims of an allegedly overzealous investigations and prosecutions policy.

According to barrister Nick Tucker if a recent case had succeeded "every child who did not take their sick pet to the vet could have been prosecuted".

He says this was the implication in the case of a 15-year-old girl who found herself in court after following her father's advice not to take her injured pet cat to the vets.

Unlike their Scottish counterparts, the RSPCA in England is responsible for bringing its own, private prosecutions which barrister Jonathan Rich says fail to match the standards of prosecution that the Crown Prosecution Service applies to criminal cases. He argues that in prioritising the interests of animals it means other people are prosecuted alongside those who genuinely mistreat animals.

Mr Rich said: "It might sound attractive to prioritise the interests of animals but look what it means for a farmer who is looking to retire, whose cattle have not had the right treatment for a day or two - is it really in the interests of the public for him to be prosecuted for cruelty?"

MP Condems Animal Welfare Society

The Wirral Globe Reports;
A FURIOUS MP has attacked the RSPCA after a pensioner who ran a voluntary animal shelter was banned from keeping animals.
Birkenhead MP Frank Field defended the reputation of Pat Seager on BBC Radio 4’s File on 4, accusing the charity of having an “unjust” policy on animal cruelty prosecutions.
He also told the BBC that her case was not uncommon and that the RSPCA needs to look “seriously” at its prosecution policy and should put pressure on its council to change it.

Victims of RSPCA bite back

Parliament Square saw a highly unusual demonstration Robed Hindu priests joined with farmers and animal lovers to protest at the killing by the RSPCA of a sacred cow, Gangotri, at a Hindu temple in Hertfordshire.

Two months before, the RSPCA had been invited to examine the cow, which had been injured by a bull and was being tended by vets. The RSPCA returned hours later, claiming to hold a court warrant, to give the cow a lethal injection. The Hindus were horrified. The following day the RSPCA applied for the warrant that it had claimed to have already.

As Gangotri's ashes were being scattered on the Ganges, the demonstration in London widened into a general protest against what many people, including specialist lawyers and vets, regard as the high-handed actions of RSPCA officials. As one of our biggest charities, with donations of more than £100 million a year, it relies on massive favourable media coverage, reinforced every time it brings criminal prosecutions against animal abusers. However, in a succession of recent cases, the courts have severely criticised the methods used by the RSPCA to mount such prosecutions, against people who were wholly innocent of the serious charges brought against them.

These cases and the publicity surrounding them have caused intense anguish to those wrongly accused. In two cases in Harwich and Portsmouth before Christmas, Nigel Weller, a Lewes solicitor, finally exposed how RSPCA witnesses had concerted their evidence in advance, using a proforma document to "coach" witnesses in what to say - about which magistrates and a judge expressed grave concerns. In each case the defendants, accused of depriving a dog and two cats of a balanced diet, were acquitted on all charges.
In the same month Maidstone Crown Court heard the appeal of Craig Sargent, a Kent farmer, who had been fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 costs on five charges brought by the RSPCA including four of cruelty. After hearing his barrister, Jonathan Rich (briefed by Mr Weller), Judge Jeremy Carey agreed that the RSPCA had been unable to produce any evidence of cruelty.
In Norwich in January, Judge Philip Browning was critical of the RSPCA's conduct in seizing a much-loved pony, Florry, which had been with Martin and Gina Griffin's family for 20 years. The RSPCA held Florry in an animal sanctuary for over a year, claiming that she was "emaciated". The Griffins' vet, Charlotte Mayers, made it clear from the start that vets from her practice were treating the horse, which was laminitic and needed to be kept thin for that reason. Colin Vogel, the author of the RSPCA's own veterinaray manual on horse-care supported her views. At one point the RSPCA had wanted to put Florry down, but after 15 months she was finally re-united with her owners.

In February, after another five days in court, a cruelty case against Annette Nally, owner of Holly, a German shepherd, was called into question when it was found that RSPCA documents alleging her failure to treat the dog properly for ear and bowel conditions related to another dog. Holly died six months after the RSPCA had seized her (as Miss Nally only discovered five months later). In acquitting her on all charges, Judge David Chinnery praised her obvious care for her animals and her "impressive" evidence, and also that of her chief witness, Colin Vogel.
The Self-Help Group of farmers and others has existed for nearly two decades to put anyone experiencing difficulty with the RSPCA in touch with specialist welfare lawyers and vets. They have never been busier and cite scores of other instances in recent years. None is more shocking than that of PC Jonathan Bell, a Stoke-on-Trent policeman who in 2004 was called to a night-time disturbance where a cat had been squashed flat by a car. The RSPCA could not be contacted, so he put the cat out of its misery with a spade.

PC Bell was prosecuted for cruelty by the RSPCA and the case dragged on for two years, at a cost of £50,000. After his initial acquittal, the RSPCA appealed. Finally, in April 2006, the High Court threw out the case, prompting the Federation of Companion Animal Societies to comment that some of the RSPCA's prosecutions "seem to have a political agenda" rather than being concerned with "animal welfare". The growing number of people who fall foul of that agenda would heartily agree.

Article by Christopher Booker The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/02/do0202.xml

GANGOTRI RSPCA BETRAYAL

SUITED & BOOTED MURDERERS

ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PERSECUTION & CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

WHILE HINDUS PRAY; RSPCA SLAY !

RSPCA KILL SACRED COW

MURDERERS ! OR PLAYING GOD ?

RIP GANGOTRI