RSPCA UK's 3rd MOST COMPLAINED ABOUT CHARITY

 Britain’s biggest animal welfare charity is one of the country's most complained about charities, figures from charities regulator suggest.

The Charity Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales, disclosed that it has received 12 complaints about the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals over the past two years.

The RSPCA has been criticised by a judge and reported to the Commission by MPs and peers for controversially funding a successful £326,000 prosecution against Prime Minister David Cameron’s local hunt last month.

In a Freedom of Information response, the Commission said it recorded 12 complaints against the RSPCA, behind only the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the HFSH Charitable Trust, a spiritual healers charity, with 13 “cases” each, in the two years until March 31 2012.

Referring specifically to the RSPCA, the Commission said it had “received complaints from different members of the public, primarily about the service provided by the charity, the charity’s activities or general decisions taken by the trustees in the course of their day to day management of the charity”.

It added: “In all instances the Commission felt that the complaints were best addressed by explaining its role and providing general advice and guidance to the complainants on the charity’s position. "In certain cases the complainants were advised to contact the trustees directly.”

Simon Hart MP, a former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance who obtained the figures under the FOI Act, said: “No animal based charity should the subject of so many complaints.
“It suggests a loss of direction and leadership, and a focus on political ideology at the expense of animal welfare.”
The figures were issued by the Charity Commission to Mr Hart last July, several months before a judge criticised the charity for the “staggering” cost of the prosecution against members of the Heythrop Hunt in Oxfordshire.
The MPs and peers have reported the RSPCA’s 18 trustees to the Charity Commission last month for breaching a “duty of prudence” which governs the actions of all charity trustees under charity legislation.
The group – which includes Tory grandee Lord Heseltine – also told the watchdog that they had “concerns about the motivation for bringing this prosecution”.
A spokesman for the RSPCA said: “The RSPCA is unique among charities in England and Wales. No other charity can claim to campaign for legislative change, and then to uphold the very laws that it fought for with such dedication.
“Throughout our history, the RSPCA has never and will never shy away from making decisions that we believe further the cause of prevention of cruelty to animals – no matter how unpopular they may prove with some people.
“It goes without saying that many of the decisions we make will upset those who believe they can break the law and get away with it.
“We make no apology for that. Our ‘raison d'etre’ is to be the voice and protector of animals that cannot protect themselves.”
A spokesman for the Commission said: “We do not keep league tables in relation to complaints which we receive about charities. Large national charities which are membership organisations like the RSPCA invariably have a high public profile and do attract public attention.
“Many concerns which may be raised with the Commission about the way the charity conducts its affairs are not matters for the Commission as charity regulator as they are matters for the charity itself.
“Trustees are permitted to exercise their duties and responsibilities in the best interests of the charity as they think fit. The Commission would only be concerned as regulator where a charity was in clear breach of its duties and responsibilities as a charity.
“This would not include interfering with decisions made by the charity where these have been properly made.
“Ultimately trustees are responsible for running the charity and for dealing with any reputational issues which might arise.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9783676/RSPCA-is-one-of-Britains-most-complained-about-charities.html

RSPCA SPEND £326K ON PROSECUTION CASE, BUT CLOSE PRESTON BRANCH DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS

A local branch of the RSPCA is facing closure due to lack of funds, despite its head office spending hundreds of thousands of pounds successfully prosecuting Prime Minister David Cameron's local hunt.

David Cameron pays a visit to the Heythrop Hunt

 The animal welfare charity's branch in Preston, Lancashire - which costs just £600 a day to run - has said that it only has enough money left to stay open for another two months.

The RSPCA's national office said last night that it said it would not step in to pay for the running costs of the Preston branch because it was a separate charity and urged people to donate to it directly.

The news will alarm animal welfare campaigners because the weeks after Christmas can be busy for animal rescue centres as it is the time when families who bring back unwanted pets which were given as presents.

If the 126-year-old branch is forced to close, there are fears that hundreds of abandoned pets could have to be rehoused.

The RSPCA has been under fire after a judge criticised the charity for sanctioning a “staggering” £326,000 to be spent on a prosecution against members of the Heythrop Hunt in Oxfordshire, with which David Cameron has ridden in the past.

The MPs and peers have reported the RSPCA’s 18 trustees to the Charity Commission for breaching a “duty of prudence” which governs the actions of all charity trustees under charity legislation.
The group – which includes Tory grandee Lord Heseltine – also told the watchdog that they had “concerns about the motivation for bringing this prosecution”.
Tory MP Simon Hart, a former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said last night that it was “very sad” that a branch which daily cared for sick and injured animals was potentially closing down weeks after the prosecution.
He told The Daily Telegraph: “It is very sad that pets are going uncared for due to lack of funds at the same time as the Charity spends a third of a million on a case that will not save the life of a single fox.
“There is a huge difference between being an animal welfare organisation, which the RSPCA used to be famous for, and an animal rights one, which is what the society is fast becoming.”
The RSPCA declined to say whether its national office, which last year received £100million in donations, would intervene to stop the Preston branch from closing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9776275/Local-RSPCA-branch-to-close-despite-head-office-spending-326k-prosecuting-David-Camerons-local-hunt.html

RSPCA BEING DESTROYED BY MILITANTS

The animal welfare organisation has badly lost its way under its new leadership

Where is your money going? The RSPCA often brings cases of animal cruelty, including hunting, to court.

