RSPCA SPARK LEGALISED KIDNAP

SHAME ON THE RSPCA AND THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM

On the 19th October 2007 2 RSPCA officers attended the family home.

The RSPCA officers described the parents as obstructive aggressive and belligerent.

The 5 year old was removed by social workers, RSPCA what have you done!

2 YEARS LATER THE LITTLE GIRL IS STILL NOT REUNITED WITH HER FAMILY

Read the full court ruling at;

http://stolenkids-sads.blogspot.com/

RSPCA KILL FAMILY CAT, AFTER JUST 4 HOURS

A devastated cat owner has spoken of her shock after her family pet was removed from the street by animal charity officers and put down within hours.

Ruth Ingle and her daughters Lauren, 20, and Elley, 11, were stunned to discover their cat Cleo had been put to sleep by the RSPCA without their knowledge.
The grey tabby, who was almost 19 years old, was put down within just four hours after she was taken from the street where they live in Sycamore Road, off Sweet Briar Road, Norwich.
They only discovered the elderly cat's fate when they noticed a piece of paper “shoddily” attached to a lamp post saying “animal found”. They rang the number on the sheet only to be told their cat had been put down.
Now, the family has issued a warning to other pet owners.
Ms Ingle, 43, said: “We had her ever since she was born; my daughter chose her from the litter when she was just one-year-old.

“She was old and skinny, but she was still eating well and purred when you touched her. We've got five other cats and they were washing her and making a fuss of her.
“She was living out her last few days in her home with her cat family and us. We knew that if she was in any discomfort or pain, then she would have to be put down, but that was our decision to make and that was taken away from us. I know some people say it's only a cat, but when you've had her for nearly 20 years, then it's different.”
Cleo was taken away, unbeknown to the family, by an RSPCA officer on November 10.
The family knew she only nipped out briefly when necessary but spent most of the time in the home. She was not wearing a collar, but had been microchipped but about 18 years ago. However, Ms Ingle fear the chip may not have been detected because it inserted so many years ago.
Sophie Wilkinson, a spokeswoman for the RSPCA, confirmed the cat had been taken by a collection officer after they received a report saying it looked like a stray, was very skinny and could not walk. Cleo was taken to All Creatures Healthcare, in Horsford, where the decision was made to put her down.
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED23%20Nov%202009%2016%3A49%3A04%3A427

ANOTHER NEW ANIMAL WELFARE ANTI RSPCA SITE

http://www.animals-have-rights.co.uk/index.html

Welcome to the "Animals Have Rights" Website

The aim of this new website is 3 fold

(1) To bring about change within the RSPCA HQ.

It is not about bringing down the organisation and we would urge people who donate to do so at local level only direct to their RSPCA Shelter where it will be put to good use as they are self funding and struggle for cash or, donate to your local privately run rescue centre / sanctuary.

(2) Raise Awareness

The aim is to educate people about animals & their rights.

(3) Help people place unwanted, abused or abandoned dogs and other animals in the appropriate environment.

WHY DO WE NEED THE RSPCA ANYWAY?

A CONSERVATIVE VIEW

The RSPCA is a defunct and heinous authoritarian establishment that should no longer exist in Britain. Run by joyless bureaucrats who treat humans with about as much respect as dish-rags, with no obvious benefit to the millions of pets in this country, it exploits the powers granted to it by the state and the contradictory, sloppily worded Animal Welfare Act 2006 to terrorise innocent animal-lovers across the UK. Most of the public don’t know how powerful a lobby group and propaganda machine the RSPCA actually is. It has successfully sewn up all the major bodies which play a part in implementing the AWA (not just the police and the media, but the general public and even law courts too), and uses them to hound people for their own financial gain.


Yes it is cheaper to prosecute than advertise. And since the RSPCA have the power to prosecute, they have been milking this power for all its worth – after all every court case brings publicity and therefore, donations. The budget is almost entirely funded by donations – in excess of £100 million a year. Staffs at the RSPCA are paid handsomely, and get free housing loans. The UK’s ‘Director-General” has an annual salary of £90,000. They recently built a new Head Quarters costing ten million pounds and other newly built local facilities now house more staff and fewer animals. Then there is the story of the RSPCA facility at Swansea. After ten years of fund-raising they felt ready to build a new and better centre. It now has excellent, spacious administrative offices, but room to keep just 27 dogs. They had previously been able to house 140. It’s good to know that the donations are being spent usefully. Presumably the dogs that can no longer be housed will put down immediately, on the grounds of their age, or some asserted (but unproven) defect.

