RSPCA POLICY NOT TO ACCEPT ABANDONED PETS

HOW THE RSPCA DEAL WITH LOST PETS

WHAT THE RSPCA DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW

Tuesday, 15 February 2011

PENSIONER ON BENEFITS REFUSED RESCUE CAT BY RSPCA

DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY RSPCA

John White, 62, has previously given a home to two RSPCA cats, but said when he visited the charity’s Paws Centre in Barrack Street, Norwich, intending to find another cat, he was told he would not be able to take one.
Mr White, who lives in Old Catton, said: “A woman there asked if I was on benefits, and I said I’m a pensioner and on housing benefit and council tax benefit, and she said ‘No, you can’t have a cat’.
“I think it’s disgusting: just because you’re on benefits it doesn’t mean you can’t look after a cat. I live alone so having a pet is good company for me.”

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich_man_on_benefits_refused_rspca_rescue_cat_1_796354

READERS COMMENTS

EVERYCAT
I hope that Mr White contacts the animal rescue groups in his area who are absolutely full of lovely cats needing good homes. These smaller rescues are being landed with all the animals that the RSPCA refuse to take in now. I wonder what the RSPCA actually do these days? They won't take in stray animals, they won't adopt out animals. They have an anti-pet agenda and now it looks like they have a discrimination agenda too. Mr White - please visit your local, independent animal shelters. They are crying out for good cat owners!
WENDY RICE
You can't have a cat because you live on benefits. Yet you can go out to work from 7am till 7pm 7 days a week, leaving your dog barking, howling and throwing itself at the wall. I cannot abide the RSPCA. talk about double standards.
JAY
well your damned if you work & damned if you don't! how many people have been refused because they work & they are out most of the day yet you can be a pensioner or on benefits at home & they still refuse you i think the rspca need to make their mind up on their rehoming policies
ANIMAL NUT
Well, the RSPCA are always bleating that they're overflowing with pets, and now I see why. Effectively they will ban any pensioner or anyone on benefits from adopting. I'm glad the Blue Cross didn't take that attitude when I, (a pensioner) adopted my two dogs!
JOHN NORTON
If this is true it amounts to discrimination against an elderly man because he lives on benefits. Just what has that got to do with it? Presumably he would have more time to care for the cat We are talking about a bloomin old cat here not some exotic wild animal. I think this needs some clarification from the RSPCA as to exactly why John was turned down?

RSPCA MAY CLOSE MARTLESHAM & FAIL TO PROTECT ANIMALS IN SUFFOLK

MARTLESHAM TO CLOSE FOLLOWING DROP IN DONATIONS TO USELESS RSPCA

The future of an RSPCA rescue centre in Suffolk is in jeopardy due to a funding crisis, The centre at Martlesham, which was set up in 1970 has only 80 days of funding left.
Although regulated by the RSPCA, the centre only receives minimal financial support from it.
The organisation, which has seen a drop in donations and legacies, is appealing for public support.

(AND IF THEY GET IT THEY WILL SPEND IT ON THEIR HEAD OFFICE, ADVERTISING, PROSECUTIONS AND BARRISTERS, NOT ANIMAL WELFARE)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-12425157

POLICE AND RSPCA TAKE NO ACTION FOLLOWING PIG KILLINGS
Mark Hayward had 18 of his animals killed and another 23 wounded.
“My main concern is that we highlighted a potential animal and neither the RSPCA or the police have been able to do anything.

http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/news/farmer_s_concern_after_pigs_killed_1_224199


PUPPY LEFT WITHOUT FOOD AND WATER IN POLICE CARE IN BURY ST EDMUNDS
THE RSPCA is investigating cops over claims a stray dog they took in was left without food or water for SEVEN days.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article266922.ece

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

RSPCA WORK, INSURANCE FIDDLE, MURDERERS, YOU COULDNT MAKE IT UP!