One must always treat lawyers with respect, so let me state at once that I have absolutely nothing against Jeremy Carter-Manning QC. From his entry in Who’s Who, I see that he was educated at St Paul’s School, called to the Bar nearly 40 years ago, and that his recreations include “food and wine”, which he pursues in the Reform Club. I have no doubt he is esteemed in his profession.

Most of us might have passed our entire lives without ever hearing of Mr Carter-Manning QC, were it not for a bill submitted for his costs at Bicester magistrates’ court last month. He charged £73,310.80 plus VAT. (His two fellow counsel added another £90,000.) Mr Carter-Manning’s services cost £300 an hour, so I calculate that he worked for roughly 244 hours on this case.

What was he doing? According to Gavin Grant, the chief executive of the RSPCA, which hired him, he was watching “hundreds of hours of footage” of the Heythrop Hunt to see if offences had been committed under the Hunting Act. Eventually, the RSPCA brought 52 charges against four hunt members. Two were acquitted, but two pleaded guilty to four charges of hunting a wild mammal with dogs, a charge so minor that it is classified as “non-recordable”. They – and the hunt corporately – were fined a total of less than £7,000.

The costs that the RSPCA submitted to the court were £326,000. The district judge, who rejected the RSPCA’s attempt to conceal this amount from public gaze, described them as “quite staggering”. Despite the RSPCA “winning”, the charity therefore had to pay most of them itself.

As I say, no blame attaches to Mr Carter-Manning QC. He must live. If he can get £300 an hour for staring at grainy amateur film to see if hounds are chasing after foxes, good luck to him. But the more one reflects on this enterprise, the more extraordinary it is.  

Charities must, by law, act prudently with their funds. The RSPCA often brings cases of animal cruelty to court, and since it regards hunting as cruel, this comes within its remit. But Mr Grant himself says that his organisation brought 2,000 prosecutions last year, at a total cost of £5 million, an average of £2,500 a go. If each of these 2,000 cases had cost the same as the Heythrop case, the RSPCA would have spent approximately £660 million on them – way beyond the means of any charity in the entire history of the planet.
So why, in terms of animal cruelty, was the Heythrop Hunt case considered more than 100 times more important than the torture of a pony, or the starvation of a cat, or alsatians, overcrowded and filthy, locked in a tower block all day, or all the other horrible things that human beings do to animals?
It wasn’t, of course. Even a fierce opponent of hunting could not make that claim. The difference is political. Under Mr Grant, who took over last year, the RSPCA is militant. The Heythrop Hunt was chosen because its country is in David Cameron’s constituency. Mr Grant has denied that he is fighting a class war: “This isn’t about accents,” he declared. But he also said to the Daily Mirror that those hunting with the Heythrop were “no different from badger baiters – apart from their accents”, so accents would seem to be on his mind. He says he wants the men to go to prison for between two and five years.
As you would expect, the RSPCA has its own legal department, well-versed, presumably, in looking at film of alleged animal cruelty. But that wasn’t good enough for Mr Grant. He had to get the QC in and pay him to watch the movies. He wanted this to be big.
A similar tendency to go for the dramatic gesture was visible when Mr Grant called for a boycott of all milk produced by farmers who had agreed to take part in the badger cull (later postponed) to help eradicate bovine – and badger – TB. People would not want to buy milk from farms “soaked in badgers’ blood”, he said. In Ramsgate, in September, RSPCA inspectors, worried about defective live animal transport, insisted on unloading sheep at the port and shooting more than 40 that they deemed unfit to travel. Two sheep also drowned in a water tank. Mr Grant has defended what the inspectors did, without qualification.
He is entitled to his views. But when you look at the main work for which the RSPCA is valued, you see that it is overwhelmingly the practical rescue and care of animals. On its website, the emphasis is on this good work, and on practical advice about disease, strays, worming etc. The RSPCA’s key “five pledges” do not mention prosecutions.
Because of its care of animals, the RSPCA is treated in a special way. Its inspectors wear uniforms, though they have no legal powers. Chief constables encourage its prosecution work. And – a little known fact – if the RSPCA brings a case and loses it, the costs of the defendants are usually borne by the taxpayer. So the RSPCA can prosecute almost without thinking. It can go to law as a marketing tool or to make a political point.
This is an abuse of the privileges our culture has traditionally granted it. These, including its many legacies, its charitable status and the patronage of the Queen, came because the RSPCA was an animal welfare organisation – and people strongly support that. Recently, it has become an animal rights organisation instead.
The doctrine of animal rights, developed by Dr Richard Ryder, who is on the RSPCA Council, regards human beings as morally identical to “other animals”, so they should never kill animals for food or clothing, let alone sport. Dr Ryder thinks that people who disagree are guilty of “speciesism”, which, like racism, is profoundly wicked. Mr Grant is highly sympathetic to these views. A former Liberal Democrat activist, he sees his work as a political campaign. This alienates large numbers of people – farmers, horse-racing bodies, dog organisations – who work professionally with animals, not to mention officials and ministers at Defra. Owen Paterson, the Secretary of State, recently told the RSPCA to be “wary” of muddling charity and politics. Relationships which once were co-operative have become confrontational.
People are naturally starting to ask by what right the RSPCA acts. Despite its policy of never killing a “rehousable” animal, it admits to putting down 3,400 animals for non-medical reasons in 2011. Its membership has fallen to only 25,000. This is a tenth of the numbers who turn out to support hunts on Boxing Day and a fortieth of the membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Whom, then, does it actually represent? The RSPCA website does little to attract members, as opposed to donations. It looks as if it likes to trade on its huge, historic reputation, without answering to anyone.
Over 30 years ago, a comparable takeover occurred in the Labour Party. A mass movement originally designed to advance the interests of workers was infiltrated by the Militant Tendency. Today, a movement originally designed to advance the interests of animals hangs in the balance.
By the way, I notice a postscript on the bill submitted to Bicester magistrates’ court. “Counsel,” it says, “have carried out and will carry out other work in relation to this type of prosecution in general.” If you are thinking of giving money to the RSPCA, you might as well cut out the middle man and send it straight to Mr Jeremy Carter-Manning QC instead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9780817/Our-once-great-RSPCA-is-being-destroyed-by-a-militant-tendency.html