A quick look at the facts will tell you everything you need to know. The RSPCA kills over half of the cats and dogs it comes into contact with. The AWA 2006 could see you incarcerated for letting your dog eat a piece of chocolate. The RSPCA regularly and illegally break into people’s houses and seize their pets for no good reason. They seem to have three ways of dealing with complaints about this by the way. One is destroying the evidence, such as by cremating the bodies, so the defendant can in no way prove that their pet was not suffering from injuries or disease at the time of their seizure. The second is by keeping the animal in a so-called ‘safe haven’ of solitary confinement so that the defendant cannot even access the animal in order for their vet or animal doctor to run an independent assessment of the animal prior to any trial proceedings. And let’s not forget their penchant of hiring unprofessional vets of their own, or vets that are willing to lie in court and produce one-sided arguments in order to gain favour with the RSPCA. Council members who question the RSPCA are silenced and dismissed. And finally, the very fact that the RSPCA equates ‘saving’ an animal with ‘putting it down’ should be enough to make our hairs stand on end. Just try typing ‘RPSCA victims’ into Google and see what you come up with.

Such case studies are growing in huge numbers every year – there is even a website called ‘Victims of the RSPCA’ where innocent pet lovers across the UK describe their shameful treatment at the hands of this all too forceful and frankly unnecessary authoritarian charity, such as the pensioner couple who were told their beloved cat was suffering from starvation, liver failure and blindness, and it would have to be put down. In fact it was only suffering from fleas. Had they let their cat go with the RSPCA inspector she would certainly have been murdered. Or the story of a friend who had his beloved puppies and their mother forcibly taken away from him at eight days old simply for having their tails docked (a process known to cause little to no pain or discomfort if done within a few days of birth). The puppies were left in appalling cramped conditions, developed debilitating diseases which stunted them while the owner was not only charged thousands of pounds in kennelling costs but also had his story splashed across the pages of his local paper - along with a colour photograph of his house - which was subsequently vandalised and continues to be targeted by such attacks every year. It's just publicity for the RSPCA who see their donations increase every time they run a smear against an innocent pet-owner. Or how about the case of a dog shelter in Ghent, Wales which the RSPCA deemed ‘overcrowded’ despite the hours of care afforded to every dog from dedicated and genuine animal-loving workers. Under strict orders never to repeat the the happenings, the workers were forced to slaughter over 70 dogs at the shelter, to comply with the RSPCA rules and regulations and many suffered from nervous breakdowns as a result. This story and countless others paint a very different picture of the RSPCA indeed – but even so their slick PR machine is as well oiled as it ever was and the public still remain woefully unaware that their primary concern has become how to keep the money flowing. Why do we keep letting them get away with this?

Maybe it is their PR machine and how good it is as bringing them out shining in every case. As recently as last year the RSPCA launched a campaign to stop children in schools from having classroom pets – a cornerstone of learning how to care for animals and take responsibility for them. In an increasingly bureaucratic age where even our children’s educations are being cross-examined, mutilated, revised and tested by our over-compensating government, a classroom pet can bring some much needed respite into a class and give teachers and pupils a rare opportunity to bond. Not anymore, thanks to the RSPCA who ‘worry’ that the bright lights and noisy conditions may distress the animals – while of course keeping them in equally noisy, cramped cages in their "shelters" wouldn’t. Added to this their declaration that pet shops should not be allowed to sell pets as many pet-shop owners are "unaware as to how to care for the animals", and what you have is a growing and frightening monopoly over animal ‘welfare’ and even pet ownership. And why should we doubt that this is what the RSPCA has had in mind all along? If they can wield their power over the smallest shelters in local areas, they can almost certainly do the same to pet shops and suddenly, nobody will be able to purchase a pet without first being vetted stringently by the RSPCA. And no matter how much “Animal Rights Activists” will bleat that this is a good idea – I certainly don’t want to see my wish to own a pet get dissected and scrutinised by a charity that is as ruthless as it is incompetent. As an aside, I want to add that I despise you so-called animal rights activists. Don’t you think it’s time that we began trusting each other in this country? Not every man woman or child that wants to own a dog has a view to abusing it you know. The result of 12 years of this right-curbing government is a people that sanctimoniously believe they have a right to vet every potential animal owner. It's wrong. As a free-thinker, I abhor a monopoly of any kind and I can warn you now that a monopoly of this kind will make it increasingly difficult to own a pet, increasingly impossible to look after it with your privacy intact, and almost guarantee that the welfare of animals be side-stepped as the ‘charity’ bloats and makes more and more money for itself.

