RSPCA BIASED MAGISTRATE TRAINING

IF THE PROSECUTOR TRAINS THE MAGISTRATES, HOW CAN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS POSSIBLY BE IMPARTIAL ?

The RSPCA together with the Magistrates' Association has produced a training programme for magistrates to heighten awareness of their legal powers.
The head of the RSPCA's Prosecutions Department, Rachel Newman, said: "The RSPCA's primary concern is that animals are protected from cruelty and magistrates play a crucial role in the prevention of animal abuse.
"This training programme is designed to highlight the powers available to magistrates to impose disqualification orders and inform them about the factors and issues involved in cruelty cases."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/84597.stm

MORE RSPCA LIES, THEY ARE NOT WHAT THEY SEEM !

THE RSCPA'S role as an independent animal welfare group has come under scrutiny after the charity made "untrue and unsubstantiated" claims in a national advertising campaign.
The Advertising Standards Authority delivered its judgement in response to complaints made by the Farm-ers Union of Wales.
The union accused the RSPCA of making misleading claims in a series of high-profile newspaper advertisements designed to solicit public support against possible badger culls.
As a result, the government's consultations on anti-bovine TB measures may be flawed, said FUW president Gareth Vaughan.
He added: "The ASA ruling should serve as awarning to all pressure groups that they cannot twist the truth to subvert a public consultation process for
their own blinkered ends."
Celebrities including actress Joanna Lumley, author Jilly Cooper, ex-Spice Girl Mel C and former newsreader Angela Rippon supported the RSPCA campaign.
According to UK rural ministry Defra, it received 47,472 responses to the consultation, most of which were campaign responses prompted by, and supportive of, the RSPCA stance.
The FUW's complaint centred on the charity's assertion that cattle-to-cattle transmission of bovine TB (bTB) was the main conduit for the disease, not badger-to-cattle transmission.
In its adjudication, the ASA said: "We considered the claim did not reasonably provide
readers with an indication of the caution and uncertainty among scientists and government advisers surrounding the relative importance of the two factors in bTB transmission."
The RSPCA acknowledged that badger-to-cattle transmission was a factor in the spread of bTB, and had simply intended to alert readers to the fact that the issue of bTB was not straightforward.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/business-news/2006/09/28/rspca-claims-over-badgers-were-untrue-55578-17834527/