PETITION LAUNCED AGAINST RSPCA BULLY BOYS

We ask the government to investigate the RSPCA's activities, especially where they infringe civl or legal rights.

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The RSPCA use "bully boy" tactics against innocent members of the public to bring prosecutions. They often infringe on citizens civil and legal rights.
They misuse funds which have been donated by members of the public specifically for animal welfare for their own political gain in bringing these often vexatious prosecutions. This petition asks that the government investigate fully the actions of the RSPCA, ensure that they are unable to prosecute anyone as that is the remit of the CPS and ensure tighter rules are in place from the charities commission to prevent registered charities from using funds for political lobbying or bringing private prosecutions.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807

RSPCA BREAK CHARITY RULES

RSPCA trustees 'broke charity rules' over David Cameron hunt prosecution

Trustees of the RSPCA broke charity rules by sanctioning a £300,000 prosecution of David Cameron’s local hunt, according to a cross-party group of MPs and peers including Lord Heseltine, the former Cabinet minister.

David Cameron pays a visit to the Heythrop Hunt

 The politicians have reported the RSPCA to the Charity Commission for breaching a “duty of prudence” that governs their actions.

The group, which includes Simon Hart, the Conservative MP, Kate Hoey, the Labour MP, Mark Williams, the Liberal Democrat MP, and Baroness Mallalieu, told the watchdog that they had “concerns about the motivation for bringing this prosecution”.

They described the £326,000 cost of bringing the private prosecution against members of the Heythrop Hunt in Oxfordshire as “staggering” and urged William Shawcross, the chairman of the Commission, to investigate.

The Prime Minister, whose Witney consitituency covers Heythrop, rode with the hunt before the hunting ban was introduced by Labour in 2005.

Earlier this week, District Judge Tim Pattinson questioned the amount of donors’ money spent on bringing the successful private prosecution.

