RSPCA COVER UP

RSPCA ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR THE INTERNET AND SUPPRESS CRITICISM
The German Shepherd Rescue network (“GSR”) has, during the course of a superb and highly-successful internet-based campaign, drawn international attention to the RSPCA’s hypocritical annual slaughter of many thousands of healthy dogs. The GSR campaign focuses on ten German Shepherd dogs (“GSDs”) who were slaughtered together in Pontadarwe in July this year by RSPCA inspectors using a captive bolt pistol.The national outcry and response from the national media has been huge. The RSPCA seems to have lost patience. Nothing they have said or done has been able to stem the flow of criticism.Things have now taken a darker tone. The charity’s highly-paid lawyers have written to Jayne Shenstone of the GSR in threatening tones.They claim that the RSPCA owns the trade mark of the acronym RSPCA “in both upper and lower case”. Part of a communication from top RSPCA commercial lawyer Amanda Gibbs states:"In the circumstances, please provide me, by no later than 5pm today with details of how and when you acquired the RSPCA's approval and permission to use the RSPCA's registered trade marks on your website and/or any publications associated with your company. If we do not hear from you, we will have no option but to assume that you do not have any such permission. When reconsidering the content of your website and publications, please note that the protection afforded by the trade mark registration process and the Trade Marks Act 1994 effectively covers the use of the RSPCA acronym in upper and lower case."Facebook has also been the subject of RSPCA action to try to muzzle the complaints and are removing content critical of the charity which uses the acronym “RSPCA” having received a notice that the content “infringes their copyright(s).”Anne Kasica of the SHG said:"We know that the RSPCA threatens journalists, defence lawyers and veterinary surgeons. However, if the state of our law is now, as the RSPCA’s highly-paid lawyers claim, that one needs permission from the RSPCA to use the acronym ‘RSPCA’ then no criticism of this political and highly-secretive ‘charity’ will ever see the light of day. The acronym ‘RSPCA’ has been in public use for years and we believe that people will keep using it. To do otherwise would mean the end of the right to comment – there would be no more cartoons in your local paper, no more columns and no more internet blogs"We think we have the freedom to make fair comment in the UK. Have we finally lost the right to freedom of speech to those organisations, like the RSPCA, with the financial clout to bully people like Jayne Shenstone into submission?”The SHG’s Ernest Vine, invited people to go to the German Shepherd rescue site at https://exchange.1and1.co.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=6bbef37120e145eaaf578f8b7b017369&URL=http%3a%2f%2fgermanshepherdrescue.co.uk%2fgsd-shot-by-rspca.html straight away and said:"People should go there while they still can and see what the RSPCA did to those poor dogs.”“Ask yourself whether this is really an issue about trademark infringement.”“ The SHG is encouraging everyone to go to their MP or Assembly Member and raise these very serious issues. Do we really want so-called charities like the RSPCA to be completely immune from legitimate criticism?”“We at the SHG have been demanding a full public inquiry into the RSPCA and their activities for years.”
http://www.the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm

RSPCA ANIMAL RIGHTS TERRORIST LINKS EXPOSED

EX-RSPCA EMPLOYEE JAILED FOR 11 YEARS FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS OFFENCES

Former RSPCA employee Heather Nicholson was jailed for 11 years for her part in the animals rights SHAC attacks.

The attacks focused on the hapless families of alleged suppliers to Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Ms. Nicholson, it seems, has much in common with Robin Webb. Like Mr.Webb, Ms Nicholson left her position in the RSPCA to join the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the SHAC conspiracy. Like Webb too, she left an ostensibly innocent job to pursue an extreme animal rights campaign.

Robin Webb was just one of several hard-line animal rights activists on the RSPCA’s ruling council.

He was recently found by Mr Justice Irwin tobe a “pivotal figure” in the ALF. He was filmed by Channel 4’s Dispatches offering advice on how to make a bomb and filmed again in the United States demonstrating how to make a different device.

Anne Kasica of the SHG said:“Heather Nicholson may have been jailed for 11 years but there are plenty of extremists still at large and willing to step into her shoes.”“Many of them have strong links to organizations like the RSPCA. Because of this, many ordinary people – vets, lawyers, drivers and businessmen –have to live with threats on a daily basis.”

“It is time that there was a full public inquiry into the membership and activities of the RSPCA and its employees.”