STOP THE KILLING NOW, STOP DONATING TO THE RSPCA

RSPCA Statement regarding 10 German Shepherd dogs in South Wales 16.7.09

We received a call on 23 June this year from a member of the public relating to 10 German Shepherd dogs at an address in Pontardawe, in south Wales. The caller said the dogs’ owner, a relative, had died and the dogs had been living on their own.
Q: How long had the dogs been living on their own and who if anyone was providing food and water and letting the dogs out to go to the toilet?
An RSPCA inspector visited the premises that day and assessed the animals. The inspector took the decision that none of the dogs were at all suitable for rehoming due to concerns about their aggressive behaviour and lack of socialisation with people. The dogs were also suffering from a severe skin condition.
Q: How did the inspector assess these dogs and come to the conclusion they were unsuitable for re-homing? Did he approach each dog to give a thorough examination to determine the aggressive state and skin condition of each dog or did he just view them through a window? Ten dogs locked up together and a stranger approaches their home, how do you think they are going to react. Of course there are going to be signs of aggression. These dogs were obviously scared and stressed especially if they were not being cared for. If the Inspector had concerns about the dogs skin condition then why wasn’t a vet called in to examine the dogs. Skin conditions in dogs are caused by many things including bad diet, stress, fleas, all of which are indicative of the way these dogs were living. Bearing in mind that a RSPCA Inspector trains for 6 months and a vet for four years, surely it was in the best interest of the dogs to call in an expert to rule out anything more sinister.
The same thing applies to Canine Behaviour. Precious little time is spent during the Inspectors training on this topic and is itself one that can take years to actually master as there are so many facets to this subject. It is therefore easy for the inexperienced person to assume that because a dog barks he is aggressive. When one dog starts the domino effect takes over and all ten dogs will react as a pack thus given the impression that all were aggressive when this could have been very far from the truth. Again, was each dog taken outside individually and his behaviour assessed or were they all simply viewed from afar and as a pack?
We explained the next-of-kin that they should contact other rescue groups for help. The next-of-kin were made fully aware that if the RSPCA became involved, the dogs would be euthanased.
Q: The RSPCA – Royal Society for the PREVENTION of CRUELTY to ANIMALS. Why was the onus on the relatives to re-home these dogs and not the RSPCA. who’s sole purpose is purported to protecting animals at all costs. It also reads that by involving the RSPCA was to seal these dogs fate to a death sentence. This from an organization that is supposed to protect ALL animals. Why wasn’t the Inspector able to pick up a phone to any GSD rescue for assistance?
The owner’s next-of-kin later contacted the RSPCA again and said they had been turned down by other charities, including the Dogs Trust, who were unwilling to take on the animals and they signed over the dogs, fully aware of what would happen.
Q: At no time was German Shepherd Dog Rescue contacted re these dogs. If they had been then the outcome would have been totally different. Again, it is quite clear that the RSPCA were not prepared to do anything to help in re-homing these dogs and were quite determined to follow through on their threat to kill these poor dogs.
A decision was made following a discussion between eight RSPCA officers that the most humane form of euthanasia would be to use a captive bolt. This would minimise distress to the dogs, while also being the safest method for those people responsible for dealing with the animals. Restraining the dogs and then shaving a limb to prepare for a lethal injection would have caused these animals unnecessary suffering, due to the animals suffering from a severe skin condition.
Q: First of all the captive bolt is not the most humane method of euthanasia because as we all know, it does not always work first time and is used more to stun than to kill. Secondly, the dogs, who were deemed to be so aggressive even though it appears this had not been assessed properly, would have to have been restrained somehow whether it was to be examined, a limb shaved or in this case euthanized. Once again, a veterinary surgeon had not been consulted as to the dogs skin condition so it is unknown whether shaving the dogs limb would have been distressful or cause unnecessary suffering or not.
The inspector euthanased the dogs using a captive bolt. After a discussion between eight officers, this was decided to be the most humane method. It was also the most suitable as the dogs were too dangerous to approach for a vet to administer a sedative, to allow for a lethal injection.
Q: Why were eight officers in the decision making process and was the option of contacting a rescue ever placed on the table for discussion. It appears from what has already been stated in this statement that this was never going to be an alternative, the death penalty being the only answer. Once again, these dogs were never assessed for aggression yet this is the assumption being put forward all through this statement. If the RSPCA were so concerned for these dogs welfare, then why were they not taken away to be fully assessed by properly qualified professionals.
The dogs were taken outside into the garden of the house on a grasper, given a few moments of exercise (it is unlikely they had been outside in weeks, if not months) and then the inspector used a captive bolt.
Q: A few moments of exercise…….by that I suppose you mean the time it took to take each dog from the house to the place of its execution. Were the dogs even allowed to relieve themselves?
A grasper is not the kindest of ways to restrain any dog and so would have caused a huge amount of stress. These so called aggressive dogs that apparently could not be approached by a vet to administer a sedative even when being held in a grasper, would have to be approached by the Inspector as the captive bolt is placed against the forehead. It begs the question, if the dogs could be restrained this way to be euthanized, then why not to be examined by a vet for their skin conditions.
The house was in a remote and isolated situation, away from any other properties. Each dog was euthanased away from the rest of the dogs which were kept in the house. They would have been unable to hear the captive bolt being used as it is a very quiet method.
Q: Hearing is only one of the dogs senses. Dogs can and will smell death same as most animals. They would have known that something was about to happen adding to the stress they were obviously already under.
The dogs were only handled for a very short amount of time, on the grasper, and stress was kept to an absolute minimum. Nobody was injured and the dogs appeared to be oblivious to the fact that this was anything other than being taken into the garden.
Q: Being oblivious to anything other than being taken out into the garden does not denote to me an aggressive dog. As a qualified and experienced Canine Behaviourist and Trainer who specializes in dog aggression predominately in GSD’s, your description here does not in anyway convince me that these dogs were aggressive, in fact quite the opposite. If these dogs had been as aggressive as you state then they would have been fighting the grasper, intent on getting at whoever or getting away and yet you state they were oblivious. Obviously there is something very amiss here.
It is the RSPCA’s raison d’être to prevent cruelty to animals, and it was decided this sad, but ultimately necessary, outcome for the dogs was the best way to prevent the animals any further suffering. The decision was not made lightly and, as always, it was made with the best interests of the animal at heart.
Q: This was by no means a necessary outcome for these dogs rather a quick, cheap and easy way out for the RSPCA. At no point were qualified professionals involved in the decision making process and the way these dogs were euthanized was despicable.
The RSPCA in my opinion, no longer has the best interests of animals at heart and should have the good grace to return its Royal Patronage and leave the welfare of animals to those who actually care. If the RSPCA were doing their job properly, that of ‘preventing cruelty to animals’ then there would be no need for all the animal rescues that have sprung up all over the country. Rescues who do not have the benefit of millions in their coffers, who are run by dedicated volunteers prepared to meet costs out of their own pockets for the benefit of the animals they love. This is the difference between a Rescue and the RSPCA.The rescue is contacted about ten GSD’s. The rescue then contacts all volunteers within the surrounding area and a team of volunteers is mobilized. The dogs are collected and homed either in foster homes or kennels where they would be looked at and treated by a vet. They would be cared for and eventually homes found for them with back up should any problems arise.
The RSPCA is contacted about ten GSD’s. They send an Inspector who shoots all ten.