He suggested that “members of the public may feel that RSPCA funds can be more usefully employed”. The hunt and its members were fined £6,800 after admitting four charges of unlawfully hunting a wild fox with dogs. The judge drew attention to the fact that the private prosecution cost nearly 10 times more than the defence costs of £35,000.
The MPs and peers quoted his comments and questioned why the RSPCA engaged three barristers and a solicitors’ firm called Fishburns, “a London-based specialist law firm providing legal services to the insurance and reinsurance markets”. The firm was “engaged despite the fact that the RSPCA has its own in-house legal department”, the group said in the letter, which has been seen by The Daily Telegraph.
They added: “We believe that this 'staggering’ expenditure constitutes a clear breach of the 'duty of prudence’ by the trustees of the RSPCA in that it cannot possibly be argued that charitable funds and assets have been used reasonably.”
The “duty of prudence” aims to conserve the property of the trust. It is not a duty set out in the Charities Act 2006 or any other statute, but reflects principles defined through cases dealt within the courts. The group’s concern was that “if the prosecution was justified exactly the same result could have been achieved for a fraction of the cost with prudent management”.
They added: “Instead hundreds of thousands of pounds donated to the RSPCA by members of the public have been squandered unnecessarily on lawyers’ fees. This is all the more relevant given that the evidence obtained by the RSPCA was never even passed to the CPS, which might well have chosen to prosecute in the normal way, had the public interest requirement been met. We ask that you urgently investigate our complaint and ensure that the charity deals with future legal expenditure more prudently.”
The Charity Commission, which regulates the activities of charities, said that any action taken after a breach of charity rules “would depend on the circumstances of the case”.
A spokesman added: “Undertaking prosecutions is in furtherance of the RSPCA’s charitable objects and is made clear to the public on their website.
“It is for trustees to consider the matter of bringing prosecutions in accordance with these duties and any other requirements which might apply, and for them to consider the issue of costs.”
On Friday night the RSPCA said its trustees had done nothing wrong and it was in the public interest for the Heythrop Hunt to be prosecuted. A spokesman added: “We recognise the pressures on the police force, who rightly look to the RSPCA as experts in animal welfare matters.
“We would of course be delighted if the police were in a position to take on investigations of this kind and examine evidence of the complexity and scale of that relating to the Heythrop Hunt case.”
The spokesman said that the Charity Commission’s chief executive, Sam Younger, gave his blessing to the leadership of Gavin Grant, the RSPCA’s chief executive, at a meeting earlier this year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9761645/RSPCA-trustees-broke-charity-rules-over-David-Cameron-hunt-prosecution.html#

CHARITY IN TURMOIL AS PUBLIC ABANDON RSPCA IN DROVES

I thought that the RSPCA destroying animals it can no longer care for was common knowledge. The Dogs Trust make it pretty clear in their advertisements that 'no health animal is destroyed'. I once went to the Leeds RSPCA to adopt a dog, but was told we lived too far away, so went to the Dogs Trust instead (even further away!) and adopted a Chow Chow and then a year or so later a deaf Old English Sheepdog from the OES rescue centre in Horncastle, Lincolshire. I used to donate via DD to the RSPCA but stopped it years ago as they lost their way in pet care.

- fforvessent, Leeds, 30/12/2012 9:49

I am cancelling my subscription wow just wow these dogs have nobody and now they're killing them? Vile people

- tilly, manchester, 30/12/2012 9:18

 

 I will never give them a penny, the shameless prosecution of the hunt and their money grabbing action over a legacy has done for me. Wind them up and start again with new management.

- Pip, Peterborough UK, 30/12/2012 9:18

 

I am sure everyone cancelling their contributions will really help avoid this in the future.......

- baboon, Cheshire, 30/12/2012 9:17

 

I stopped donating when the RSPCA refused to answer my emails about halal slaughter. All the big charities are corrupt and run like businesses (in my opinion). I did voluntary work for a big charity and once asked for a new blade for a saw I was cutting branches with (£3.50). The bosses who where all driving top of the range BMWs and 4x4s told me there was no budget for saw blades snf I haven't been asked to work since.

- Jock, Glasgow, 30/12/2012 9:13

 

I donate sometimes to the PDSA but never to the RSPCA. When we needed help on a Boxing Day for our sick dog, the RSPCA refused to help. The PDSA vet was at the local surgery and saw us within an hour. For that, I thank them. The RSPCA seem quite happy to take people to court but not to offer advice and help where needed.

- Spooki, Bournemouth, 30/12/2012 9:07

 

The RSPCA coffers are overflowing, the Icelandic Banking Crash highlighted this. They don't want t waste their money gathered from old ladies, wills and deluded animal lovers, keeping animals alive. Never ever give to this lot, the execs earn more than the poor man on callout. Something has to be done though about the roaming strays be it cat, dog, fish or fowl.

- Arkley Barnet, Back Home at last but watching, New Zealand, 30/12/2012 9:03

 

cast your mind back to a guy in Northumberland had his name splashed all over the papers he was a licensed slaughter man his crime PUTTING GREYHOUNDS DOWN WITH A BOLT GUN HUMMMM INTERESTING THEY SEEM TO HAVE LAW FOR THEMSELVES AND NOT OTHERS . TOTAL WASTE OF SPACE I NEVER GIVE MONEY TO THEM

- smartie22, penkridge, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 9:00

 

By destroying animals it gives the RSPCA more money to waste on court cases. I wont be donating in the future.

- brian, Blandford, 30/12/2012 9:00

 

Known about this for years. I wouldn't give them a a penny, I prefer to support Cats Protection and the Donkey Sanctuary.

- Caz56, London, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 8:54

 

Have donated to RSPCA for past 6 years via monthly direct debit genuinely thought all money was going towards preventing healthy dogs and cats from being destroyed, If this story is an accurate account of what is going on then I will have no hesitation in cancellling any further payments, and am sure many more readers are feeling the same.

