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

Monday, 27 August 2012

RSPCA ABOUT TO ABUSE CIVIL RIGHTS?

FOLLOWING IS A LETTER TO DOGS TODAY FROM THE ANIMAL WELFARE ALLIANCE.

Dear Editor

We would like to comment on the RSPCA article in Dogs Today, June 2012.

CEO Gavin Grant states that 'Only the RSPCA has the power to investigate animal cruelty', and by implication, prosecute. This is wrong because anyone can investigate and bring a private prosecution if they so wish. The RSPCA has no powers whatsoever, they are a charity, no more, no less.

Grant's statement that he is in talks with Social Housing providers to limit tenants to one animal per household, is not only an infringement of Civil Liberties, but will condemn thousands of dogs to death. Many people in social housing have two dogs or several cats, and are largely responsible people because we are far more regulated than owner-occupiers. Councils and Housing Associations already have the power to tackle anti social behaviour in whatever form it takes, including dogs. Many social housing and private landlords already ban dogs/pets from their properties, with the result that people are forced to part with their pets if they have to move, which in turn puts further burdens on rescues.
It is also discrimination against those who have no choice but to rent, since owner-occupiers can have as many pets as they wish.
Who gave Grant or the RSPCA the right to decide who can have pets and how many.? The abusers are in a small minority and not all of them live in social housing !

On the subject of microchipping and licensing.; The RSPCA are to be given access to a microchip database. What about Dogs Trust and others.? Are they to be given access too.? If not, why not.? As already stated, the RSPCA are just a charity, so we believe they have no right to access any database, especially if no-one else can.
Regarding the licence, again we believe that the RSPCA will either expect access, or even intend to monitor the system themselves, giving them access to every responsible dog owner in the country. Another infringement of Civil Liberties and the Data Protection Act, since the RSPCA have no official capacity.
When the licence was last in force, only 44% of people bought one. (Defra figures), so why would it be any more successful this time, and more to the point, how would it have any impact at all on dog breeders, dog fighting and status dogs.?

The RSPCA give the impression that THEY would like control of every animal in the country, and indeed, every rescue, given how many they raid per annum. This in itself must be illegal, yet no-one does anything to stop them.!

The RSPCA stopped taking in strays about three years ago, concentrating on cases which would give them publicity and gain donations. It also put a huge extra burden on other rescues.
Now Grant wants to limit the number of pets per household. Far from the Prevention in their name, the RSPCA would be contributing to the deaths of thousands of healthy dogs because people are unable to adopt more than one.

Lastly, the RSPCA shelters are franchises who have to raise their own funds and pay a franchise fee to Head Office for use of the RSPCA logo. Meawhile the RSPCA is planning a 30 million plus new headquarters.....do the public know where their money is going.?

All in all, we believe that the RSPCA has long since lost its way and is becoming a draconian force for ill. Yet no-one seems to regulate them and no alarm bells ring within Government !

Interesting to note also that the head of the RSPCA itself, the head vet and the head of Freedom Foods are all called Grant, are they related.?

Yours Sincerely

The Animal Welfare Alliance

RSPCA RELEASE LIST OF NEW "TRAINEES"

AND WHAT ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE ???????

Twenty men and women are set to join the RSPCA’s 265-strong team of committed Inspectors fighting animal cruelty in England and Wales, following their graduation ceremony in West Sussex today (30 March).

The full list of graduate Inspectors is as follows, along with the district in which they will soon be covering for the RSPCA:

Suzie Smith - Worcestershire
Lewis Taylor - Essex
Helen Scott - Tyneside
Kristina Raine - Darlington
Dudley Clements - Somerset
Karen Colman - York
Emma Stainthorpe - Cleveland
Gemma Fowler - Leeds
Jennie Ronksley - South Yorkshire
Mark Roberts - North Wales
Kevin Lodge - London
Sarah Chambers - Derbyshire
Sarah Hetherington - Somerset
Adrian Langley - Worcester/Warwickshire
Aislinn Balderston - Cleveland
Zoe Ballard - Kent
Laura Bryant - Sussex
Leanna Rice - Surrey
Louise Labram - Birmingham
Tina Ward - Oxfordshire

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/rspca-royal-society-for-the-prevention-of-cruelty-to-animals/article/new-graduates-join-the-rspca-s-frontline-against-animal-crue

RSPCA ALL ABOUT MAKING MONEY

FORGET ANIMAL WELFARE, LETS MAKE MORE MONEY!

