Time for a review of RSPCA Animal Charity's Bullyboy Tactics ?

Thursday, 29 April 2010

ILL FOUNDED RSPCA "RAID" INSTIGATES GAMEKEEPERS SUICIDE

A GAMEKEEPER convicted of firearms offences died after taking poison which he smuggled into court in his sock.

An inquest into the death of Graham Key heard how he was not searched by a custody officer before entering the dock at Derby Crown Court, despite it being company policy.
After being jailed for two years and taken down to the cells, he was then found in a distressed state.
He told staff he had taken the poison strychnine, for which there is no antidote.
Despite desperate attempts to revive the 48-year-old, he was pronounced dead an hour later in hospital.
The inquest heard that in the days leading up to the case on August 7, 2008, Mr Key had told friends and family he "could not go to prison" and had become increasingly distressed.
His wife, Rachel, told the inquest she had seen him visibly upset the night before the sentencing but did not believe her husband would take his own life.
She said: "He said that he knew what he was going to do. I thought he was just getting it all out of his system. I was a bit more positive and said we just had to try and think positive.
"I did not think he would leave the kids, I did not think he would go through with it."
Family friend John Ayre described Mr Key as an "out-and-out country man" who was "loved by everyone".
He told the jury how he watched his friend become "quieter and sadder" in the weeks before the court date as he was concerned about being handed a prison sentence.
Mr Ayre said: "A custodial sentence to him would be like putting a lion in a bird cage. He was a country, outdoors person. None of us knew what he was going to do, which is tragic."
The hearing was told Mr Key, who had no previous convictions, was initially arrested in February 2008 after police and RSPCA staff executed a warrant at his home at Alkmonton, near Ashbourne – acting on intelligence over suspected badger baiting.
While carrying out a search, officers discovered two unlicensed firearms. No charges were brought against Mr Key in relation to the suspected badger baiting but he was charged with firearms offences.
Three bottles of strychnine, a banned poison commonly used in pest control, were also found during the search.
The jury was told how police consulted English Nature about what to do with the poison. They were advised to leave the bottles and an enforcement officer would contact Mr Key to help arrange their disposal.
During the inquest yesterday, Mr Key's wife and his son, Ben, said they believed all the strychnine had been disposed of correctly and that there was none left on the premises.
But a blood sample taken from Mr Key after his death showed a "toxic" level of the poison in his system.
A blue plastic cup and blue "wrap" found in his cell also showed traces of the poison, which Mr Key was known to have used in his pest control work.
The inquest is due to continue today
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/ve-taken-poison-said-MAN-died-court/article-2087055-detail/article.html

QUESTIONS RAISED OVER USE OF "INTELLIGENCE"

Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance, said: "The prosecutions of Mr Leadbetter have raised hugely important questions about the legal process.

"A completely innocent man has spent two years clearing his name at the cost of over £250,000 to the taxpayer all because the police and CPS chose to pursue prosecutions based on the spurious allegations and unauthorised surveillance evidence of animal rights activists.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/734/294752.html

Earlier this month a judge in the case against a Dorset hunt terrier man asked for guidance as to whether secret filming by antis was subject to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) — which gives police and local authorities permission to undertake surveillance (news, 7 January).

The CPS clarification adds that if the police force does not encourage or initiate the surveillance, authorisation is not necessary. But that evidence may not stand up in court.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/294755.html

CPS TAKE NO ACTION AGAINST RSPCA KILLINGS

LETTER FROM SOUTH WALES POLICE

This is what happened with the police investigation into the alleged cruelty of the RSPCA dead bolt gunning dogs.

Enquiry re German Shepherd Dogs 24th June 2009 – Swansea

Thank you for your interest and correspondence regarding the above case. I am now in a position to update you that South Wales Police conducted a full and thorough investigation into the above subject matter and allegations surrounding it. This was completed comprehensively and expeditiously by a dedicated team of officers lead by a Senior Detective. As a result a full file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service requesting their advice.