RSPCA ANIMAL RIGHTS TERRORIST LINKS EXPOSED

EX-RSPCA EMPLOYEE JAILED FOR 11 YEARS FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS OFFENCES

Former RSPCA employee Heather Nicholson was jailed for 11 years for her part in the animals rights SHAC attacks.

The attacks focused on the hapless families of alleged suppliers to Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Ms. Nicholson, it seems, has much in common with Robin Webb. Like Mr.Webb, Ms Nicholson left her position in the RSPCA to join the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the SHAC conspiracy. Like Webb too, she left an ostensibly innocent job to pursue an extreme animal rights campaign.

Robin Webb was just one of several hard-line animal rights activists on the RSPCA’s ruling council.

He was recently found by Mr Justice Irwin tobe a “pivotal figure” in the ALF. He was filmed by Channel 4’s Dispatches offering advice on how to make a bomb and filmed again in the United States demonstrating how to make a different device.

Anne Kasica of the SHG said:“Heather Nicholson may have been jailed for 11 years but there are plenty of extremists still at large and willing to step into her shoes.”“Many of them have strong links to organizations like the RSPCA. Because of this, many ordinary people – vets, lawyers, drivers and businessmen –have to live with threats on a daily basis.”

“It is time that there was a full public inquiry into the membership and activities of the RSPCA and its employees.”

RSPCA DOUBLE STANDARDS

The RSPCA has finally apologised “unreservedly” to the Hindu community for killing a Temple’s sacred cow over a year ago.The charity says that it now plans to "reassess its protocol" when dealing with the welfare of animals at "organisations which have a non-violent ethos".

No such protocol is in the public domain.

The RSPCA raid on the Temple was led by Superintendent Tim Wass who was immediately promoted to Chief Officer of the Inspectorate.

On issuing the apology to Bhatkivedanta Manor Temple, the RSPCA claimed that it now recognised the hurt caused to the sentiments of these communities, and wished to build a progressive relationship.

Stewart Coyle, the farm manger of New Gukol, a Hindu cow protection programme said: "The RSPCA's resolution will now help to protect all our cows. I believe the temple and RSPCA can now work together for animal welfare".

Anne Kasica, of the SHG, asked: “Does this ‘resolution’ now mean that everyone is safe from the RSPCA?

I don’t know of any farm that does not have a ‘non violent ethos’, but I think that farmers will continue to live in fear of an ‘unannounced visit’ from the RSPCA, commanded by someone like Mr Wass.”

Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said: “Is there perhaps a danger here that the RSPCA will start to apply their double-standards to those with a‘non-violent ethos’ on the one hand, and ‘violent’ farmers and pet owners on the other?”

“Could we see scenes reminiscent of the Middle Ages where ordinary people are forced to flee to Hindu Temples in order to save the lives of their elderly or ill pets from the RSPCA?”

RSPCA DOUBLE STANDARDS

The RSPCA has finally apologised “unreservedly” to the Hindu community for killing a Temple’s sacred cow over a year ago.The charity says that it now plans to "reassess its protocol" when dealing with the welfare of animals at "organisations which have a non-violent ethos".

No such protocol is in the public domain.

The RSPCA raid on the Temple was led by Superintendent Tim Wass who was immediately promoted to Chief Officer of the Inspectorate.

On issuing the apology to Bhatkivedanta Manor Temple, the RSPCA claimed that it now recognised the hurt caused to the sentiments of these communities, and wished to build a progressive relationship.

Stewart Coyle, the farm manger of New Gukol, a Hindu cow protection programme said: "The RSPCA's resolution will now help to protect all our cows. I believe the temple and RSPCA can now work together for animal welfare".

Anne Kasica, of the SHG, asked: “Does this ‘resolution’ now mean that everyone is safe from the RSPCA?

I don’t know of any farm that does not have a ‘non violent ethos’, but I think that farmers will continue to live in fear of an ‘unannounced visit’ from the RSPCA, commanded by someone like Mr Wass.”

Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said: “Is there perhaps a danger here that the RSPCA will start to apply their double-standards to those with a‘non-violent ethos’ on the one hand, and ‘violent’ farmers and pet owners on the other?”

“Could we see scenes reminiscent of the Middle Ages where ordinary people are forced to flee to Hindu Temples in order to save the lives of their elderly or ill pets from the RSPCA?”

