RSPCA "INVESTIGATE" AS 2 POLICE DOGS DIE IN LOCKED VEHICLE

WHY DO THE POLICE PASS THIS OFFENCE TO THE RSPCA ?

THE RSPCA is investigating after two police dogs died when they were left in a dog handler's car during the heatwave.
The German shepherds were found in the car at Notts Police's HQ in Arnold yesterday.
The Post understands the police dog handler was off duty but had called into the headquarters at Sherwood Lodge, Arnold.
It is unclear how long the dogs had been left in the car on what was the hottest day in Notts for three years – with temperatures rising to 29.3 degrees celsius.
The RSPCA has launched an investigation into the incident.
A spokeswoman from the charity said: "We are investigating two dogs which have died in a hot car.
Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, anyone found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal can face up to six months in prison or a fine of up to £20,000.
A Notts police spokesman said: "Nottinghamshire Police reported the death of two German shepherd police dogs to the RSPCA on Tuesday, June 30, after they were discovered at force headquarters at 2.15pm.
The spokesperson said the force could not confirm any further details about the incident, but said no one had been suspended.
Notts Assistant Chief Constable Peter Davies said: ''This is a tragic incident and we value the important work our police dogs carry out on a daily basis. That is why we swiftly reported this incident to the RSPCA and we will be working with them very closely."
"The RSPCA has been informed and will, I am sure, carry out a thorough and speedy investigation.
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/homenews/Police-dogs-die-car-heatwave/article-1128150-detail/article.html

RSPCA INSPECTORS KILL DOGS AS PART OF THEIR TRAINING

Enquiry history RSPCA Inspector Training Enquiry.

LETTER TO RSPCA (2006)

It has been brought to my attention that RSPCA inspectors are required to kill animals as part of their training. I have heard that this is done both with animals in a slaughterhouse and also shooting dogs, for example, in animal shelters.

The following link has relevant extracts from your Watchdog magazine; http://www.webtribe.net/~watchdog/watchdog73.htm

Can you please comment on this practise and whether this is still part of your inspectors training?

RSPCA REPLY

Thank you for your recent enquiry expressing your concerns about the euthanasia of animals by student inspectors. The training of student inspectors in all routes (by firearms and injection methods) of euthanasia is essential. While nobody becomes an inspector to euthanase animals, sometimes this is the kindest and only option, particularly with animals that are sick or injured. It is also sometimes necessary to euthanase those animals for which appropriate homes are not available and which would therefore endure long-term suffering through deprivation of basic needs (as far as domestic animals are concerned, this in itself reduces the space for an animal that could be rehomed). All 'initial' euthanasia performed by staff members must be supervised by a veterinary surgeon to ensure that animals are not subjected to unnecessary stress. Where appropriate, sedation is used but the temperament of the animal is assessed before the process is undertaken. I would like to assure you that all students are assessed for their competence before they are allowed to perform euthanasia unsupervised. The ethics of human destruction are an integral part of the training process and euthanasia is one of the most difficult areas for new inspectors to come to terms with. All students are trained in the theory and practice on prosthesis before being allowed anywhere near a live animal. The RSPCA works tirelessly to prevent cruelty, promote kindness and to alleviate the suffering of all animals. Sadly, it is often left to organisations like the RSPCA to 'pick up the pieces' from irresponsible pet owners who allow their animals to breed indiscriminately or who abandon their animals when surplus to their requirements. I hope that the above information clarifies this matter and alleviates any concerns that you may have.

Thank you for contacting the Society.

Kind regards RSPCA Enquiries Service

http://www.veggieromance.com/f/49654

COUPLE DESPARATELY NEEDING HELP ARE JAILED BY RSPCA

Only a matter of days ago the RSPCA killed a family's cat, only hours after capturing it. Last month they failed to prosecute a man who kicked his girlfriends dog to death, saying it didn't suffer.
And they have the audacity to prosecute AND JAIL a STRUGGLING couple who just needed some HELP ! DISGRACEFUL.