The deeper one digs, the more disturbing the facts are that come out – council members sacked for daring to question their policies, animals being forcibly taken away and put down without the consent of their owners, and those same owners then being charged for kennelling costs. The organisation is rotten, corrupt to the core, and there is sparse evidence to suggest that they have improved the welfare of animals in this country. Putting animals down does not equate with ‘saving’ them and I resent their twisted logic on this matter. Given a choice between living on the street and being killed ‘humanely’ I know which one I’d pick. Why shouldn’t our pets, and indeed their loving and caring owners be given the same choice?

http://theconservativeblog.co.uk/?p=715#idc-ctools

RSPCA HYPOCRICY AND DOUBLE STANDARDS, YET AGAIN

RSPCA PROSECUTE DOG OWNER, BUT LET OFF PRINCE, FOR THE SAME OFFENCE ! 

BLATANT HYPOCRICY

A MAN has been banned from owning animals for five years after he beat a dog with a stick.

Footage from a CCTV camera shows Thomas Lovell, of York Road, Southend, using a branch to play with the Staffordshire bull terrier.

But things turned sour after the dog, a two-year-old called Rex, accidentally caught Lovell’s hand with his tooth.
It caused Lovell, 28, to lose his temper and to start beating the dog with the stick in the middle of the street.
Klare Kennett, a spokeswoman for the RSPCA, said they had brought a prosecution against him following complaints from members of the public.

Lovell appeared at Southend Magistrates’ Court where he pleaded guilty to a charge of causing unecessary suffering to an animal on March 10 this year, an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

He was given a year-long community order during which he must have treatment for alcohol dependency for six months.
He was also ordered to pay £100 costs to the RSPCA and received a five-year ban from owning animals.

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/4726254.Man_caught_hitting_pet_dog_with_stick/

OR THIS;

The Earl of Wessex faces a possible criminal investigation for animal cruelty after photographs showed him appearing to beat two gundogs with a stick during a royal pheasant shoot.
An RSPCA inspector is to examine the images, taken by a photographer at Sandringham, Norfolk, on Saturday, to determine whether the animals were subjected to "unnecessary suffering".

Buckingham Palace insisted that the Prince was simply trying to break up a fight between the two labradors and said that the pictures do not show definitively whether he actually struck them.
Throwing a stick for a pet dog too dangerous, says leading vet But animal rights groups condemned his behaviour as "sickening" and "cowardly".
The photographs show the Prince approaching the two dogs waving a long crook as they grapple over a dead pheasant.
One picture shows one of the animals cowering to one side as he swings the stick over his shoulder.
In another, it hovers above the spine of one of the dogs.
Onlookers said he appeared to take three swipes at one of the dogs while shooting in a field with his nephew Peter Phillips.
If found guilty, the Prince could also be banned from keeping animals and receive a criminal record.

A spokeswoman for the RSPCA said an investigation was not under way but declined to rule one out.
"We need to look at the photographs and my colleague the inspector will consider whether it is appropriate to take action," she said.

WHAT DID THE RSPCA DO ? NOTHING. TALK ABOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/3998907/Prince-Edward-faces-possible-RSPCA-probe-for-beating-dogs.html

RSPCA HYPOCRICY AT ITS HIGHEST

RSPCA COVER UP VETS CRIMINAL ACTS BUT PROSECUTE PET LOVERS 

James MacDonald, 42, parked his BMW in direct sunshine and left rottweiler Sasha inside the car for more than two hours.

The dog was spotted panting and struggling for breath by passers-by who contacted the RSPCA who alerted the police.

A post mortem examination on Sasha's body had suffered multiple organ failure due to the overwhelming heat.

MacDonald said in an RSPCA interview that he knew pets were not allowed inside the B&B so he had been forced to leave leave Sasha in the car with the window open.

He told Inspector Will Rippon that he 'loved that dog so much' and wished he could turn the clock back".

After the case, Inspector Rippon said: 'This case just highlights how important it is not to leave dogs in cars in hot weather.

'They can overheat so quickly leading to suffering and potential death. I would encourage anyone to think twice before leaving their dog in a car.'

CONTRAST THIS WITH THE CASE OF VET ALEX GOUGH, DID HE DO WORK FOR THE RSPCA ?
A VET has escaped with a caution after the death of one of his labradors, which was left in a car for six hours on a hot day.