MP PLANS DEBATE ON REMOVAL OF RSPCA PROSECUTION POWERS

RSPCA INSPECTOR UNLAWFULLY SEIZES 2 PET LABRADORS GUTLESSLY SAYING SHE IS TAKING THEM TO BE WEIGHED, POLICE SAY THE "AUTHORISED" SEIZURE.

The Labradors were taken from their home by an inspector from the charity who said they were just going to be weighed.
The organisation has not allowed Marie Davidson, 48, to see her animals, or even told her where they have been kept for the past three months.
The only correspondence she has had from the society has been two letters, both received in the last fortnight – one to say that its investigation is continuing and another detailing its complaints procedure.
The case has led critics to attack the RSPCA's tactics.
Early 2008, an RSPCA inspector called at Miss Davidson's home in Hatfield, Hertfordshire, after an anonymous phone call about the animals.
The official carried out an assessment of the dogs, Rocky and Chubby, and said they were overweight. The inspector gave advice on how their weight could be reduced.
Miss Davidson, who works for Hertfordshire social services and who has owned dogs for more than 20 years, followed the instructions and managed to bring down their weight.
However, she had to cancel three vets appointments to have her pets weighed, after her mother fell ill and she had to care for her.
"There was a dramatic weight loss," she said. "It was working, although I admit I did lapse for a bit and start to give them a few titbits again."
After the missed appointments, an RSPCA inspector returned to her house in October while Miss Davidson was at work. The inspector asked her partner, Terry Shadbolt, for permission to take the animals to the vets.
"The inspector just asked if she could take them to get them weighed, and he said yes," said Miss Davidson. "When I got home, I rang the vets, and the RSPCA inspector said that under the guidance of the vet, the dogs were not coming home.
"Three days later, the inspector came to interview me. But since then, I haven't been able to find out anything about the dogs.
"I am absolutely distraught. I have been put on antidepressants as a result of this.
"I do realise it was not good to let them get so big. But I love those dogs. At no point did anyone, the vet or the RSPCA, tell me about the devastating consequences of the dogs not losing weight. I was doing my best to sort the problem out."
Miss Davidson is registered disabled. Although she can walk, she cannot take the dogs on long walks.
"They could have suggested I get a dog walker to help me, and I would have done," she added. "But they suddenly seized the animals without warning."
When the dogs, who are three and half years old, were initially inspected, Rocky weighed 73kg and Chubby 60kg, according to Miss Davidson.
She claimed she had managed to get Rocky down to just over 50kg, and Chubby to about 46kg, although their weights had increased again.
According to the RSPCA, when they were taken, Rocky weighed 63kg and Chubby 52kg. The organisation says a healthy Labrador should weigh no more than 34kg.
Research last year revealed that around two million dogs in Britain are overweight.
An RSPCA spokeswoman said: "It is understood that the two dogs were removed with the owners full consent and were taken to the vets by the RSPCA for an appointment.
"Following an examination of the animals, the independent vet contacted the police, who after viewing the dogs and listening to the veterinary advice, made the decision to seize the animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
"Miss Davidson's file is currently under consideration by the RSPCA's prosecution department and a decision is expected in the near future."
Hertfordshire police confirmed a constable had authorised the seizure.
If Miss Davidson is prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act she faces a fine, a ban on keeping animals, or even a jail term. If she is not, and the dogs are returned, she could be asked to reimburse the RSPCA for the cost of keeping them in kennels.
Frank Field, the Labour MP, said: "These tactics are the exact opposite of what most animal lovers think the RSPCA does. I can't imagine that these dogs are better off in RSPCA kennels than in a loving home.
"I'm planning to stage a debate as to whether the RSPCA should actually have its prosecution powers rescinded. I don't think that when Parliament passed them it ever imagined that things like this would be happening."
A representative of the vets' surgery said they had been instructed not to comment by the RSPCA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4331467/Fat-dogs-seized-by-RSPCA.html

MP PLANS DEBATE ON REMOVAL OF RSPCA PROSECUTION POWERS

RSPCA INSPECTOR UNLAWFULLY SEIZES 2 PET LABRADORS GUTLESSLY SAYING SHE IS TAKING THEM TO BE WEIGHED, POLICE SAY THE "AUTHORISED" SEIZURE.