- cgb, up north, 30/12/2012 8:52

 

 

Wouldn't give them a penny! The dogs trust is far more worthy of my donation.

- Do Good things, feel good., Sussex UK, 30/12/2012 8:45

 I have just cancelled my direct debit to the RSPCA of £50 per month & will never donate to them again..

- Bob Mugabe, This doomed country, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 8:38

 This is why I never give anything to the RSPCA. They are bullies who do very little for real animal suffering and cruelty.

- NairobiGirl, Wiltshire, 30/12/2012 8:19

 

I'd rather support a local animal charity. I lost all respect for the RSPCA when I realised they could afford to pay chuggers to knock on people's doors in the evening.

- Naaman, London, 30/12/2012 8:18

 

The RSPCA will no longer get my donation!!

- linda, South Tyneside, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 7:59

 

so I help pay towards killing healthy animals? disgusted, I will find another animal charity to donate to

- Yaz, Brum, 30/12/2012 7:43

 

They've got a better record than PETA who kill over 85% of the animals they "rescue". I no longer give to the RSPCA since the blessed Tony Bleedin' Blair politicised them and gave them draconian "powers" which thy now grossly abuse.

- The Punisher, Darlington ENGLAND, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 2:01

 

The RSPCA is one charity Iwill not donate to, their methods and policies need looking at. They waste their donations.

- MIke, cyprus, Cyprus, 30/12/2012 7:01

 

went off the RSPCA a few years ago, due to this kind of thing, dont support them at all now. Prefer to support other more humane charities.

- tinkerbelle, lalaland, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 7:00

 

I gave to this "charity" every month for 20 years in the belief i was helping fight animal cruelty,in the last 5years they just bombarded my letter box with the most horrific pictures of animal cruelty, if this was meant to solicit more money i'm afraid it had the opposite effect and i cancelled the direct debit FOREVER!

- Lazyboy, Bucks, 30/12/2012 6:58

 

Wow I am disgusted!! I am not spending about more money on this pathetic charity poor animals I can't believe it

- tilly, manchester, 30/12/2012 6:15

 

Well. The end of the year is here. Time to decide once again who my charitable donations go to for the New Year. I have always and traditionally supported two - the MacMillan Nurses and the RSPCA. Guess who wont be on the list for 2013?

- realist, London, 30/12/2012 6:10

 

NO WAY WOULD I DONATE TO THIS SO CALLED " CHARITY " - ALL THE TOP EXECUTIVES AND MANAGEMENT ARE OF RIDICULOUSLY BLOATED SALARY PACKAGES - THAT IS WHY IT IS CHEAPER TO KILL ANIMALS RATHER THAN HAVE THE COST OF LOOKING AFTER THEM, SO THERE IS MORE MONEY IN THE POT FOR THE TOP DOGS ( NO PUN INTENDED) Most of the money we send in to help never gets near the saving of animals - check out the finance of this " Charity" you will see what I mean !!

- Clive Smith, The North, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 3:58

 

My donations to the RSPCA will cease with immediate effect - I shall urge other donors known to me to consider this report and also withdraw their funding. We'll see how the dole queue suits these 'animal care' charlatans.

- D Bates, North East England, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 3:41

never now give to the RSPCA . There policy of homing animals is too arbitrary, we got out kittens from a private seller as they would not entertain us potential owners as both my husband and I worked and w had children! !! Our children love our cats have been taught how to care who something other than themselves which I feel is so important in a child development. They did not help when I found a stray cat it was the Cat protection league that offered the best advice. Friends who have had dogs all there lives were put off. Getting a dog from them. Even friends who wanted save rabbits and guinea received patronising advice, All went via the private market to get their pets No wonder they have to put animals down. There are a lot of horrible people out there that are evil to animals but the RSPCA treat everyone like animal abusers. Animals miss out on loving homes as a result.

- Marie, Southampton, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 3:30

 

This is disgusting I heard about this before but didn't believe it,I will not be giving any money to them any more,my money will go to no kill shelters

- kathy57, Luxembourg, 30/12/2012 3:22

this is why I stopped donating to the RSPCA almost 5 years ago. I will give my money to people who will use it to HELP the cause it's intended for, and not for their fancy, misleading adverts on TV or to pay for the hundreds of solicitors they use to take pensioners to court for having 8 cats in a house. My money goes to 2 animal charities that welcome spontaneous visits, don't have a facade and most importantly never put an animal down unless it's a genuine last resort. The sooner the RSPCA stops being the flagship of animal charities, the better.

- Somewhat-startled, London, 30/12/2012 2:01

 

Do not give anything to the RSPCA.Their are plenty of true caring charities deserving more for our contributions such as The dogs trust and the PDSA along with many many local charities and rehoming centres. I AM SO ANGRY A BOLT GUN IS USED ON POOR HEALTHY ANIMALS ENTRUSTED TO THEIR CARE. BOYCOTT RSPCA and place the money elsewhere as they run more like a cruel calculating business than a caring charity. How much does the CEO earn again?

