RSPCA accused of needlessly slaughtering sheep

Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption

Downsizer Forum Index -> Livestock and Pets

Shan	RSPCA accused of needlessly slaughtering sheep Quite frankly, I think the RSPCA should be prosecuted for cruelty to animals. Relevant article
Rob R	The RSPCA is a company I no longer support due to repeated cases of misjudgement & mismanagement. I think that these days they seem all too focused on private prosecutions rather than helping people & animals.
Nicky cigreen	The RSPCA is a company I no longer support due to repeated cases of misjudgement & mismanagement. I think that these days they seem all too focused on private prosecutions rather than helping people & animals.

exactly how I feel. I don't approve of them at all - they seem all about power rather than the right thing for the animals

Hairyloon

I don't approve of them at all...

I think that is going a bit far: they do still do good work... they have just got too big and gone a bit off the rails. Rob R

I watched this recently, it certainly didn't do them any favours in my book. The footage is quite shocking, for an organisation that is supposed to know about animals.

The Horse Hoarder misty07

i read in my paper this week a guy had to move so got new place but could not take his JRT with him. so he then went to a RSPCA centre and asked for them to take his pet. week or so after landlord agreed to JRT in the house so he went back to centre to find out the dog was PTS due to showing signs of aggression to a staff member also was on the files that the pet JRT had killed a fox 5 cats and a few rabbits and squirrels when in fact never killed anything was a very placid pet. pet was only 5 and had in fact stayed in his neighbours place and used to play and chase with there cats . so i dont support them one bit no more after few years back i heard they paid for out of charity money a new carpet for there offices and now the pursued the heythrop for £330k of which they got £15k back or something. good way of making charity money is that i think. toggle

i'm not usually defending the rspca, but do you ever wonder whether the current batch of anti rspca stroies are down to them having seriously embarassed cameron's local hunt? Rob R

i'm not usually defending the rspca, but do you ever wonder whether the current batch of anti rspca stroies are down to them having seriously embarassed cameron's local hunt?

No Nick

i'm not usually defending the rspca, but do you ever wonder whether the current batch of anti rspca stroies are down to them having seriously embarassed cameron's local hunt?

Yes Rob R

Ramsgate was a fiasco of their own making, it also involved government vets making bad decisions, that's a bad conspiracy theory.

ETA - it also happened three months previous to the hunt prosecution. Nick

Oh, indeed. I meant being dragged into the charities gang.

Ramsgate is shocking. Hairyloon

You prosecute the local hunt, which is bound to include mates of his, and suddenly you're in front of the charities commission.
Seems foolish to imagine its a coincidence.
OTOH, spending £330,000 of charity money on a £15,000 court case seems pretty damn good grounds to be in front of the CC. billtodd

Oh yes, questions need to be asked. Like why the sucessful prosecution was not brought by the CPS, why costs were not awarded against the defendents, why people castigate the RSPCA for doing exactly what they were set up for - trying to prevent cruelty to animals. toggle

In part, yes, of course.

You prosecute the local hunt, which is bound to include mates of his, and suddenly you're in front of the charities commission. Seems foolish to imagine its a coincidence. They're still a bit crap at their job, tho.

yep.

but in this case, so were a lot of other people.

including people that the gvt are ultimately responsible for. like the police and cps for not prosecuting the hunt. Rob R

why people castigate the RSPCA for doing exactly what they were set up for - trying to prevent cruelty to animals.

Trying is not good enough, watch the link I posted & think about how their money is best spent - helping people or prosecuting them? Also note their apparent lack of animal handling skills & knowledge. The same applies to Ramsgate. billtodd

I was commenting on the Hunting prosecution, it seems difficult to find out just what happened in the Ramsgate incident as so many agencies seem to be involved. Rob R

Do you honestly think that they prosecuted that hunt, at vast expense, because of the animals rather than politics? billtodd

So do you think it was a political thing then? Rob R

Are you expecting an answer or shall I just ask another question? billtodd

Well, no, I don't think it was a political thing. Rob R

So that must be a normal spend on a prosecution, if a special case was not made of this one for the Cameron connection. That sounds even worse. If they spent half of that on helping people avoid cruelty happening it would help more animals IMHO. NorthernMonkeyGirl

I emailed the RSPCA asking how they justified 1)the almighty cock up at Ramsgate and 2) using the photograph of their own cock up to promote their agenda. I phrased it nicely Wink

We shall see what they say.
Then I shall give them the side eye and delete my "rspca account" (yeah cos you have to sign in to every-damn-thing these days) Rob R

£330k would probably buy enough facilities to safely unload all the livestock lorries in Ramsgate simultaneously. billtodd

Well, I think you have to be very careful here - there was clear evidence of the hunt breaking the law, the CPS would not prosecute in a clear animal cruelty case. Are you suggesting that the RSPCA, that is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, should have just done nothing?