The Labradors were taken from their home by an inspector from the charity who said they were just going to be weighed.
The organisation has not allowed Marie Davidson, 48, to see her animals, or even told her where they have been kept for the past three months.
The only correspondence she has had from the society has been two letters, both received in the last fortnight – one to say that its investigation is continuing and another detailing its complaints procedure.
The case has led critics to attack the RSPCA's tactics.
Early 2008, an RSPCA inspector called at Miss Davidson's home in Hatfield, Hertfordshire, after an anonymous phone call about the animals.
The official carried out an assessment of the dogs, Rocky and Chubby, and said they were overweight. The inspector gave advice on how their weight could be reduced.
Miss Davidson, who works for Hertfordshire social services and who has owned dogs for more than 20 years, followed the instructions and managed to bring down their weight.
However, she had to cancel three vets appointments to have her pets weighed, after her mother fell ill and she had to care for her.
"There was a dramatic weight loss," she said. "It was working, although I admit I did lapse for a bit and start to give them a few titbits again."
After the missed appointments, an RSPCA inspector returned to her house in October while Miss Davidson was at work. The inspector asked her partner, Terry Shadbolt, for permission to take the animals to the vets.
"The inspector just asked if she could take them to get them weighed, and he said yes," said Miss Davidson. "When I got home, I rang the vets, and the RSPCA inspector said that under the guidance of the vet, the dogs were not coming home.
"Three days later, the inspector came to interview me. But since then, I haven't been able to find out anything about the dogs.
"I am absolutely distraught. I have been put on antidepressants as a result of this.
"I do realise it was not good to let them get so big. But I love those dogs. At no point did anyone, the vet or the RSPCA, tell me about the devastating consequences of the dogs not losing weight. I was doing my best to sort the problem out."
Miss Davidson is registered disabled. Although she can walk, she cannot take the dogs on long walks.
"They could have suggested I get a dog walker to help me, and I would have done," she added. "But they suddenly seized the animals without warning."
When the dogs, who are three and half years old, were initially inspected, Rocky weighed 73kg and Chubby 60kg, according to Miss Davidson.
She claimed she had managed to get Rocky down to just over 50kg, and Chubby to about 46kg, although their weights had increased again.
According to the RSPCA, when they were taken, Rocky weighed 63kg and Chubby 52kg. The organisation says a healthy Labrador should weigh no more than 34kg.
Research last year revealed that around two million dogs in Britain are overweight.
An RSPCA spokeswoman said: "It is understood that the two dogs were removed with the owners full consent and were taken to the vets by the RSPCA for an appointment.
"Following an examination of the animals, the independent vet contacted the police, who after viewing the dogs and listening to the veterinary advice, made the decision to seize the animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
"Miss Davidson's file is currently under consideration by the RSPCA's prosecution department and a decision is expected in the near future."
Hertfordshire police confirmed a constable had authorised the seizure.
If Miss Davidson is prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act she faces a fine, a ban on keeping animals, or even a jail term. If she is not, and the dogs are returned, she could be asked to reimburse the RSPCA for the cost of keeping them in kennels.
Frank Field, the Labour MP, said: "These tactics are the exact opposite of what most animal lovers think the RSPCA does. I can't imagine that these dogs are better off in RSPCA kennels than in a loving home.
"I'm planning to stage a debate as to whether the RSPCA should actually have its prosecution powers rescinded. I don't think that when Parliament passed them it ever imagined that things like this would be happening."
A representative of the vets' surgery said they had been instructed not to comment by the RSPCA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4331467/Fat-dogs-seized-by-RSPCA.html

WHEN WILL THE GOVERMENT STEP IN TO STOP THIS BLATANT RSPCA USE OF PROSECUTION POWERS TO GENERATE INCOME ?

NEIGHBOURS BACK CAT 79 YEAR OLD CAT RESCUE PENSIONER TARGETED BY "SPECIAL OPERATIONS UNIT" AND PROSECUTED BY THE RSPCA

YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE RSPCA "TAKING OUT" THE COMPETITION !

Neighbours of Elsie Nash, 79, who has been convicted on 13 counts of animal cruelty, have voiced their support of Elsie, claiming that she only had the cat’s best interests at heart.

During its private prosecution of Elsie Nash, 79, the RSPCA’s legal team showed the court a video of Elsie’s house, taken during in the raid by the RSPCA’s “Special Operations Unit”.

The video, taken by Herchran Boal– one of the inspectors on the raid – showed litter trays which Elsiehad not emptied, as well as dirty walls and floors.

There was also said to be “an overpowering smell”.