Just about says it all.
David EganMOC MFSTR Dip.Dog.Psy

Comment:

The RSPCA are currently mass mailing all households begging for donations. Rather than just throwing it in the bin, here are some pdf files that you might want to place in an envelope and send back to them...I'll be sending one of each!!!!Don't put a stamp on either.

http://www.thehappygsd.co.uk/RSPCA_LIES.html

http://www.germanshepherdrescue.co.uk/statement-rspca-expert-witness.html

WHY DO THE RSPCA HAVE ACCESS TO EMERGENCY SERVICE NETWORK ?

Airwave, the new telecommunications system used by the emergency services plus some other public sector organisations like local authorities.

The only private organisation which is allowed to use the emergency services network is the RSPCA.

Other apparently worthwhile potential users like mountain rescue units are denied access.

What is so special about the RSPCA? They are a private charity but they seem to have privileges not afforded to other charitable groups who do just as good a job in their field.

The Airwave service is a sophisticated communications system for the emergency and other public safety ('blue light') services operated by O2 Airwave. It will help make Great Britain safer by facilitating more effective and efficient ways of working for the emergency services, and the opportunity for more 'joined up' public safety services.Key Benefits
O2 Airwave will enable emergency services to communicate seamlessly regardless of location for the first time ever
Because all communications over the Airwave service are encrypted, they cannot be scanned or monitored by outsiders. The network is highly resilient
The system enables both voice and data communications and gives the emergency services wide flexibility in choosing how to communicate.

The Airwave service has the capability to provide true interoperability between all the agencies involved in public protection by enabling everyone to work together at the scene of major and minor incidents alike, as well as co-operate in forward planning to meet new obligations under the Civil Contingencies Act.

The Airwave service is available to organisations with a public safety role and already being used by the MOD, the Highways Agency, UK Immigration and several Local Authorities.

Contact:Susan Moore O2 Airwave Tel: 07764 350834

The RSPCA seem to be allowed to initiate private criminal prosecutions and they are not struck out by the DPP with a nolle prosequi.