The charity is funded by people who are against animal cruelty, this prosecution would have been well within its mandate. The problem was that costs were not apportioned correctly - the guilty should have paid, not the RSPCA. billtodd

I emailed the RSPCA asking how they justified 1)the almighty cock up at Ramsgate and 2) using the photograph of their own cock up to promote their agenda. I phrased it nicely Wink

Are you suggesting then that the RSPCA somehow 'bought' the prosecution? billtodd

Also, there are some people, I count myself amongst them, that would consider this particulat 'nut' worth cracking. Rob R

No Rob R

Also, there are some people, I count myself amongst them, that would consider this particulat 'nut' worth cracking.

Yes, but not at the expense of other uncracked nuts. Hairyloon

The problem was that costs were not apportioned correctly - the guilty should have paid, not the RSPCA.
Courts do not award costs to cover a party pissing money up the wall. billtodd

The problem was that costs were not apportioned correctly - the guilty should have paid, not the RSPCA.
Courts do not award costs to cover a party pissing money up the wall.

So - you have clear evidence of a crime, the CPS for whatever reason will not take on the prosecution, you are a charity dedicated to upholding the law in defence of animals and you are supposed to do nothing?

I don't think you have thought this through. NorthernMonkeyGirl

I emailed the RSPCA asking how they justified 1)the almighty cock up at Ramsgate and 2) using the photograph of their own cock up to promote their agenda. I phrased it nicely Wink

No they were right to prosecute as proved by winning, the point on question is why it cost them £330,000 of donated money to pay for it and the defence only spent £35,000.
If the bill was a,more reasonable amount I would of expected the judge to award cost but that is far to much to pay, if you can't get a cheaper lawyer when you have the negotiator power of many prosecutions a year you need to re think your aim.
Look after animal welfare or prosecute all and any you can.
I wont donate to a charity that has made prosecuting people its main aim , maybe they should split into 2 charity, one that gives a crap about supporting animals and people looking after them and one to bring criminal cases and see who gets the public support NorthernMonkeyGirl

I wont donate to a charity that has made prosecuting people its main aim , maybe they should split into 2 charity, one that gives a crap about supporting animals and people looking after them and one to bring criminal cases and see who gets the public support

They sort of have; the local branches that look after strays etc have to fund themselves; then there's the national body that does stuff like this. Pilsbury

But can you choose who your money is used by? Or does the national body take a slice of all the local places money?
I guess the big corporate boys get all the bequeathed and monies left in wills to do this and the local ones are out shaking cash boxes at the local fete, billtodd

I emailed the RSPCA asking how they justified 1)the almighty cock up at Ramsgate and 2) using the photograph of their own cock up to promote their agenda. I phrased it nicely Wink

We shall see what they say.
Then I shall give them the side eye and delete my "rspca account" (yeah cos you have to sign in to every-damn-thing these days)

So, before they even answer, or attempt to justify what happened, you will delete your account. Why then even bother to ask them your questions when you have already made your mind up?

Not before, *after*.
I have no interest in them spamming me after they answer the question.
They do some good work, don't get me wrong, but they are now using the wrong tactics in my view.

Errr................you said that when you get a reply you would delete your account - it would appear that it does not matter what the reply is, you are going to delete your account. NorthernMonkeyGirl

I emailed the RSPCA asking how they justified 1)the almighty cock up at Ramsgate and 2) using the photograph of their own cock up to promote their agenda. I phrased it nicely Wink

OK - avoid the issue then if you must 12Bore

The acid test will be if they prosecute themselves over this case. In the meantime the guide dogs will continue to get my money over the rspca. So I guess they are actually achieving what I want them to and helping people & animals. Smile

Pilsbury

Ooo now I don't know if the local branches have to pay a "tithe" to the big boys. But yes I think all large general donations go to the national one.