INSURANCE FRAUDSTER WORKING FOR RSPCA

FRAUDSTER! EXCELLENT CREDENTIALS TO WORK AT THE RSPCA
Canoe fiddle couple John and Anne Darwin are out of jail – but they’re now “dead” to each other and the sons they duped.
Yet they both looked well on day release from prison in the run-up to freedom.
He hid for five years after faking death in their £250,000 insurance scam.
But after 37 years’ marriage, the pair behind one of the most infamous crimes in recent history are heading for separate lives. She now refuses all contact with him, while the grown-up sons they also callously fooled have disowned them.
Anne, 59, given six years, six months, is due out in March and wants to go back to Panama, where they moved to. Seen working at an RSPCA shelter, she got a “full makeover” in jail from road-rage killer Tracie Andrews, 41.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/17/canoe-death-fiddle-couple-john-and-anne-darwin-let-out-of-jail-115875-22854475/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499265/Wife-dead-canoeist-faced-cash-probe-Panama-months-ago.html

RSPCA TARGET PENSIONERS IN ANTI COMPETITION SCAM

Verinica Mepham with rescued fox cub, the RSPCA would have added this to their 60,000 + animals they kill every year!

READER COMMENT
"I do not trust the RSPCA as far as I can throw them. I will not donate to their ever growing cash mountain that they already have stashed because I feel they are using it more and more for their bullyboy agendas (such as this). They have become more of the "animal police" rather than animal "welfare officers".


READER COMMENT

"But it has emerged those charges are to be withdrawn if the couple sign a legal agreement to shut Rescuers down.

So, a larger competitor shuts down a smaller rival with legal blackmail, and the courts agree?

Just another reason to never, ever, NEVER give any money to the RSPCA.
And the next chugger that accosts me in the High Street soliciting money on their behalf is going to get the shock of his or her life!"

READER COMMENT
"No longer will the RSPCA receive any funding from me. These people did the best they could with NO help from the RSPCA, If the RSPCA were being proactive they would have offered help and support. What happens now when wildlife needs help who do we turn to certainly not the RSPCA, they simply do not respond to calls. It means more suffering not less. The authorities have simply ground this couple down instead of trying to help. Shame on the RSPCA and other parties who could have tried to mediate in this case."



THE husband and wife team running a Benfleet animal sanctuary for 13 years have agreed to close it to avoid prosecution over animal cruelty allegations.

Veronica Mepham, 70, and husband Reinhard, 64, have begun rehoming animals and dismantling the Rescuers Animal Sanctuary they’ve run in Watlington Road, Benfleet, since 1997.
The couple were due to appear at Southend Magistrates’ Court yesterday to face 18 counts each of animal cruelty charges.
But it has emerged those charges are to be withdrawn if the couple sign a legal agreement to shut Rescuers down, which is expected to happen before a court date next month.
The charges related to not giving adequate veterinary treatment to a variety of injured animals and failing to put down four birds.
Other offences included keeping a fox and fox cub in unsuitable conditions, failing to stop a duck from suffering preventable injury, and failing to give a wood pigeon adequate food and veterinary care.
Mrs Mepham told the Echo she had agreed to close the sanctuary, but said this did not mean she or her husband were guilty.
She said: “We deny the allegations and would have fought them in court, but we could not get legal aid. We do not have the money for the case because it has all gone into the sanctuary.
“Our volunteers have supported us and would not have worked here if they had not been happy with the conditions.”
She added: “It is heartbreaking to do after caring for animals for so many years, but we have to return it to scrubland.”
The sanctuary provided owls for use in the Harry Potter films, while squirrels from the sanctuary also featured in the remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, starring Johnny Depp.
The Mephams live in a mobile home at the sanctuary and are likely to have to go on Castle Point Council’s housing waiting list once the sanctuary is closed.
The RSPCA, which has brought the case against the Mephams, said it was unable to comment.


http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/8797337.Benfleet_animal_sanctuary_will_have_to_close/

Friday, 7 January 2011

RSPCA; A CHARITY WITH TOO MUCH POWER, TOO RIGHT!


THE RSPCA


A charity with too much power?