They seem to have powers of search and entry which no other private organisation has. They dress their inspectors up to look like policemen which would probably be an offence for anyone else.

http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/57685-what-legal-status-rspca.html

http://www.tribal-living.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=3953&page=4

FALSEHOOD DOG DESTROYER JOINS RSPCA

Nigel Yeo, dubbed "Mr Clean Up" against whom there was evidence of criminal misfeasance and falsehood following a shooting incident in Sussex and who previously ordered the destruction of a police dog for biting a teenage lad has won a top job with the RSPCA.

Sussex Police Assistant Chief Constable Nigel Yeo, who was attacked by the RSPCA for authorising the dog's death, is to be the charity's new South East regional manager.
Animal groups called for the RSPCA to rescind the offer.
Roger Musselle, who runs a wildlife rescue group, said: "This is anything but tactful and they should stop the appointment."
There were protests from around the world when Mr Yeo ordered Bruce be put down.
When the Alsatian bit off part of the teenage attacker's ear, Mr Yeo described Bruce as just a "piece of equipment" which had failed and must be scrapped.
Mr Yeo, later apologised for his "insensitive and clumsy"comments but stood by his decision.

Anonymous said...
turalaYeo - as evil as they get!!

This will be out protest site for the short term Protest about RSPCA killing german shepherds with a bolt gun.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=275050270436

For the longer term, this will be where we target the RSPCA

National Dog Rescue Forum

http://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Dog-Rescue-Forum/139770977483?ref=mf

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/980325.man_blamed_for_dogs_death_joins_rspca/

http://www.bushywood.com/sussex/katrina_taylor.htm

RSPCA EXPERT WITNESSES ARE BIASED

COURTING DISASTER: ETHICS WARNING FOR WITNESS VETS.

VETERINARY surgeons are being urged to act "professionaly, ethically and morally" when appearing as expert witnesses amid reports of bias, witness coaching and withholding evidence. Magistrates, Solicitors and leading veterinarains have also encouraged vets to seek advice and training before standing as witness, following accusations against RSPCA legal department.

Clive Rees who has acted as defence barrister in cases brought be the RSPCA, believes vets can become partisan if they have not received adequate training. He explained: Although [veterinary surgeons] are accurate with factual evidence, the interpretation put on it, or the opinion given, can be baised eaither way, usually towards the RSPCA.