The incident has led to claims of a cover-up by the RSPCA, which pursues other dog owners who leave their pets trapped in sweltering conditions, and the vets’ governing body, which failed to take disciplinary action.
Both organisations have been accused of being too lenient – one even said the case was a “tragic accident” – to protect the career of Alex Gough, 37, from Clutton in Somerset.
Gough’s two labradors, Heidi and Rory, had to be given emergency treatment after they were rescued from the vet’s car in May 2007. Rory, a nine-month-old male, could not be saved.

At the time Damien Bush, Gough’s business partner and fellow vet, urged his colleague to report the incident to the RSPCA and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), which can discipline members for acts of misconduct.
Bush was surprised by the approach taken by both bodies. “An RSPCA official said to me, ‘If he comes to us and expresses remorse, then he may get off with a caution. To be honest, we don’t want to be seen to be going after vets because we rely on vets for goodwill’,” he said. “[Gough] then reported it to the RSPCA, which conducted a very discreet investigation. He was cautioned and it was all forgotten about,” added Bush, who fell out with Gough over the case. Gough has since moved to another practice.
The RCVS took no action against Gough because it decided that he had done nothing wrong.
The RSPCA has consistently urged owners never to leave dogs in their vehicles. They say that opening a window or providing a bowl of water inside a car is not sufficient to stop animals overheating. Those who are prosecuted and found guilty of allowing their dogs to suffer face a maximum penalty of six months in jail or a £20,000 fine.
The RSPCA insisted it showed “neither fear nor favour” in dealing with such cases. A spokesman said the Gough case was “treated like any other case”. He said punishments could vary from a caution to a full prosecution, but if someone admitted guilt and showed remorse it might lead to leniency.
The RCVS declined to comment because Gough’s case was now closed. Gough also refused to comment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226154/Cheating-husband-left-dog-die-hot-car-visited-mistress.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6638196.ece

RSPCA BOSS ONE OF TOP CHARITY EARNERS

The leaders of Britain's charities face accusations that their six-figure pay packets are excessive and part of a culture of greed polluting the voluntary sector.

Research seen by The Independent shows that more than 50 charity chief executives received between £100,000 and £210,000 last year. In one case, a charity paid its chief executive nearly £400,000.
Unite, the union which represents 60,000 charity workers, said too many charity bosses were paying themselves more than the Prime Minister's salary of £197,000.
Rachael Maskell, Unite's national officer for the not-for-profit sector, said: "The excessive City pay culture is seeping into the remuneration packages of charity bosses and should be curbed. This is to be deplored, as it corrupts the ethos of the voluntary sector and is an insult to those, often on average incomes, who donate to charity.
*RSPCA: Mark Watts, chief executive, received £105,500 in pay and perks in the year to April 2009.

"I think the general public will be shocked by the scale of the packages that some executives are being awarded. This sector is losing its sense of what real value is."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/city-pay-culture-has-spread-to-charities-union-says-1817725.html

PUBLIC ASK "WHAT DO THE RSPCA DO WITH OUR DONATIONS?"

WELL, THEY DONT SPEND IT ON ANIMAL WELFARE DO THEY !

BIG OFFICES, HIGHLY PAID EXECUTIVES, FAT CAT PROSECUTION LAWYERS, MARKETING AGENCIES, TRAINING MAGISTRATES, ENTERTAINING POLITICIANS,

KILLING 60,000 + ANIMALS EVERY YEAR (SOME WITH A BOLT GUN)

AND THEN PASSING THE BUCK TO YOUR LOCAL COUNCIL !

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

I just want to express my feelings about the RSPCA. I do not believe that they are doing their job properly.

They maintain to not leave any abandoned animal. However, I do not believe this to be the case.
Three weeks ago I took in two abandoned kittens, one of which I have re-homed with no help from the RSPCA as they refused any help. I did all this by myself.
Today, on the walk to school there was an abandoned dog tied up outside Illingworth Methodist Church and yet again, the RSPCA refused to come and collect the dog so an elderly man took it upon himself and took the dog home.
I would like to start asking the question 'What exactly are the RSPCA doing with our donations?'
They have gone against everything they stand for and I believe this should be made known to everybody so they can see what sort of organisation they are running - Not a very good one!
Three animals that I know of, they have refused to help, how many more have they refused?

