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

Monday, 6 February 2012

RSPCA PETTY CONVICTIONS

Anonymous said...

I'm a Court Clerk in Stoke. It's clear to me that the RSPCA are trying to justify their "Biggest Rescue Ever" by obtaining all sorts of petty convictions against children and unrepresented OAPs. This is a deprived area which can't afford lawyers - and the RSPCA can take advatantage, not least because the magistrates all suppoprt them. The charity pays its lawyers and vets a disgraceful amount of cash and gets it all back from the court, even when they lose.

29 January 2012 23:30

12 comments:

Anonymous said...: Perhaps the clerks who assess the blls should have a close look at the size and number of bills submitted by the very unusual people the RSPCA uses as its "expert witnesses"?; 6 February 2012 at 22:37
Clerks Mate said...: I have a friend at Newcastle Magistrates, its well known at the court that the RSPCA have an insider who "helps" them to obtain convictions.; 9 February 2012 at 09:30
Anonymous said...: Clerks Mate - you need to bring this up to the relevant authorities as they will be able to take action on this as it is a very serious allegation indeed. Otherwise if this is just a rumour without any substance then perhaps you should keep this to yourself.; 9 February 2012 at 12:03
Anonymous said...: I'm a Magistrates and there was a huge stink in Wiltshire some years ago involving one of the court clerks, an animal rights vegan. She made sure that all the farmers' cases came in front of her and several of them went to prison (but several got out on appeal). The supervising judge eventually had to take action.; 10 February 2012 at 11:00
In The Know said...: The Rspca HAVE TURNED PROSECUTION INTO A MONEY MAKER, THEY GET DONATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC, USE THESE TO FUND THEIR OPERATIONS, THEY TARGET SOME UNWITTING PET OWNER, NORMALLY A SINGLE OAP, THEY PROSECUTE, SEND OUT PRESS RELEASES, PAY VETS A FORTUNE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE PERSECUTED PENSIONER, EVEN IF THEY LOSE THEY GET AWARDED COST BY THE COURT,THEY THEN SEND OUT A COLLECTION TEAM INTO THE IMMEDIATE AREA AT THE SAME TIME AS THE PRESS COVERAGE, £££££ ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.; 12 February 2012 at 14:09
Anonymous said...: Another 83 year-old given a conditional discharge (ie no conviction) http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/9523523.Three_generations_found_guilty_of_neglecting_dogs/; 13 February 2012 at 10:57
Anonymous said...: Interesting comment from the "magistrates" from Wiltshire. Did that clerk officiate on any of the Hale, Beales, Harvey or Lewis animal rights show-trials?; 13 February 2012 at 11:09
Trilby Bee said...: The size of the bills, yes, tell me about it. The RSPCA like to pick the most expensive vet in the area and that's a fact. An animal taken from me was blood tested (results normal, no underlying illness or disease) but the vet managed to run up bills of £600 a month while it was in their "care". And no, the magistrates are not interested in the fact that the bills are deliberately inflated to feather Mr Greedy's nest. Nor are they interested in reading eight letters of support from people who know that the animal was cared for and were prepared to go to court with you and say so. They allow the RSPCA's solicitors to drag you back to court time and time again (more money for the solicitors, more money on the costs). They will even drag you back again to see a probation officer who asks you what you watch on TV and what work you used to do and other pointless questions. A glorified silly social worker, but that's another outing and payment for the rspca solicitors. And of course another payment for the court. If you are on Legal Aid, forget it. Legal Ais will do the least as they are paid per case as opposed to per letter, per phone call, per everything. And the rspca officer will lie on their statement, and you have the proof which you can show them but mention it to the magistrates and they do not give a fig. They ignore everything except what the rspca has to say. I am so glad that I am not alone in thinking this. Don't think of pleading not guilty, they'll nail you for hat too.; 13 February 2012 at 12:34
Rose Jay said...: I can't disagree with any of the comment before this one but the person who said they were a Magistrate failed to mention that the RSPCA are the only people who are allowed into courts to train the Magistrates in how to deal with their cases, even though they bring a case not as a professional body but under the Common Informers Act which now has a new name.
I will also quote an article in the media last year that they paid the Government 9 million pound as a donation to the party.
If you read the Hansards daily report the Government had promised for over 3 years new TRAINED INSPECTORS to bring these cases, they had been promised until two days before the Queens Speech when Lord Rooker (Minster for Defra)said "It will have to stay as it is as we cannot afford to pay these new Inspectors". All of this material as I have already written a outline of the opinions of the need for these inspectors and not the RSPCA during the Commons Debate. I am just about to start the Lords debate but I have all the evidence cataloged and I must get you the article discusing the 9 million, so as you can put it on here.; 14 February 2012 at 20:56
Anonymous said...: Why does the RSPCA get the costs back when they lose? Is this because they are a so so called CHARITY?; 16 February 2012 at 20:29
Willow said...: I know of a couple of vets who act as rspca expert witnesses and do very nicely thank you, £500 per day out of public funds, nice!; 23 February 2012 at 01:16
Anonymous said...: So how should society deal with those extreme people who starve their pets to death or leave them with the most horrific injuries?; 17 March 2012 at 18:00