Mr Rees accused the RSPCA of attempts to "make sure it's vets are pretty baised" He continued: Some Birds cases have seen some of the prosecution vets becoming quiet partisan, and they were quiet eminent vets who should have known better. I have heard of other cases where the RSPCA have told vets what to say, and they have gone along with it. The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA, (SHG) - which provides advice for people facing RSPCA led prosecution - also claims the society influenced witnesses and withheld evidence. The SHG has highlighted two cases - in which Annette Nally, and Martin and Gina Griffin were accused of failing to provide treatment for their dog and horse respectively - where the judge criticised the animals welfare charity for "the non-disclosure of documents" and failing to accept prior veterinary opinion. SHG member Ernest Vine said: "It seems that the RSPCA's team may have regrettably, again lost sight of the duty to be fair to the defendant, against who it makes grotesque allegations of cruelty." However, an RSPCA spokesman has denied it has purposefully infuenced witnesses of with held evidence. "The RSPCA takes it's roll of prosecutor extremely seriously and follows a set of principles based on those of the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service)" The society instructs independent solicitors and barristers to act on it's behalf, and around 95 per cent of cases brought be the society results in conviction. This is, infact, considerably higher than the CPS conviction rate" "However, the society resorts to prosecution only as a last resort. After all, the 'P' in RSPCA stands for prevention - We much prefer to improve animal welfare through education and advice." The allegations have promped veterinary surgeon and barrister, Madeleine Forsyth to call on any vet who is called as an expert witness to ensure he or she understands the roll. She explained that any vet could be called as an expert witness, and added: Recent cases make it clear that many veterinary surgeons dont understand their duty to the court, their status as a witness and the effect of their opinion: it is just as clear that the moral and professional dilemmas that often arise haven't been considered before the expert exposes himself or herself enivitable criticism." Ms Forsyth explained that due to the weight a vets opinion holds in court, it is vital it is correct. She also criticised the RSPCA for influencing vets who were called upon to give evidence. She said: Giving an opinion that may result in someone receiving a criminal record carries with it a very heavy burden of responsibility to ensure that the opinion is objective, educated, considered and truthful, and these duties are laied down by law. The RSPCA has a coaching document which has been instrumental in two cases recently being thrown out of court completely. The judge believed the document was not just a helpful paper to assist them to offer their opinion, but was directing them using pejorative phraseology. Due to the important roll of the expert witness in court proceeding, Peter Jinman, who sits on the committee of the Veterinary Association of Arbitration and Jurisprudence (VAAJ), believes that vets must look for advice before giving evidence. He said: I do not think vets understand the process of what is expected of them.Although some legal training is given at veterinary school, it is only a glimps. Before getting involved in any legal process, understand what is expected of you, as well as the difference between being a witness of fact and an expert witness. All to often particularly in the magistrates court, it is likely that the vet appearing as a witness of fact may well be asked for opinion, and the key is never to give opinion outside of true knowledge. The moment you start to wonder outside of areas of your competence, their is a risk of misleading the court." Mr Jinman advised veterinary practitioners to talk to anybody who has appeared as an expert witness in the past. While pointing them in the direction of the Council for Registration of forensic practitioners, VAAJ courses and the RCVS code of practice for further information.The code stated: "Care should be taken not to show bias in the report. Matters which do not assist your argument, should be disclosed since failure to do so could damage your credibility. Extreme language should be avoided and personal opinions should be muted "

RSPCA PET MASSACRE SPARKS CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION

CALLS FOR CHARITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION INTO RSPCA ACTIVITIES

In June 2009 the RSPCA’s ‘hit squad’ slaughtered 10 German Shepherd dogs after their owner had died and a relative had contacted the RSPCA for assistance.

The RSPCA have admitted the atrocity

Instead of sedating these poor dogs and removing them to a place of safety, prior to contacting German Shepherd Dog rescues which would have been willing to help, the RSPCA chose instead to shoot all 10 dogs with a captive bolt.

Their excuse was that this was kinder to the animals and safer for the inspectors. This begs the question – if it was safe enough to get as close as it is necessary for the use of a captive bolt, then why was it not safe enough to get equally near to these dogs and sedate them?

This is not the first time the RSPCA have killed companion animals unnecessarily, and it will not be the last. In 2008, they killed 8,313 dogs and 12,329 cats. An unacceptable number of these animals were perfectly healthy.

By their own admission, the RSPCA admit they ‘reluctantly’ euthanize healthy animals because they (RSPCA) believe it is cruel to keep dogs and cats confined for too long in kennels. How long is too long? The local (franchised) branches of the RSPCA usually have policies which enable animals to fund the care of animals for several months. However, the National Policy is very different, particularly in the case of animals of ‘unknown origin’. With the latter, the RSPCA shows no compunction when declaring that these will be euthanized after 7 days. Why is it that small, underfunded animal charities and other rescue centres have a policy of not euthanizing a healthy animal or a sick animal that can be nursed back to health, yet the RSPCA needlessly kills so many healthy or treatable animals whilst stashing away millions of pounds of OUR money donated by US the gullible GENERAL PUBLIC in the mistaken belief that all animals will not only be safe in their care but will always be treated with compassion??

It is all about cost. It is much cheaper to euthanize a cat or a dog than it is to spend time and money on boarding costs or rehabilitation.