I am disgusted at them and they have lost any further donations from me!
Lynn Robinson

Leanne Plumtree, RSPCA North Regional Press Officer, responded:
I applaud Ms Smith's clear concern for and commitment to animal welfare.
Unfortunately, I don't have enough information to look into what happened in the first example she gives and would like to encourage her to contact us with more details if she is dissatisfied with how we have acted.
In respect of the stray dog, the RSPCA is aware of the confusion surrounding this issue and sympathises with people who are often unsure where to turn to if they see a dog either wandering or tied up alone.
Under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which came into force in autumn 2007, stray dogs are the responsibility of the local authority and as such the local dog warden.
We can only deal with a stray dog in an absolute emergency, for example if the dog is in imminent danger of death or severe suffering and the local authority is unable to attend.
As a charity entirely dependant on donations there is always a limited number of resources but we do the very best we can with them.
Our aim is always to promote kindness and prevent suffering to all animals as efficiently and effectively as possible
www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/mailbag/Animal-help-plea-rejected-by.5785703.jp

THE RSPCA; HARASSING AND VENDICTIVE

The RSPCA is not the Halo'ed organisation they would have us believe.


They harrass, they respond to vindictive false calls, and without any prior knowledge, dive in like Sharks in a feeding frenzy.

They ignore calls for help for injured creatures, very often all they will say "is let nature take it's course".

They are a wealthy organisation continually appealing for more and more, to the detriment of kinder, more accessible and better run Animal Charities.

A local solicitor says her involvement in harassment cases has quadrupled in the past 24 months.

Are they an Animal Help charity, or are they, as they wrongly believe, a Police Force.

If they call on you without a Police attendence send them away until they do return with a Police Officer.

Read the internet sites to find better animal Charities to support, and how to deal with them should they call - there are quite a number.

Local RSPCAs are not funded by their mighty HO centre.

Local branches probably do their best on what they can get - but what happens to the millions HO rake in?

Plush offices, highly paid executives - the usual story.

Their demands would take care of a lot of animals we report as needing help.

They should also re-think this funding strategy and animals would benefit

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/mailbag/Animal-help-plea-rejected-by.5785703.jp

RSPCA MAY FACE CONPEMPT OF COURT ACTION

A JUDGE has demanded an explanation from animal charity RSPCA after he heard that three dogs that are the subject of an appeal against conviction have been re-homed with new owners.
Judge Keith Cutler has ordered the RSPCA to present a report on what happened to three of seven dogs taken into care after they were confiscated from Kathryn Hamilton Johnson of Poulshot, near Devizes, in December 2003.
Mrs Johnson, 56, was charged with seven counts of causing unnecessary suffering to the six pedigree rough collies and one border collie cross. She sent a message to Kennet Magistrates' Court when the case was due to be heard in October, saying she was unable to attend.
But the bench decided to go ahead with the case in her absence. They found it proved, although no defence case was put. They banned her from keeping animals for ten years and confiscated all seven dogs. She was given a two-year conditional discharge. There was no order made for costs.
Mrs Johnson applied to Salisbury Crown Court to appeal against conviction. She was particularly concerned that the dogs were not disposed of until she was able to put her case to the court.
The appeal was due to be heard on Monday. Judge Cutler said he was concerned to hear that, despite all assurances given to him personally, three of the dogs had been neutered and re-homed. The other four dogs are still in kennels near Ringwood in Hampshire. They have not been neutered.
He said: "I spoke to the RSPCA about this and if they have done something they shouldn't I will be very cross.
"I was assured that everything would be maintained so that, in the event of a successful appeal by Mrs Johnson, the seven dogs could be returned to her. I must find out who is responsible and I want a proper explanation."
He said that a contempt of court action was possible, which could result in a heavy fine or even imprisonment for whoever was responsible.
Mrs Johnson asked that the case be adjourned as her solicitor had withdrawn on Friday, leaving her without legal representation.
Mrs Johnson wishes to call evidence from a second vet who examined her dogs and came to a different conclusion than the RSPCA.
The RSPCA vet said all seven dogs were in greater or lesser stages of emaciation, but Mrs Johnson's vet has reported that only one dog was seriously underweight.
Mrs Johnson said she was already making arrangements to re-home up to five of her dogs when the RSPCA took action to remove them from her one-bedroom home in Poulshot.
Iain O'Donnell, barrister for the RSPCA, said they would prefer that the case went ahead on Monday. He said: "It is a charity and the main concern is about cost. The longer the case goes on, the more it is going to cost."
Judge Cutler said he understood the charity's position, but his duty was to endeavour to dispose of cases justly.
He and two magistrates sitting with him agreed to adjourn the case so that Mrs Johnson could get herself representation. A new date could not be set but the appeal is unlikely to be heard before May. After Monday's hearing the RSPCA agreed to allow Mrs Johnson to visit the four dogs that are being looked after at Ringwood.
 http://archive.salisburyjournal.co.uk/2005/2/17/93448.html