The first charity mobile phone network has been launched in the UK via AffordableMobiles which promises to give up to 15 per cent of every top up to the RSPCA.
This follows the trend of charity-backed banking cards like Cancer Research or MacMillan. AffordableMobiles says that customers can expect RSPCA mobile services to cover up to 99.8 per cent of the UK and to be cheaper than all major networks.
It is certain that this mobile virtual network operator piggybacks on the network of one of the five big guys. A text will cost you 5p while calls start from 7p per minute.
Interestingly, the cheapest top up is £2 which makes it worth it for anyone looking to keep a phone number active and is probably the cheapest way to get a phone number in the UK.
Affordablemobiles is also selling a number of PAYG phones with RSPCA Mobile topups like teh E1080 for £20. The company has also promised to give £1 for every new connection during May; that represents only a fraction of the commission that they stand to get going through a cashback company like Quidco.

http://www.itproportal.com/2012/05/09/rspca-backed-mobile-network-launched/

RSPCA PREPARES TO LICENSE PET OWNERS

Charity expands headcount with addition of licensing executive.

Animal welfare charity, the RSPCA, is continuing to grow its licensing team.
The firm has appointed Hannah Miller (pictured) to the newly created role of licensing executive. Miller will report to licensing manager, Cathy Snow.
Miller - who joins from sports development charity, Access Sport - will support the RSPCA's fast growing licensing campaign, with her remit including account administration, approvals and collecting royalties. She will also be the first point of contact for licensees and for general enquiries.

http://www.licensing.biz/news/9055/RSPCA-bolsters-licensing-team

RSPCA PUT DOWN 1 IN 5 "HOME FOR LIFE" PETS

An RSPCA ad campaign that offered to care for pets if their owner dies has escaped a ban, despite the charity admitting that almost one in five animals in the scheme are put down.
The RSPCA ran a TV and newspaper campaign for its free Home for Life service – featuring clip of a cat pawing at a window of an empty house and the story of a poodle called Pepe – which rehomes pets in the event an owner dies.
"When you pass away, you'll want to know that your pet is safe and happy," read one press ad. "We can help take care of your pet after you've gone. You'll rest in peace, knowing they're being looked after."
The Advertising Standards Authority received a complaint from a member of the public and Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming.
They argued that the RSPCA's advertising was misleading for not mentioning that it puts down some animals in its care.
The RSPCA admitted that in 2011 it had put down 10 of the 58, or 17.2%, of the animals taken in as part of its Home for Life service.
However, the organisation said that it strongly disagreed that the ads were misleading.
The RSPCA said that its ads did not give a cast-iron guarantee that a new home would be found; instead phrases such as "do all we can" and "we'll try our very best" were used.
It added that some animals were not able to be rehomed because of health problems, or because they had an "unsound or aggressive temperament". There were also legislative barriers regarding certain breeds such as pit bull terriers.
The ASA backed the RSPCA, concluding that members of the public should understand from the ads that it pledged to do its best to rehome pets.
"Because consumers would also understand that there might be instances when it would not be in an animal's best interests to be rehomed, which we also understood was the case, the ads did not breach the [advertising] code," said the ASA. "Ads for the RSPCA's Home for Life service [were] not found to be misleading for not explicitly stating that some animals were euthanised."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/22/rspca-home-for-life-ads-escape-ban?fb=optOut

Tuesday, 7 August 2012

RSPCA INVOLVED IN LEGALISED THEFT OF ANOTHER PET

THEY SHOULD BE THERE TO HELP NOT PROSECUTE

A MAN has been banned from owning pets after his dog was found badly malnourished and covered in fleas.
Scott Paterson, Colchester, neglected his German shepherd, Rocky, for three months.
When RSPCA inspectors found Rocky, he was distressed and scared, Colchester Magistrates’ Court heard.
Lauren Bond, prosecuting, said investigators took Rocky to the vet. She added: “The initial reaction of the dog when it was given food was one of confusion.
“The vet believed Rocky’s suffering had been going on for at least two to three months.”

Paterson had refused to hand over the dog to the RSPCA. It then called police, who seized the dog and placed him in the charity’s care.

The court heard it had not been possible to give Rocky a new home, since Paterson was still the legal owner. Paterson said he had never intended to hurt the dog and was incredibly sorry.
However, Dr Perkins-Van-Mil, chairman of the bench, had no hesitation in taking Rocky away from him at Friday’s hearing – banning him from owning any animal for five years He was also ordered he pay £500 towards the RSPCA’s costs in the case, which were said to be £2,587.

Lady luck says...
10:49pm Mon 30 Jul 12

This story may well be factual with regard to the dogs neglect but to describe the owner as cruel is dreadful!I've never met Scott in my life however I was at the magistrates court when he appeared there on Friday,this man was very upset about this situation, the fact that he had in effect lost the dog and how any punishment would impact on his child! What a sorry world we live in,society is oh so quick to judge,all this man actually needed was some support not condemnation! A £500 penalty doesn't change the dogs situation this man was mortified enough this just rubs salt in the wounds, no doubt as he struggled to find the money to pay this it will be his child that looses out,and once again we shall sit back as a society and judge him for that!

http://www.chelmsfordweeklynews.co.uk/news/colchester/9845044.RSCPA_prosecution_leads_to_pet_ban_for_cruel_dog_owner/