I googled and found this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9776275/Local-RSPCA-branch-to-close-despite-head-office-spending-326k-prosecuting-David-Camerons-local-hunt.html
Thanks for that, a local branch may have to close as it costs £600 a day to run and the national charity has told them they won't help them out financially.
Nice ethics from the big boys then. I work out the money used to prosecute would of kept the local branch open for over 18 months and helped and supported hundreds of animal, oh well, their is always a bolt gun and s trained officer to use it. billtodd

I don't think so, I think they calculate the odds of winning or not. I'm no expert though - you may be right. but if you are then what price justice?

Sorry, this is in response to 12 bore 12Bore

Maybe the RSPCA legal team shopuld take a leaf from the local fundraisers, and use a crystal ball or tarot cards to judge wheter a particular prosecution is viable...
http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/10146192.Clairvoyance_to_raise_money_for_RSPCA/ Pilsbury

oh well, their is always a bolt gun and s trained officer to use it.

I always thought bolt guns were instruments of stunning, rather than slaughter.

Humane Slaughter Association

ETA - having extended my reading I realise it was the reporting, not the method that was wrong. Hairyloon

So what you are saying then is that they should calculate the cost of the prosecution before proceeding? So a just outcome depends on how much it costs to prosecute?
I may be wrong, but I thought a big chunk of that cost was on the surveillance operation. vegplot

So a just outcome depends on how much it costs to prosecute?

It's fairly common in the legal system. There comes a point where the financial cost simply isn't worth bearing regardless of the rights or wrongs. Pilsbury

I don't think so, I think they calculate the odds of winning or not.
I don't think that is a probability that you can calculate. billtodd

OK - avoid the issue then if you must

What issue? If it really to expensive to prosecute a case based mainly in the politics arena rather than true, deliberate animal cruelty then they should of used their money more for the reason people donated it to them infuse first place.
If this wasn't Cameron's hunt they would not of pushed so hard and spent so Much bit they did it for the publicity and it had backfired on them, now they are desperate to cover it with more and more stories.
I have gone years without reading stories about the rspca and now they come one after The other.

Ah I see. The old Toffs and Townees argument is it. I don't think so - criminal action is criminal action, no matter who is doing it, wether its a yob vandalising a phone box or a yob hunting a fox. Pilsbury

Anyway feel free to donate as much as you would like to the rspca, they do fine work in some areas but shoot themselves inthere foot in others. There is any number of animal charities looking for funds so I will give to one who will spend my money on dog food and flea treatments, not lawyers salaries and new carpets for their multi million pound offices while local branchs close. Rob R

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807

For consideration... Hairyloon

Well we agree there, so should the rspca officers that killed 43 sheep with a bolt gun in a dockyard in what is suspected to be a botched killing due to the amount of blood be investigated and prosecuted?
If a bolt gun is just for stunning, then it probably isn't the cause of the blood.
I suspect they've hammed it up for the photos, but of course that doesn't mean the slaughter wasn't botched...
Though that does make it interesting if it goes to court: if the photos are evidence of a botched and unlawful slaughter, then do they admit they were staged to deceive the public?
Oh what a tangled web. Hairyloon

Anyway feel free to donate as much as you would like to the rspca, they do fine work in some areas but shoot themselves inthere foot in others.
Is that with the bolt gun? billtodd

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807

For consideration...
If they're up in front of the Charity commission, then is there any purpose to the petition? Rob R

Sorry, that was because I read something about the sheep off the lorry being killed and bolt guns mentioned, I must say I haven't read Tue whole story because I have been ay work so just glanced through an arrival on it, they may of used another method of humane killing.

No, sorry, it was me at fault. I've done a bit more reading around & it was an unclear piece of reporting - I'd read that they used a captive bolt gun & they did actually use a free bolt gun.

So, as I am completley ignorant of how these things work, would there be more blood spilled using one of these than a captive bolt gun?

No, they'd need to be bled out to kill them if a captive was used so the blood would have been justified in that case.