The Crown Prosecution Service carefully considered the evidence presented in this case and concluded that there was not a realistic proposition of conviction in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The District Crown Prosecutor for Swansea and Chief Crown Prosecutor for South Wales also considered the file and were in full agreement with the decision to take no further action.

I appreciate you will be disappointed with this decision but may I reassure you that this case was treated with the highest priority and no recommendations were submitted by South Wales Police and the file solely focused on evidence available.

Yours faithfully

MARK HOBROUGH

INSPECTOR DOGS, MOUNTED AND SSRT SPECIALIST OPERATIONS

Now I read this as that the Crown Prosecution has not said this was wrong or illegal, it just said with the evidence presented it could not realistically prosecute. Are we all happy to let this go on? If not like me sit and email 2 letters a night to MPs. media or RSPCA themselves. http://www.freewebs.com/manytearsrescue/rspca.htm

Friday, 23 April 2010

RSPCA MISLEAD PUBLIC OVER PET SEIZURE POWERS

RSPCA INSPECTOR LIES ABOUT POWERS

RSPCA inspector Julie Lyons is a regular at North Staffordshire Magistrates Court, where she has helped to secure banning orders against a number of pet owners.

Miss Lyons, an RSPCA inspector for 12-years, who lives in the Moorlands, said: “We are seeing a lot more cruelty cases against dogs.
“I don't think it's down to people not being able to afford them anymore, “It is up to the courts to sentence people. As long as they leave court knowing they have done something wrong, I am happy.
Although the number of prosecutions are up, the Animal Welfare Act, which came into force last year, has made it possible for action to be taken as soon as animal welfare concerns are flagged up. RSPCA officers can now seize pets immediately if they are not being looked after properly, or are being treated badly.

Parliamentary Question 23rd Feb 2010

To ask Her Majesty's Government under what authority, controls and supervision and in what circumstances officers of a charity are empowered to (a) remove a pet from its owner's care, (b) keep it in their own care, (c) deny access to it to the owner, and (d) refuse to inform the owner of the place in which it is kept. [HL2038]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham)
Charities have no power under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to seize pet animals. The power of seizure can be exercised only by a police officer, an officer of a local authority or Animal Health.

THE RSPCA CALLED TO ACCOUNT

OVER THE past twenty years Jonathan (‘Joe’) Rich has defended well over 200 people - mainly farmers, huntsmen, kennel owners and dog breeders. In 2007, he famously and successfully defended pet shop owner Simon Gilbert three times. Joe recently acted for Paul Shotton, Labour’s former deputy Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, and his wife Annette during their successful appeal. He is recognised as a leading consumer specialist by all the main legal directories.

RK:You refer to RSPCA inspectors as ‘ordinary members of the public’. Do you think it is misleading for them to call themselves inspectors?

JR:Yes, I think it is quite misleading - especially when they wear police-style uniforms. There was a very interesting article in the Sunday Times about this issue a year or so ago. The RSPCA is, contrary to appearances, a private organisation. Some people are terrified of the RSPCA, and there is absolutely no need to be. No RSPCA employee, so far as I am aware, has any special powers or is even an inspector for the purposes of the Animal Welfare Act. Indeed, if they are, I want to know about it! The title ‘RSPCA Inspector’ is just a job title, given to an RSPCA employee working for the inspectorate department when they finish their twelve weeks of training.
The society gives some of its more senior employees even more impressive sounding titles: ‘Chief Superintendent’ and the like. However, they are all just job titles; it’s not like the police - RSPCA inspectors are not even constables. To think otherwise is a natural mistake to make. One problem which is regularly encountered is a police officer who thinks that the RSPCA is some sort of agency, or that its employees somehow have more powers than ordinary members of the public. If a police officer tells you, or behaves as if the RSPCA is an agency or has special powers, then that policeman needs to be corrected.
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Britain-s-shame-pet-cruelty-grows/article-243027-detail/article.html
http://www.pitsnpots.co.uk/blog/2010/04/why-does-north-staffs-have-such-terrible-record-animal-cruelty#comment-26598
http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2009/July2009/News310709/rspca.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100223w0002.htm

Thursday, 22 April 2010

RESCUE CHARITIES CRITICISE RSPCA

Rescue centres have criticised plans by the RSPCA to cut costs by focusing on policing cruelty rather than taking in unwanted pets.