I suspect that many readers of Shooting Times have enjoyed watching the current season of Garrow's Law on BBC One. For those who haven't had the chance to watch the series, it is a dramatisation of the life of William Garrow, an 18th century barrister who changed the face of criminal advocacy in his practice at the g Old Bailey. Despite its period setting, the programme has a lot to teach us about current legal issues that may impact on all fieldsports enthusiasts.
Garrow Law is set at a time when most prosecutions were brought privately. Victims who could afford to institute proceedings were often in a position to have defendants brought before the court in order to face hearings that a modern lawyer would not recognise as just or fair. Punishments were draconian. It was not uncommon for children found guilty of small thefts to be transported or even executed on the basis of evidence that amounted, in many cases, to no more than an accusation made by the person funding the prosecution.
William Garrow developed a new style of advocacy that began to introduce a level of fairness to criminal trials that we now take for granted. This brought him into direct conflict with the societies that had been formed in order to promote the public good by instituting criminal proceedings. Organisations such as the Society for the Reformation of Manners brought thousands of actions for brothel keeping and lewdness. It believed that the morals of the nation could best be improved by prosecuting individuals whose behaviour it found objectionable. The evidence provided by informers and reforming constables in the course of these prosecutions was generally regarded by the public as unreliable, but the zeal of those bringing the prosecutions ensured that they continued to be brought well into the early 19th century.
The period between the 1820s and the 1880s saw the formation of police forces across the country, and in 1880 the first director of public prosecutions was appointed. At around the same time, most reforming societies transferred their efforts to charitable works designed to help the poor rather than simply to prosecute them. The State gradually took over the prosecution of criminal offences, until, in 1985, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was formed in order to administer prosecutions brought by the Crown fairly and justly.
Interesting though this maybe, you are perhaps wondering what this has to do with shooting or any other fieldsport. The answer is that, though the CPS is responsible for most of the prosecutions in the criminal courts in England and Wales, there is one category of offence that the CPS rarely has anything to do with. Animal welfare cases tend to be brought by local authorities or the RSPCA.
The RSPCA began life in 1824 as the society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. From its genesis, the objectives of the society were education, promoting animal rights and prosecution. Over time, the society's prosecution function became nore important until, in 2008, it was spending in excess of million per annum on prosecutions and more than million per annum on its inspectorate, which has evolved into a sort of private police force.
Due to the huge resources available to the RSPCA, national and local authorities have become increasingly reliant on it to ensure that animal welfare laws are prosecuted. The RSPCA has taken on the role of investigating and prosecuting almost all offences alleged to take place in the home. It also provides support and assistance to local authorities investigating and prosecuting alleged offences that take place on farms and involves itself in the prosecution of some wildlife crime.
Troublesome points of law
There is little doubt that this works well when dealing with clear-cut cases of animal abuse, where the evidence is overwhelming and the offence might not otherwise be prosecuted. Much more troubling are some of the borderline and novel cases brought. by the RSPCA, and some of the practices that it has employed in enforcing the law. Cases include the prosecution of a 15-year-old girl whose father did not allow her to take her cat to a vet to mend its broken tail. The RSPCA appealed this case to the Divisional Court, despite the fact that the girl's father had pleaded guilty himself from the outset. Other cases have been brought against mentally ill defendants, two separate individuals accused of drowning grey squirrels and a number of defendants subsequequently acquitted accused of neglecting animals on the basis of evidence from a questionable veterinary opinion.
Some of the RSPCA’s recent methods have been called into question. It would appear that it has applied to the court for search warrants despite there being no lawful basis for it to do so; it has issued improvement notices that have no basis in law; and written to defendants, through its lawyers, giving misleading information regarding potential outcomes in criminal proceedings in order to avoid any waste of its own funds in the event that the defendants did not appear in court.
The reason why this should be of concern to fieldsports enthusiasts is that in the current climate of public spending cuts, cash-strapped local authorities may be tempted to allow the RSPCA to take over responsibility for animal welfare law on farms and in the countryside more generally, in the same way that it is now responsible for animal welfare law in the home. It would appear that the first steps towards this happening have already been taken. It is worth considering that the new Code of Practice for the Welfare of Gamebirds Reared for Sporting Pmposes and the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs have been drafted in contemplation of prosecutions under the 2006 Animal Welfare Act for failure to abide by the codes. Keepers and gundog breeders may like to consider how life would be in the event that the RSPCA takes over responsibility for ensuring that these codes are complied with.
The RSPCA opposes fieldsports and campaigns to have the law changed in order to outlaw the killing of wild animals and birds for sport. Should a campaigning charity be left to investigate and administer the law that it campaigns on? William Garrow was opposed to such an arrangement. This may be a good time for shooting groups, BASC, the Countryside Alliance and others to remind the Government that we live in a progressive age and that any return to an older style of prosecution familiar to Garrow will be vigorously resisted.
Jamie Foster is a solicitor-advocate at Clarke Willmott LLP specialising in animal welfare and fieldsports law.