If used correctly there should only have been a trickle of blood from the bolt hole. I have never seen much blood with a free bolt gun. NorthernMonkeyGirl

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807

For consideration...
If they're up in front of the Charity commission, then is there any purpose to the petition?

Dunno!
Just found the link - I haven't signed...not sure "investigate them!" is a precise enough purpose Pilsbury

So captive bolt gun to stun then slit their throats to bleed out and die
Free bolt gun more like a single bullet in the brain
Is that right?
Never had to use either myself so just checking Rob R

I'm more concerned about the half dozen animals they lost down a storm drain - we've struggled for gates in the past but we're a small farm, not a multi-million pound charity dedicated to ensuring animal welfare.

The horse catching on the 4od programme was another example - you would have thought someone would have pointed out that's not how you catch a horse. It was like the office staff had been sent out to cover an animal handlers strike. Sad

Rob R

So captive bolt gun to stun then slit their throats to bleed out and die
Free bolt gun more like a single bullet in the brain
Is that right?
Never had to use either myself so just checking

Wrong-i-pedia explains it better than I do, but yeah, that's right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_bolt_pistol NorthernMonkeyGirl

I've just gone and watched horse hoarders. Speechless.
Granted, the yard was run down and filthy, 52 horses is a huge herd to manage, and the colts needed pulling out and at least castrating.
But the fields were green, and there was hay where those 3 colts were penned. And yes we didn't see the sick horses but the others looked in decent nick.

But who the heck tries to load any animal, alone, into a trailer, in the MIDDLE of a field? Not even along a fenceline?

Help the gentleman help his horses, rather than bully the poor soul. Rob R

Quite. We didn't get the RSPCA's side, which has to be taken into account, but it was clear he needed help, not demands. And the RSPCA certainly needed help! Nicky cigreen

I'm more concerned about the half dozen animals they lost down a storm drain - we've struggled for gates in the past but we're a small farm, not a multi-million pound charity dedicated to ensuring animal welfare.

quite. this is the sort of action they would prosecute others over.

there might well be more reports against RSPCA at the mo - take people to court.. it will upset people. It does seem an excessive amount of money to spend on that case - I don't necessarily think they were wrong to prosecute, but it is hard to justify spending that much when it means taking it away from somewhere else.

Also , there was a lot of controversy about that'home for life' scheme - getting people to sign over their pets to the RSPCA, only for it to become apparent that they put down 1 in 5 of the pets

but for me, my stance is not a recent change of heart - i know that more than a decade ago they had the reputation for putting animals down - someone I knew worked with cat protection and she said it was always a race to get to some kittens before the RSPCA because if they got to them first chances are they would be put down - often due to lack of space or maybe illness, and they wouldn't sign them over to the CP who were willing to treat them.

They seem to spend more of their efforts in prosecuting and checking up than direct animal welfare, yet still receive donations under the fluffy idea that they are directly about helping animals. Nick

Twenty years ago they were spending more on corporate offices than necessary, and shooting animals due to limited funds. They're not good value for money. Shan

I started looking for reports on these stories that aren't from the Telegraph, and I found this.

Quote:

Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) and RSPCA inspectors made the decision to shoot sheep at the Kent port after vets examining 500 sheep on board a lorry found many were unfit to travel.

That says 500 sheep on one lorry. Is that right? It sounds like a lot. Confused

billtodd

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261129/Why-did-RSPCA-shoot-dead-40-sheep-grisly-dockside-massacre.html

Quote:

Farming Minister David Heath... recently declared that Grant's RSPCA 'needs to make a choice over whether they are a fringe campaign group or a responsible organisation working with us in partnership on animal welfare'.

As things stand, he warned, 'they cannot be both'.

billtodd

Quote:

The RSPCA did not use its in-house solicitors, but hired top-end city firm Fishburns, which was clearly ready to spend whatever it took to get a conviction.

The RSPCA had been extremely reluctant to divulge how much it had spent on the case and when the judge calculated the total it was clear why – it had spent £326,980.23 on solicitors, barristers and associated costs.