From next month 17 RSPCA centres are planning to prioritise animals which are "RSPCA-generated", meaning those seized by inspectors in cruelty cases or those at immediate risk. This means they will not necessarily take in pets which are merely unwanted
Animal centres, already oversubscribed due to the increase in unwanted or abandoned pets during the recession, have claimed this will place them under even greater strain, and could lead to more pets being abandoned.
Roy Marriott, chairman of Animals in Need, said: "I think it's absolutely despicable."It will just put more and more pressure on small organisations like us and we cannot cope as it is."

He added: "Everywhere up and down the country is absolutely full with animals. If the RSPCA aren't going to take them, where are they going to go?
"They will be dumped on the streets, passed around or taken to the vets to be put down, meaning healthy pets will be destroyed needlessly."
Tracy Cook, manager of Jerry Green Dog Rescue, said: "We already cannot cope with the number of dogs that need placement and we have a minimum two-month waiting list. The knock-on effect of this means we are going to have even more of a problem.
"What's going to happen when we can't take a dog for four, five or six months? I think it will have a huge impact on the number of dogs turned out as strays."
She said she believed the policy could end up being more costly for the charity, with the extra costs of cruelty cases compared to those of unwanted animals that are easily rehomed without expensive vet bills and lengthy kennel stays.
She said: "The RSPCA are such a big organisation, how on earth are the rest of us going to cope? They are a well-known organisation with a lot more backing."
Kate Geary, spokesperson for the charity, said the organisation was merely trying to "work smarter" and prioritise the most urgent cases over those where an animal was simply unwanted by its owners.
Comments

Safewings,

22/04/2010 08:02:20

I have been for over 10 years concerned by how the rspca has changed and have feared that in reality the rspca only want to be a political animal rights organisation with the added power of being the Pet Police answerable to no one.

It appears that my fears have been compounded if a memo obtained by the media is to be believed. The rspca ( the 8th larges UK charity ) which had an income in excess of £119 million in 2008 has apparently stated it will turn away stray or unwanted pets from animal shelters from next month to cut costs and focus on policing animal cruelty.

The excuse given is due to both an increase in the numbers of abandoned pets ( this since the introduction of the rspca`s Animal Welfare Act 2007 ) and that the rspca as suspected want to spend the public`s donations on Policing animal cruelty.

This could directly affect the welfare of at least 75,000 animals a year as our animal charity turns its` back on our beloved pets.

A new terminology " rspca generated " which means seized by inspectors in cruelty cases or those which are at immediate risk or cruelty will be the only ones handled by the rspca. So from May 4th Pets belonging to people who are taken into hospital, evicted from their homes or are simply unwanted or found as strays will from that date be turned away with people being told to contact Vets, The Police or your local Councils.

So as the responsibility of animal welfare in the eyes of the rspca has become somewhat selective the question needs to be asked " Do the RSPCA serve any real purpose ? " Simple answer NO. The rspca do not use their vast wealth for the real purpose it was intended and now the workload, expenditure and responsibility has just been simply dropped by the rspca and left for the independant sanctuaries, Police, Local Authorities, Vets and kind hearted people to address the increasing animal welfare issues forced upon us by this once good dedicated animal charity.