A husband and wife from Bath have been jailed and banned from keeping animals for ten years after cats, dogs and rabbits were discovered living in 'filthy' conditions in their home.
Mark and Rebecca Lanfear, have been given 12-week jail terms after causing 'prolonged suffering' to their 18 pets.
The couple appeared before Bath Magistrates Court to admit ten charges each of animal neglect, while Mrs Lanfear's 69-year-old mother, Sheila Wheeler, also pleaded guilty to the same charges and was given a 12-week community order.
The suffering they caused to the animals in their care cost the RSPCA around £28,000 in vets' bills, accommodation and court costs in a case that a senior official said was caused by 'things getting horribly out of hand'.
An RSPCA investigation was launched following a tip-off from a member of the public in October last year.
RSPCA Chief Inspector Becky Griffiths, led the team which entered the house in Oldfield Park. Celia Strathdee, defending, said her clients were deeply ashamed at what had happened and acknowledged that what they had done was wrong.
She said events in the family home had spiralled out of control in such a desperate way that none of the defendants felt able to tackle the problems.
Mrs Strathdee said the couple lived with Mrs Wheeler who was in poor health.
She told the court Mr Lanfear had been suspended from his job as a driver due to illness, creating a 'huge' drop in his monthly income and contribution to the running of the house.
The 47-year-old's parents had both diagnosed with cancer which proved terminal for his mother who died in October last year.
Mrs Lanfear, who works as a claims negotiator for a firm in Bath, was then left with the task of helping to take care of her husband's father and her own mother as well as the finances of the house.
The 43-year-old suffered a nervous breakdown and took two months off work from July to August last year.
Mrs Lanfear has three horses which live in a yard around ten miles away from her house.
Mrs Strathdee said: "It seems to me that when everything was going wrong and the stress became too much she (Mrs Lanfear) sought refuge at the yard.
"The horses were not just loved but adored.
"Despite the fact that chaos seems to run in the home, the horses were beautifully looked after."
Chairman of the bench, Andrew Turnbull, said the offences were so severe that custody was the only appropriate sentence.
He also ordered that the RSPCA must take possession of Mrs Lanfear's three horses within 28 days.
Chief Insp Griffiths said the ruling was unusually severe and that custody was normally imposed only in cases involving physical attacks on animals.
She said: "This is a strong message to people that they have to look after their animals.
"We must now take steps to get the horses rehomed as soon as possible."
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/Couple-jailed-animal-neglect/article-1072540-detail/article.html

THE RSPCA KILLERS

Family's missing cat is put down 1hr after it's found !

The rspca have been accused of killing a couple's pet cat - just one hour after picking her up in a neighbouring garden.
Three-year-old Luna had gone out to play, but a neighbour thought she was a stray and called the animal charity on Saturday morning.
Twenty minutes later an inspector arrived and an hour after that the tabby had been taken to a local vet's and put down by a lethal injection.
Upset owners Harry and Jennifer Hamilton now plan to take legal action against the RSPCA.
Harry, a 28-year-old engineer, raged: "Luna was the nicest cat in the world. My wife, who is fiveand-a-half months pregnant, is absolutely devastated.
"We can't believe a charity we support with donations could behave in this way. We are gutted."
He added: "The RSPCA said they thought Luna was a stray and vicious, but lots of cats are scared when approached by strangers. I thought they were supposed to keep a cat for 28 days not just a few hours. I'm so mad."
He and teacher Jennifer, 25, now plan to bury Luna in the back garden at their home in Goole, East Yorkshire.
The RSPCA, which is investigating the matter, said: "We apologise profusely for this upsetting incident."