Wednesday, 15 December 2010

COURT OF APPEAL STATE THAT "RSPCA's CONDUCT HAS BEEN REGRETTABLE"


RSPCA BLOW £ MILLIONS OF HARD EARNED DONATIONS ON LEGAL FEES FIGHTING GILL CASE

Donations intended to help animals not pay lawyers

Excellent. Perhaps people will now wake up and see what the RSPCA are really about and stop donating to them.

Sheer utter greed that made Dr Gills life hell.
RSPCA - an animal welfare organisation that admits in their own trustee report to killing over 63,000 animals in 2009.
£120m a year in donations and still scrounging. Remember that those donations go to the fat cats in HQ and not to the centres which are independently franchised businesses.
RSPCA HQ should be ashamed but they won't as they don't have a conscience between them down there in their luxury offices.
Congratulations Dr Gill.
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8736889.RSPCA_S_court_fight_over___2_4m_will__regrettable_/

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/7951/court_gives_reasons_for_dismissing_rspca_appeal

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

GREEDY RSPCA LOSE GILL APPEAL, AND EVEN MORE DONATIONS



Jubilant Christine Gill after winning appeal

Who is picking up the tab for the courts costs? £120m in a year in donations and still scrounging. This money does not go the the branches, which are all independent franchised businesses responsible for their own fundraising

In 2009 the RSPCA killed a total of 63,000 animals - a rise of over 3000 on the previous year. Nice to know how your donations are spent

trickie43, coundon says...

excellent outcome , shame the RSPCA found it nessesary to spent so much money chasing their tale, still for just £2.00 a month we can all contibute to the court costs....


smokin, dh65hw says...
this has made my night these greedy people were trying to take away a daughters right to her mothers property and I hope that the costs come out of the RSPCA and not the tax payer

Cosmos, says...
It beggars belief that the RSPCA refused to accept the legal judgement in this case. This latest debacle threatens the financial future of many charities. Not only will it ensure that more people will stop donating to this greedy organisation it will also deter many from donating to those charities which supported this action. I would like to know how much more of the general public's hard-earned cash has gone on this latest appeal on top of the £1.3million costs from the previous hearings.

queenie1, Birmingham says...
Heartiest congratulations to Dr Gill and the very sensible Judge in this case. I am absolutely thrilled that it's all behind her now and that she and her son can now enjoy the farm that is so rightfully theirs.
Shame on the greedy RSPCA for pursuing this, they've put Dr Gill through a great deal of worry and anguish. I hope they will at least, have the grace to apologise, and let this be a lesson not to try to grab other people's inheritances.

simmo3578, newton aycliffe says...
they wont get a penny from me ever again, air ambulance ( which should be funded from the taxpayer and shouldn`t have to beg for clothes to sell) and any heart/cancer charity.
agreed,,,i always give the air ambulance. but now the greedy rspca get nowt. fact.

billysaid, aycliffe says...
ps,,,if they can afford to persue a case through the high courts,,,,then they obviousley do not need my,or anyone elses contributions. that is a fact.

Colcat, Teesside says...


billysaid wrote: ps,,,if they can afford to persue a case through the high courts,,,,then they obviousley do not need my,or anyone elses contributions. that is a fact.
No it's not - it's a supposition. That's a fact.
I have found that the RSPCA as an organisation is not particularly in favour of the best interests of animals, and have expressed this opinion before. I also believe them to be money grabbing, which this case has demonstrated. Instead of giving anything to them, I prefer to give to SARA. (I do agree that GNAA is also a worthy charity, but also believe it should be state funded.)

neilt63, toft hill says...


How fitting that Christine got her family farm back, the RSPCA should be ashamed of themselves, whoever decided to challenge the courts decision should resign immediately. I wonder how big that salary reduction would be? It's also nice to see that some of the courts do live in the "same world" as us

smokin, dh65hw says...


colcat you are right when you say they don't have the best interests of animals at heart
a friend of mine phoned them one day to tell them that she had found a full litter of puppies they told her to open the gate and let them out and the dog catcher will pick them up they were only a month old
I adopted one who turned out to be a Presa Canario (as was the full litter) a most beautifull dog
(why they were abandoned is a very sad story better left for another time)
but needless to say all the puppies were found homes by this lady and she immediately withdrew her direct debit donation which was £2.00 per month and she had donated this for years they are just greedy people not caring at all

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8710884.Second_day_of_appeal_over___2m_RSPCA_will/
http://rspcanotwhattheyseem.blogspot.com/2010/11/rspca-fraudsters-lose-gill-case.html


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/30/rspca-loses-appeal-will-ruling