RSPCA ACCUSED OF LEAD POISIONING SEIZED EAGLE

Eagle saved by falconer Roy Lupton dies after being taken to an RSPCA centre

A wild golden eagle rescued by a falconry expert has died after being seized by police and animal welfare officials.
Last November Roy Lupton, 34, a falconer from Hollingsbourne, Kent, was in Perthshire when a friend’s bird became locked in a fight with a wild golden eagle, one of Britain’s rarest birds of prey. There are 442 breeding pairs, mainly in Scotland.
Questions are being asked about the bird’s care at an RSPCA centre after it was confiscated from Roy Lupton, a falconer from Kent, who was nursing the eagle from injuries sustained in the wild.
The episode began in November last year when Mr Lupton, from Hollingsbourne, Kent, who keeps golden eagles and goshawks, set out with friends to take their birds to fly them in their natural habitat in Perthshire.
During the trip his friend’s female golden eagle became locked in a fight with a wild golden eagle. Mr Lupton, 34, a member of the Hawk Board, which represents 25,000 falconers, and an expert for Fieldsports TV, thought that the injuries to the wild bird were so serious that it would need veterinary treatment. It had suffered serious damage to the area of the chest where food is stored and near the eyes.
Mr Lupton sought permission from the Scottish Executive to remove the bird and nurse her at his specialist premises at Hollingsbourne. Without authority he would be liable to a £5,000 fine and up to six months in prison for removing a bird from the wild.
He planned to release the eagle in the spring. “I was concerned that the eagle, who I called Colin, was getting too used to humans,” he said. “It is important for these wild birds to be afraid of humans as it helps their protection in the wild. So I thought the best thing would be to fit a satellite monitor on the bird so conservationists could track her progress in the wild.”
Mr Lupton said that he told official from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) about his plans. In May 5 his home and aviaries were raided by three officers from Kent Police, a policeman on secondment to Defra’s animal heath section and a wildlife crimes investigator from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
“I explained everything to them but they were adamant they were going to remove the wild golden eagle and accused me of the illegal theft of the bird and keeping an unregistered bird,” he said.
“But what really appalled me is that they had no understanding of how to deal with such a bird. They brought the wrong box to carry the bird, I had to lend them one of my own.”
The bird was taken to the Mallydam wildlife centre in Sussex, run by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Mr Lupton was formally questioned by police, who passed the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service, but the case was dropped.
He was concerned about the eagle’s fate and was allowed to visit the premises with his vet. “I was horrified by what I saw,” he said. “The RSPCA was keeping the bird on a concrete floor, which is bad for its talons, and there was leaf mould on the roof of the room, which can cause lung infections in golden eagles.”
A month later he was allowed to take the bird home. Her condition had badly deteriorated and his local vet took blood tests. The bird was found to be suffering lead poisoning and Mr Lupton learnt that it had been fed on rabbits which had been shot with lead pellet.
On June 17 he took the bird to a centre in Swindon run by Neil Forbes, an avian veterinary surgeon. The eagle died 12 hours later.
In his autopsy report, Mr Forbes said that the bird was kept in inappropriate conditions while in the care of the RSPCA and was “not provided with good practice in terms of husbandry”.
He said: “Whilst I cannot be certain the bird’s death was a direct result of the Defra seizure and the period of RSPCA care, certainly the stress effect (suppressing the immune system), the persistent systemic infection from the time of leaving the RSPCA care, does indicate a very high likelihood of a causative link between the period of care and the bird’s subsequent death.”
The Hawk Board is demanding answers from Defra about the events.
Defra said that it could not comment on details as the case was subject to an internal investigation. “Animal health officers, with Kent Police, attended a falconry in Kent in the belief that the person in question did not have the correct paperwork for the eagle,” it said.
The RSPCA said: “Staff were extremely upset to hear about the death of this eagle and the society agrees this is a very sad and tragic event.” It said that it had had only two days’ notice to make preparations for the bird and during its stay staff raised concerns that it might have had underlying health problems.
The RSPB said that it was concerned about the eagle’s death and hoped that Defra would learn lessons from the incident.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6887955.ece