COMMENTS
palval wrote:
As an animal lover I am appalled at this poor cats demise and the heartache caused to her owners Maybe if this incident hadnt occured on a Saturday morning events wouldnt have taken place so quickly
I have become disillusioned with the RSPCA recently and any future pleadings for money from them will be consigned to the recyling bin and my money given to other animal charities (GS – good thought here)
17/6/2009 13:42 BST on Mirror.co.uk
Romano wrote:
God, this is terrible! This sort of tragedy could happen to many cats whom some folk think are strays. Actually, it almost certainly has happened many times. The RSPCA are not often as quick to come out to cruelty cases as they are to a supposedley stray cat. I strongly suggest the RSPCA be ultra careful in future!
Francis H. Giles (Reading)
17/6/2009 14:03 BST on Mirror.co.uk
hasa23 wrote:
Thanks to the mirror for help on this - the RSPCA ought to know what they have done to my family!
Thanks again.
17/6/2009 14:12 BST on Mirror.co.uk
Becca_Bee wrote:
The RSPCA, which is investigating the matter, said: "We apologise profusely for this upsetting incident."
Not good enough. My cat recently went missing and after putting posters up we found out he'd died. The woman who found him rang the council, who took him to the RSPCA were they "disposed" of him. They didn't even bother scanning him, if they did they would have discovered he was microchipped and they could have informed us that he was dead and we could have buried him at home.
What is the point in supporting and donating to a charity if the people who work there can't even do their jobs properly?
17/6/2009 14:33 BST on Mirror.co.uk
Tan wrote:
This is awful and not the 1st time i have sadly heard this happening with the charity.
17/6/2009 14:53 BST on Mirror.co.uk
FeeFeeFee wrote:
Whilst I sympathise with the loss of this loving pet, suing the RSPCA isn't going to change what happened, only stretch their already over stretched budget.
Perhaps if this couple had been responsible enough to have their cat Microchipped then this misunderstanding could have been avoided. (GS – what rubbish – for uselessness of microchipping, see comment high-lighted above)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/17/the-rspca-killers-115875-21447065/

ITS ALWAYS "THE WORST CASE OF CRUELTY" THE RSPCA HAVE SEEN AS THEY PROSECUTE YET MORE PENSIONERS

ONLY DAYS AFTER THEY TOOK NO ACTION AGAINST A MAN WHO ADMITTED KICKING DOG TO DEATH

Michael Barnes and wife Diane were found guilty last Friday of allowing Ginger, a 10-year-old tom cat, to be subjected to unnecessary suffering.
The couple, both 63, adopted the stray cat five years ago, shortly after their former black cat Sammy died.
But last summer they passed off a rare flesh-eating skin disease that developed into cancer as a "scab", and the animal had to be put down.
After being found guilty at Croydon Magistrates' Court Mr Barnes remained defiant, calling the £1,430 in fines and compensation imposed by magistrates "daylight robbery".
He maintains that he and his wife "never hurt the cat on purpose".
"We love animals and we took in that stray because it sort of adopted us and wanted to be fed," he said.
"I can't believe we're being punished for looking after an animal that wasn't ours to start with, out of the goodness of our hearts.
"We genuinely thought the problem with its face was a scab from fighting other cats.
"There's no way either me or my wife would willfully try to harm an animal. We've had pets all our lives and we've never had any problems before."
It was the first time either Mr Barnes or his wife had ever been in court.
"It's been the most degrading and humiliating experience ever and it has really affected our health," former surveyor Mr Barnes said.
"The courts and the RSPCA have done us a great injustice. They are just out to get every penny they can.
"I'm disgusted that our good name has been muddied over something we never intended to do."
The couple are now banned from keeping animals for five years.
Although Mr Barnes is protesting their innocence, RSPCA inspector Lynn Marshall says it was the "worst case" of animal cruelty she has ever seen.
She visited their home in Gascoigne Road on July 22 last year after a concerned member of the public reported "a cat with a hole in its face".
When sentencing them, chairman of the bench Ray Stibbards said: "The vet should have been seen earlier when treatment should have been given. It should have been obvious."
The couple were each fined £150 for the offence, ordered to pay £550 compensation to the RSPCA and a £15 victim surcharge.
http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/courts/New-Addington-couple-prosecuted-cat-hole-s-face/article-996926-detail/article.html

RSPCA FAIL TO PROSECUTE MAN WHO KICKED DOG TO DEATH, WHILST THEY PROSECUTE PENSIONERS WHOSE ANIMALS HAVE FLEAS, HYPOCRITES.

A man who kicked his fiancee's tiny Yorkshire terrier to death has escaped prosecution because the RSPCA decided the dog did not suffer.