- Marple, Milton keynes, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 1:47

 

I have decided to cancel all monthly direct debits from our family. This is disgusting :(

- Skorpio311, Kilmarnock, 30/12/2012 1:46

 

Do yourselves a favour: before you donate another brass farthing to this organisation Google some of the horror stories about their behaviour. Yes there are people who shouldn't be allowed to keep animals, but have a look at what the RSPCA do before you decide to give them your support and your money...

- David, Hampshire, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 1:40

I wouldn't give any money to the RSPCA as I don't believe they do what they say! They do not care!!

- LB, London, 30/12/2012 1:38

 

Dont give another penny to this charity, this charity takes a huge amount of money, what for to destroy healthy animals because they cannot be bothered to rehome them. Makes a total mockery of their TV adverts. To want to prosecute an elderly man just because he wanted to be with his pet till the end. What do the RSPCA think they now are the 'animal police'. Give your money to other charities, there are lots of local rescue centres that need help. The PDSA always need funds they just treat pets. And don't ever believe any RSPCA's cute puppy adverts ever again. Good on you Dawn for blowing the whistle on that foul lot.

- Ramona, Montrose, 30/12/2012 1:38

This is sad. I've sent money to the RSPCA in the past in the belief that it would prevent rescued animals from being put down for no reason. Now I know this, they won't be getting any more contributions from me in future.

- ali, leeds, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 0:52

 

This is nothng new. Ive been aware of this for years. This is why I wont donate money to the RSPCA as they are pet killers.

- dcems, carrick, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 0:51

 

Yet they could afford to spend £300,000+ in legal fees on prosecuting a hunt. And their new HQ is VERY smart indeed. As is the CEO's Rolls-Royce. Hypocrites.

- Nyree13, Guildford, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 0:51

 

RSPCA won`t get a penny from me in future. I will donate to animal rescue centres instead.

- Val Clifford, West Midlands, 30/12/2012 0:51

 

I am changing my donation to the Dogs Trust if they take strays and will not euthanise animals, I never were a fan of the RSPCA, they have turned into a business rather than the charity it started out with. When the chief vet said they alway try to rehome but cant keep up, theres a simple solution, stop paying your CEO and senior managers on the same league table as bankers and hospitals and you should find more money for the animals, the recent case of £350k spend on a court case is a prime example of how arrogant this or became.

- dims, London, 30/12/2012 0:51

 

The RSPCA has been subverted into a quasi judicial prosecution "authority", they spent 10 million pounds on a new headquarters. They are nothing more than an animal rights protest group now and I fully agree that they no longer deserve the prefix Royal. I will never give them a penny.

- Tim Stubbins, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 0:45

 

I am shocked, deffo not giving them anymore money

- tilly, manchester, 30/12/2012 0:40

 

 

There will be NO more donations from me !!! SHAME ON THE RSPCA !!! Today you can look for new owners all over the UK or even Europe with the help of the internet and facebook or give them to foster homes. facebook seems to work best and the fastest, I have seen it with Whippets and Greyhounds ! STOP THE KILLING !!!

- MARKUS, LONDON UK, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 0:37

 

We found a healthy 14 year old cat. The RSPCA were going to destroy it to save money. Bella lived for another 3 years. They will not get a penny from me from now on.

- Davy Crockett, No Hope, 30/12/2012 0:29

 

They aren't getting another penny from me now.

- Jimbob, London, 30/12/2012 0:28

 

What's the point in donating my hard earned pounds to the RSPCA to provide a fighting fund for the legal profession when I could give to a local animal rescue home which isnt political & has my interests closer to heart? The RSPCA ought to redefine to us what it stands for so that the public can have a more informed choice about where they direct their charitable giving..

- Trumpton, Wakefield, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 0:27

 

Disgraceful ! That is the last donation they get from me !

- Trevor, Ipswich, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 0:26

 

Under no circumstances will the RSPCA get another penny from me or my family. Disgusting.

- mo, carlisle, United Kingdom, 30/12/2012 0:25

 

This is why i have never give them money and never will, Most of the money goes in the big bosses pockets.

- FedupofUK, Cornwall, United Kingdom, 29/12/2012 23:30

 

I do not donate to buy gun bolts !

- Solomon, Everywhere, 29/12/2012 23:30

 

Disgusting! If you donate to the RSPCA then please stop, make your donations to either the PDSA or The Dogs Trust instead, I know that's what I'll be doing after reading that!

- Craig D, Bradford West Yorkshire, United Kingdom, 29/12/2012 23:29

 

Last time I give money to the RSPCA

- Used to be conceited, But now I am perfect, United Kingdom, 29/12/2012

 

The RSPCA wastes vast amounts of money on posh uniforms, expensive offices and overpaid officials, plus it spends vast amount pursuing fox hunters. The RSPCA has become not only a political tool of the looney left but also a jobs-for-the-boys activist gravy train. It has millions in the bank, yet claims it has to kill perfectly healthy animals, so it can pursue its political agenda. Do not donate money to the RSPCA.