As for the 10 tragic German Shepherds, it was definitely cheaper to shoot these terrified animals than to spend time and money on calming or sedating them before euthanizing them properly and allowing them a dignified death. And it was infinitely cheaper than spending even more time and money in sedating and removing the dogs to a safe place prior to contacting the appropriate German Shepherd rescues for assistance from people who have experience of the breed and who have indicated they would have been more than happy to have taken all of the dogs. Nothing in fact has changed.

In 1984 the RSPCA ‘hit squad’ went in to the Gwent RSPCA branch and killed many dogs because they decreed that this particular branch had broken the rules on how many dogs should be kept. (Please see second attachment) This was during the time of the miners’ strikes when more animals were being abandoned or signed over to the branch which found itself in the unenviable position of having to take in an increased number of dogs or turn them away to an uncertain fate. The branch chose to help as many dogs as it could. There were no offers of help to alleviate the situation from the RSPCA’s Central Office. Instead, after initial letters, they sent in the ‘hit squad’ who arrived unannounced one day and proceeded to cull the surplus dogs. The staff were distraught as they pleaded for these animals lives. Some of them felt they had to make sure the animals were truly dead by checking their still-warm bodies in the black bin bags. Bernice Jones posted the whole story on the internet. She has since died, but I have personally spoken to a man who confirmed that this terrible incident took place. When challenged about these and other similar cases, the RSPCA will have a ready answer. When asked about poor response times or, in many cases, no response times at all, the RSPCA will plead their case that, as a charity which relies on public donations, there is a limit to what they can achieve. It will also explain that it only has 325 inspectors covering the whole of England and Wales (a figure that has not changed in at least ten years despite annual increases in income) and it is therefore difficult if not impossible to attend to every report of alleged cruelty. In other words, their constant excuses revolve around a lack of sufficient funding. The following figures show the RSPCA’s income for the last four years:

2005 £99,959,000

2006 £110,669,000

2007 £114,110,000

2008 £119,926,000

The bulk of that income came from the general public apart from investment income as follows: 2005 £3,495,000

2006 £6,171,000

2007 £5,049,000

2008 £5,971,000

Their balance sheets for the last two years show:

Total Fixed assets 2007 £206,532,000

2008 £164,824,000

Total Current Assets including cash on deposit, cash in bank and in hand

2007 £28,090,000 (Including £9,509, 000 on deposit and £10,179,000 cash at bank and in hand)

2008 £32,970,000 (Including £3,056,000 on deposit and £13,444,000 cash at bank and in hand)

Net Current Assets 2007 £12,085,000

2008 £16,242,000

The above figures are not complete but give an indication of the vast wealth accumulated by the RSPCA as a result of donations made by the general public. It can be seen that, despite the current financial climate, and apart from their fixed asset figures, this wealth has continued to increase annually.

However, the RSPCA have not used any of this publicly donated wealth to increase the numbers of inspectors they employ in the field but in fact have suspended further recruitment of inspectors for 12 months.

This is in spite of their vigorous TV campaign earlier this year in which they pleaded with the general public to dig even deeper into pockets to enable the RSPCA to employ more inspectors because of an increase in animal cruelty.

In other words, they conned the general public into giving even more money for this specific cause and then blatantly breached the Trades Description Act by suspending further recruitment.

Finally, none of the RSPCA’s vast wealth goes to any of the 174 RSPCA branches which are all separately registered charities run mostly by volunteers who have to raise all their own funding and (as I understand it) have to pay a sum of money each year to the RSPCA’s Central Office towards the costs of inspectors. It is the local (franchised) branches, who struggle financially, but which do the bulk of the good work normally associated with the RSPCA.

The above information is just the tip of the iceberg. We hope you will agree that, as a matter of public interest, it is time for the Charities Commission and government to investigate.

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Society/RSPCA_SLAUGHTER_TEN_GERMAN_SHEPHERD_DOGS_AFTER_THEIR_OWNER_DIES_360000.html