Many of us have warned of the decline in the RSPCA

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Charities39-fury-at-RSPCA-proposals.6244406.jp

SHAME ON THE RSPCA AS THEY TURN THEIR BACKS ON UNWANTED ANIMALS

WELL DONE INDEPENDENT RESCUE CENTRES SUCH AS MANY TEARS.

In many ways I enjoyed my day as a volunteer at a dog rescue centre. If you like dogs it’s a pleasure to do something to help them. But it was upsetting, too, and not because these dogs were victims of cruelty — most were not. They were just unwanted, in some cases dumped with a casual ease that is shocking to anyone who believes that the British are a nation of dog-lovers.
Following the RSPCA’s announcement this week, these dogs will no longer be found homes through its animal welfare services. In future the charity will focus its limited resources on cruelty cases: people with unwanted dogs will be told to contact the police, the council or a vet. This means that healthy animals will die.
In the past the RSPCA has rehomed 20,000 dogs a year and its revised policy will put pressure on the hundreds of animal rescue centres, including the one I visited, that rely on the dedication of their staff and volunteers and on donations from the public.
Of Britain’s eight million dogs, of which three quarters are pedigree, 32 per cent reached their owners via a rescue centre, including Chandi, the latest canine star of Britain’s Got Talent. The recession has not helped: last year the number of stray dogs increased from 97,000 to 107,000.
“There will be a knock-on effect from the RSPCA’s decision,” says Sylvia VanAtta, who runs Many Tears Animal Rescue, near Carmarthen in West Wales. “I’d be delighted if they would refer owners to rescue centres outside their own network.”
Not that Sylvia has any difficulty in finding unwanted dogs. When I visited, the centre was full with 80 unwanted pooches. Yet at 8.50am, when the first call came in from an owner wishing to disown her dog — she cited a marriage break-up — Sylvia agreed immediately to take the five-month-old chocolate labrador.
I had expected to find cages filled with pitifully sad, scraggy mutts: instead I found plenty of pedigree animals, their robustness due largely to the care lavished on them by Sylvia and her team. She rescues and rehomes 1,500 dogs a year and runs the UK’s biggest dog fostering network, and her aim is simple: to provide a happy future for unwanted dogs. Some have been used for breeding at puppy farms, some abandoned or taken to dog pounds, some are from elderly owners no longer able to care for them, some, incomprehensibly, from owners who have grown to regard them as an inconvenience. A far smaller number than you’d expect have been mistreated.
“I’m addicted to dogs,” Sylvia explains. “I think about how they will feel tonight. They suffer a lot of anxiety, especially if they’ve been loved. They are howling for their family who got rid of them — sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for rubbish reasons. But I’m never judgmental. It’s the dog that matters.”
Sylvia works on intuition. She doesn’t care about qualifications, she has chosen her 14 staff because she likes them and they work hard. They include a former solicitor, a computer programmer and an mechanical engineer, none paid much more than the minimum wage. All are quick-thinking, articulate and dynamic.
Standards of care are absolute here, which is impressive, given that this is an operation that is constantly chasing its tail, never calculating whether a dog will cost more to care for than its £160 adoption fee (many do), just saving the life, offering a future and hoping that somehow the books will balance. Last year, Many Tears’s income exceeded its £300,000 running costs by just £180 — the funding comes from the boarding kennels that Bill runs alongside the rescue centre, and from donations from individuals and pet-food companies.
Most dogs spend two to three weeks at Many Tears. A board in the office logs all the residents: on the day of my visit, five dogs were found homes. The newly arrived Potter was not among them but I have no doubt that his day will come, and that his cage will soon be filled by another dog looking for an owner who will give him the loving home he deserves.
If a dog becomes a long-term stayer we get to know him better, so we can describe his qualities on the website,” Sylvia says. “A farmer rang once about a dog that wouldn’t work. We were full. I said, what’s the alternative? He said a bullet. That dog came in terrified and now he’s with a new owner, doing agility classes.

We do get happy endings.” BUT NOT THANKS TO THE RSPCA!