Norman Llewellyn who kicked Phoebe a Yorkshire terrier to death but is pictured with his former fiancee Julie Blyth.
Norman Llewellyn killed the animal with a single kick during an angry row with his fiancee, Julie Blyth, at her home Cirencester, Glos.
Despite Mr Llewellyn, 52, from Hertfordshire, admitting criminal damage he accepted a caution for causing suffering to Phoebe the dog, which was a gift to his fiancee.

He was also facing possible RSPCA prosecution but the animal charity decided not to charge him with ill treatment because the dog died instantly and did not suffer.
Beverley Carpenter, Ms Blyth's sister, criticised the decision.
"The RSPCA told us they could not do any more about it," she said.
"We think it is disgusting. My sister is devastated about it. It seems no-one wants to know - and we are upset he has got away with it.
"What sort of message does it send out to people?"
The RSPCA defended its decision.
Spokeswoman Judith Haw said: "The RSPCA is deeply troubled by the violent death of this pet dog and investigated immediately once alerted by the police.
"A forensic veterinary surgeon carried out a post-mortem which concluded that the dog died instantly and did not suffer.
"Evidence of suffering is necessary for cruelty to be proven in the courts and as an expert ruled that suffering did not occur, animal welfare offences could not be considered."
She added: "The Society fully understands and shares the public's concern and frustration but of course we can only act within the law.
"It would be an irresponsible use of charity funds to try to proceed with any case which had no evidence to support it."
A Gloucestershire police spokeswoman said they decided not to prosecute him because he showed remorse and had no previous convictions.
She added: "An independent investigation in relation to animal welfare was carried out by the RSPCA, fully supported by Gloucestershire Constabulary.
"The conclusion of this examination was that the dog died instantly and did not suffer, therefore no animal welfare offences could be considered."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5331898/Man-escapes-prosecution-despite-kicking-fiancees-dog-to-death.html

PAEDOPHILE RSPCA INSPECTOR PLEADS GUILTY TO HAVING PORNOGRAPHIC CHILD IMAGES

A SENIOR RSPCA inspector used a work-issued computer to access child pornography on the internet, a court has been told.
The District Court has been told Kyle Terence Chaplin used his RSPCA laptop to download 137 images over an eight-month period in 2007. One of the images showed a child being raped.
The court was told Chaplin, at the time of his arrest, was also a highly placed Surf Life Saving Queensland volunteer and the holder of a "blue card" which allowed him to train and rescue children.
Lawyers for Chaplin said he resigned from his 14-year role with the RSPCA when arrested in late 2007, while police took possession of his blue card, putting an end to his voluntary life saving.
Chaplin, 42, was last week sentenced to a 12-month wholly suspended prison term, 18 months' probation and a $1000 good behaviour bond after pleading guilty to using the internet to access child pornography.
The offence, which is a crime under Federal Government laws, carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' jail and a $66,000 fine.
Commonwealth prosecutor Rebecca Bellamy said Austrian police tipped off Australian Federal Police about the Chaplin's computer accessing child pornography on a website they had been monitoring.
Ms Bellamy said both AFP and Queensland police officers then searched Chaplin's house and seized his RSPCA-issued laptop.
The court was told forensic testing of the computer revealed as many as 215 images of pornography featuring "toddler to teenage" aged girls had been accessed.
But only 137 images of child pornography could be retrieved from the computer's hard drive and viewed.
Ms Bellamy said Chaplin told police the images must have been accidentally viewed while he used his work computer to surf the internet for adult pornography.
But the court heard police found evidence that Chaplin had not only clicked on sites to view the child pornography, he also magnified specific images to get a clearer look at the material.
Ms Bellamy said it was commonly accepted up to 89 per cent of child pornography in Australia was obtained over the internet.
Barrister Kate Greenwood, for Chaplin, said her client first accessed child pornography around the time a study was published that gave some insight into people who abused animals.
Ms Greenwood said the academic study asserted that people who abused animals were also far more likely to abuse children.
Judge John Robertson, in sentencing Chaplin, said the availability and downloading of child pornography across the globe was an increasing and horrendous problem.
"Some of the images (on Chaplin's computer) involve actual sexual (abuse) of actual children somewhere in the world," he said.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25463142-3102,00.html