- Internetcynic, Lincoln, United Kingdom, 29/12/2012 23:22

 

Well done Nick Craven and Lynne Wallis for being brave enough to expose what some of us have known for years. Just hope now that people will STOP donating to this treacherous money making machine and give it to smaller animal charities who struggle so hard to survive and DON'T drive around in flash cars and work in state of the art offices!

- Sally, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 29/12/2012 23:19

 

Not getting my money you twisted rspca thugs.

- bonkers, yorkshire, 29/12/2012 23:17

 

I won't be donating another penny to the RSPCA!

- Chelseagirl, Leeds, 29/12/2012 23:14

 

I found this out some time ago and stopped my contributions. Dogs Trust now gets my support ..... they NEVER put down a healthy animal.

- Lee, London, 29/12/2012 23:13

 

I would never give a penny tho this organisation since they began spending millions challenging family members over the wills of people who were deluded enough to think they were worth leaving huge bequests to.

- LaBelle, antrim, United Kingdom, 29/12/2012 23:10

 

The end. No more money from me all future donations to a more a better cause. You have let animal lovers down

- alywags0161, manchester, 29/12/2012 23:10

 

 

Over the last 20 years the RSPCA has been transformed into a left leaning political pressure group. If you think it rescues distressed animals think again. If you want to give to an animal charity then give to almost anyone else except the RSPCA.

- rob boberts, worcester., 29/12/2012 23:03

 

I would never and know plenty of other people who refuse to donate to the RSPCA. This has been known for some time.

- jackie russell, yorkshire, 29/12/2012 22:55

 

I would never support the RSPCA. There are many more animal rescue charities in the country that work very hard with volunteers and do a much better job. The RSPCA is all about money and chasing easy targets for prosecution whilst real animal cruelty is ignored.

- Lor Delpus, Sunnysideofthestreet, 29/12/2012 22:55

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254729/RSPCA-destroys-HALF-animals-rescues--thousands-completely-healthy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

RSPCA ABUSE DONATORS FUNDS

Officially, the ‘P’ in RSPCA stands for ‘prevention’. It is — is it not? — the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
But might it not as easily be called the Royal Society for the Prosecution of Cruelty to Animals? Has one of Britain’s oldest and most-cherished charities become a branch office of the London legal profession, and a highly politicised one at that?
This week saw the conclusion of a legal case which the RSPCA brought against Oxfordshire’s Heythrop Hunt. Coincidentally or not, it is based in David Cameron’s Witney constituency and is a social magnet for some of Mr Cameron’s friends — the so-called ‘Chipping Norton set’.

RSPCA: Has one of Britain's oldest and most-cherished charities become a branch office of the London legal profession, and a highly politicised one at that?

Much was made of this by Labour MPs yesterday at Prime Minister’s Questions. Indeed, there are some people who say that the RSPCA picked on the Heythrop simply because it had a link with the PM and that would inevitably generate some publicity — which is always good for fund-raising.
The Heythrop was found to have erred under the anti-hunting laws introduced by the Blair government. Evidence against the hunt included a video, a brief section of which showed foxhounds ripping into the carcass of a fox.
Anti-hunt protestors opposed to the Cameron Government had filmed hundreds of hours of evidence, but it was only this tiny fragment that amounted to anything approaching conclusive evidence of wrongdoing.

Jeremy Carter-Manning QC, the expensive London barrister hired to prosecute the Heythrop, became almost poetic in his condemnation of the hunt after that video had been played. ‘The hounds converge in semi-circles and the screaming reaches a crescendo,’ he said. ‘The hounds are making a killing.’

But it has not been the hounds alone who have been making a killing. Lawyers have been doing much the same, earning fat fees from a charity whose funds come from donations and bequests from the public.
Among those lawyers is Mr Carter-Manning, an urbane fellow who is not infrequently found acting for the defence in money-laundering cases, and who once advised a potential defendant in the ‘Cash for Honours’ affair of the Blair years.
It is perhaps not surprising that faced by such a poohbah of the Bar, confronted by this most lugubrious and silken of silks, the legally inexperienced hunt followers from the Heythrop pleaded guilty at Oxford Magistrates Court before the case went any further up the legal foodchain.