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/RSPCA-face-questions-cost-prosecuting-PM-s-local/story-17626537-detail/story.html billtodd

Quote:

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/RSPCA-face-questions-cost-prosecuting-PM-s-local/story-17626537-detail/story.html

Sorry, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Hairyloon

Oop, no, I was wrong:

Sorry, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
It doesn't happen often... best note it in your diary. Shan

Soory, I have just discovered the 'link' on your post. It says quite clearly that the RSPCA did not have enough evidence to prosecute and the polce were basically not co-operating. Now, for people to crittisise the RSPCA for persuing a case where there is enough evidence albeit an expensive case, why are they crittisising for not prosecuting when there is insufficient evidence? I don't think you can have it both ways can you?

They had video footage of the abuses taking place and they didn't think it was worth spending money to investigate? To find more solid evidence? To pursue it? I simply don't believe that. I think it didn't have the right political angle to warrant spending money! Rob R

Sounds about right. As far as I have seen animal transporter of this,magnitude have 2 or 3 decksto a lorry, lorry is 15ft high, sheep have 5ft headspace, they are not that tall sheep.....

Yes, 44ft long as well.

This was a continental lorry, 4 decks high. I can understand them shooting the sheep with the broken leg, but not 40 lame sheep. Nicky cigreen

I honestly would have more respect if they came out and said "Yes we cocked up at Ramsgate", took it on the chin, then campaigned for appropriate facilities at the port for safe unloading.
But "do as I say not as I do" is not acceptable.

I have dim recollection that their main boss has changed within the last few years and is more more "animal rights" rather than "animal welfare", which would explain a lot. Hairyloon

I have dim recollection that their main boss has changed within the last few years and is more more "animal rights" rather than "animal welfare", which would explain a lot.
I read that he has tried, and feiled to become an MP.

But coming back to the <not fox> hunting.

Surely the grown up thing to do is for the RSPCA and the hunt to have a deal and the RSPCA provide the <not fox>.
They would take more care to lead the hunt away from any real foxes... not that I'm suggesting that the hunt provided <not fox> deliberately leads the hunt to a fox trail. billtodd

Rob R

Is that not a more effective way of preventing animal cruelty, though, rather for waiting for it to happen & then prosecuting for it? toggle

are the hunts not expected to obey the law without someone to hold their hands? billtodd

No. The law is there to be obeyed, there are the police to enforce it. It is not the job of the RSPCA to play games with these people. Rob R

I'd much rather fund an RSPCA that helps people to obey the law and take a proactive approach. billtodd

I'd much rather fund an RSPCA that helps people to obey the law and take a proactive approach.

You or anyone else for that matter are not obliged to fund the RSPCA, if you don't like what they do, don't donate - simples. Rob R

billtodd

Not at all. Pilsbury

No. The law is there to be obeyed, there are the police to enforce it. It is not the job of the RSPCA to play games with these people.

You said earlier that it was the job of the RSPCA to try and prevent cruelty to animals. Now you seem to be suggesting that they shouldn't try to prevent it & should just prosecute instead after the event has occured.

Nonsense. It is the job of the police to stop lawbreaking and prosecute (along with the CPS) offenders. The RSPCA only became involed in the prosecution when the correct agencies failed to do their job. Following your flawed logic, the RSPCA should have a representative at every farm and home with animals to make sure that abuse does not happen.

Maybe the police and cps looked at the case and decided there wasn't enough there to justify spending £350,000 for a £6,800 fine, maybe it wasn't in the public interest in times of austerity to prosecute this case and not spend the money on convicting some perhaps more dangerous individuals.
I guess if the RSPCA feel this is the best way to spend their money and it is why the,public donate to them then its up to them.
If the money dries up and they can no longer afford to prevent cruelty or look after animals they will just go bankrupt. toggle

are the hunts not expected to obey the law without someone to hold their hands?

Crime prevention work is a widely recognised important part of policing these days. Gone are the days when law enforcement was all about catching the bad guys. The RSPCA seem to think they are like the police in many instances, so perhaps they should act like it.

then perhaps effective crime prevention would be for the rspca to copy the tactics of the hunt sabs rather than hand holding.

i think a lot of the problem seems to be that when they do something ti's wrong, when they don't do something it is wrong. a lot of the complaints i see people make about them is that they have not attended to every injured wildlife incident reported to them. or aren't attendeing in borderline neglect cases. 300k wouldn't make even a small dent in the costs of this.

dammed if they do and dammed if they don't

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Livestock and Pets	Page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Home Home Home Home Home