Evidence: The footage which was shown in court shows a fox being killed by hounds during a hunt. It was only this tiny fragment that amounted to anything approaching conclusive evidence of wrongdoing

But how strong was the case against the Heythrop? Did the video really prove an intention by the hunt’s human members to pursue and kill foxes? Or did it merely catch the very natural behaviour of hounds doing what hounds do? That, in itself, is not a crime.
District Judge Tim Pattinson, who presided over the Heythrop case, noted witheringly that the £330,000 spent on the case by the RSPCA was ‘a quite staggering sum’. He said that he imagined ‘members of the public may feel that RSPCA funds can be more usefully employed’.
That £330,000 can be set against the costs of just £19,500 paid by the defendants.
Does Judge Pattinson not have a point? Do his remarks not illustrate something very unsettling about the modern RSPCA, namely that it has strayed a long way from its old image and its past concerns?
By strange irony, the RSPCA was founded in the 19th century by an MP, Richard Martin, who was himself a keen fox hunter.

Target? There are some people who say that the RSPCA picked on the Heythrop simply because it had a link with Cameron

His concern was for the mistreatment of cattle — something which should continue to trouble us today, though one seldom hears the RSPCA say so. But then, cattle offer less lurid headlines than foxes. Foxes are more political.
And political the RSPCA now looks, even though charity law prevents it siding (openly, at least) with any political party.
It edged on to dangerous territory a decade ago when it appointed a former Lib Dem MP, Jackie Ballard, as its top executive. Mrs Ballard had a pronounced record of attacking Tories over fox hunting.
Her place has since been taken by Gavin Grant, a politically savvy former PR man. He seems to be taking the RSPCA into more militant waters, not least in its policy on the Government’s cull of badgers (which may help stop cattle having to be slaughtered once they have caught TB).
As the RSPCA’s image changes, what does its public think? We cannot be sure, but support has been draining away at an alarming rate.
Income has fallen so badly that 90 of its 1,100 staff are being cut.
And yet the spending on lawyers is still enormous. Accounts from last year show that the RSPCA used £8.7 million of its outgoings of £120 million on prosecutions.
At what point does this stop being an animal welfare concern and start to become a subsidiary of London’s Temple?
RSPCA supporters include many Mail readers who have a proud and honourable record of supporting animal welfare causes. I myself used to give money to the RSPCA, and as a boy I was an avid reader of its magazine for youngsters, Animal Ways.
As the owner of two dotty terriers, I hope I could never be accused of being an animal hater. I do not hunt. I have ridden only a couple of times, one of which ended with me on my backside on terra firma after the pony in question kicked its hind legs in the air.
Love of animals is something plumbed deep into our British veins and that is no doubt why the Royal Family has, for more than a century, been happy to be associated with the charity.
Not that you will find much mention of the Royal Family (who, of course, are keen field-sports enthusiasts) in the RSPCA’s literature. It is rather bigger, these days, on mentions of ‘celebrity supporters’ such as the Baywatch actress Pamela Anderson and chatshow host Paul O’Grady, aka Lily Savage.

When we put our £5 notes (and much more in some cases) into those RSPCA collection statues shaped like waggy-tailed dogs, did we actually realise that the money was likely to be spent on long legal prosecutions?

Even if the answer is yes, did we expect the defendants (as happened in the Heythrop case when two hunt members were singled out alongside the hunt itself) to be elderly countrymen who plainly love horses and, whatever you might think about their attitude to foxes, clearly have a deep knowledge of animal husbandry?
Prominent friends of the RSPCA fear that the charity is in danger of going off the rails.
Conservative MP Bill Wiggin (Leominster), a former Shadow Agriculture Minister whose animal welfare work has been recognised by the RSPCA, says: ‘I have seen for myself some of the vital work the RSPCA does.
‘People want to think of RSPCA inspectors rescuing animals, especially dogs and cats, from cruelty and re-homing them. Donors would not want this sort of good work eclipsed by spending hard-won funds on lawyers.’
The editor of Dogs Today magazine recently said on the BBC that the RSPCA is finding it cannot uphold the Animal Welfare Act in the case of puppy farms — where some terrible allegations of cruelty have been made — because ‘they say they [the RSPCA] haven’t got the money to apply it’.
Should the RSPCA funds spent on the Heythrop prosecution, and on other cases harrying field-sports enthusiasts, not be devoted to harmless puppies rather than verminous foxes which (sorry, folks, but this is the truth of nature, red in tooth and claw) decapitate lambs and hens, not even bothering to lick the guts off their quivering bodies before loping away into darkness?
Although some animal rights professionals (and ‘professionals’ they often are) become highly vexed about fox hunting, are there not more serious problems for the RSPCA to address?
The problem of out-of-control dogs in cities, for instance, is something many MPs hear about from their constituents.
Bill Wiggin raises the recent, alarming rise in cases when blind people have had their guide dogs attacked in the street by savage ‘trophy’ dogs, often some form of pit-bull terrier. When this happens, guide dogs are not only often badly injured, but are sometimes left so traumatised that they can no longer do their work.
Is this not something for the RSPCA to spend its money on rather than the services of that bewigged scrivener at Furnival Chambers, London, that sophisticate of money-laundering law, Mr Jeremy Carter-Manning QC?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250842/The-RSPCA-cruel-abuse-generosity.html?ito=feeds-newsxml