Those who are aware of the way the RSPCA works will recognise theformula used by the RSPCA’s “Special Operations Units” to support claims that animals were suffering as a result of their surroundings. It is frequently deployed when prosecuting rescue centres not affiliated to the RSPCA.Anne Kasica of the SHG said:“The RSPCA have raided yet another pensioner and someone else who rescues animals.”“Elsie Nash and her friends and neighbours are rightly devastated by what the RSPCA’s Special Operations Unit have done.”“This is not a unique event – as Frank Field MP will tell you. Pat Seager, Betty McDairmid, and many other pensioners and rescuers, have been raided.”“The SHG fully supports Elsie and all those other pensioners and rescuers whose lives have been devastated and their animals destroyed as a result of the RSPCA prosecuting them instead of helping.”Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said:“Again this is all about money.” “It’s time that someone courageous in government took steps to put a stop to the RSPCA’s money-spinning prosecutions.”

“The RSPCA spent £110,000 on the case with its very expensive lawyers and boarding kennels, which it hopes to get back in donations and legacies from people who want the RSPCA to look after their animal when they die.”“One of the saddest aspects of this story is that most of the forty cats the RSPCA seized from Elsie last year would have been roaming the streets if Elsie hadn’t taken them in. The RSPCA had already refused to help many of them.”

WHEN WILL THE GOVERMENT STEP IN TO STOP THIS BLATANT RSPCA USE OF PROSECUTION POWERS TO GENERATE INCOME ?

NEIGHBOURS BACK CAT 79 YEAR OLD CAT RESCUE PENSIONER TARGETED BY "SPECIAL OPERATIONS UNIT" AND PROSECUTED BY THE RSPCA

YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE RSPCA "TAKING OUT" THE COMPETITION !

Neighbours of Elsie Nash, 79, who has been convicted on 13 counts of animal cruelty, have voiced their support of Elsie, claiming that she only had the cat’s best interests at heart.

During its private prosecution of Elsie Nash, 79, the RSPCA’s legal team showed the court a video of Elsie’s house, taken during in the raid by the RSPCA’s “Special Operations Unit”.

The video, taken by Herchran Boal– one of the inspectors on the raid – showed litter trays which Elsiehad not emptied, as well as dirty walls and floors.

There was also said to be “an overpowering smell”.

Those who are aware of the way the RSPCA works will recognise theformula used by the RSPCA’s “Special Operations Units” to support claims that animals were suffering as a result of their surroundings. It is frequently deployed when prosecuting rescue centres not affiliated to the RSPCA.Anne Kasica of the SHG said:“The RSPCA have raided yet another pensioner and someone else who rescues animals.”“Elsie Nash and her friends and neighbours are rightly devastated by what the RSPCA’s Special Operations Unit have done.”“This is not a unique event – as Frank Field MP will tell you. Pat Seager, Betty McDairmid, and many other pensioners and rescuers, have been raided.”“The SHG fully supports Elsie and all those other pensioners and rescuers whose lives have been devastated and their animals destroyed as a result of the RSPCA prosecuting them instead of helping.”Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said:“Again this is all about money.” “It’s time that someone courageous in government took steps to put a stop to the RSPCA’s money-spinning prosecutions.”

“The RSPCA spent £110,000 on the case with its very expensive lawyers and boarding kennels, which it hopes to get back in donations and legacies from people who want the RSPCA to look after their animal when they die.”“One of the saddest aspects of this story is that most of the forty cats the RSPCA seized from Elsie last year would have been roaming the streets if Elsie hadn’t taken them in. The RSPCA had already refused to help many of them.”

YOUNG COUPLE WHO NEEDED HELP ARE PROSECUTED BY CHARITABLE RSPCA

UNEMPLOYED, WITH A YOUNG FAMILY, COUPLE ARE PROSECUTED BY RSPCA BECAUSE PUPPIES HAVE MITES FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

THEY GET FINED AND A 15 YEAR BAN.

SHAME ON YOU RSPCA, CALL YOURSELF A CHARITY !

A couple who attempted to treat four puppies suffering from a “severe” skin condition with nappy rash cream and human antibiotics were this week banned from keeping dogs for 15 years.

David Mills, 29, and Sarah Kirby, 19, of Diss, admitted four counts of neglecting the Staffordshire bull terrier pups between July 2 and 16 last year by failing to seek proper veterinary treatment for the 15-week-old animals.

Thetford Magistrates' Court heard on Monday that the couple, who have two young children, could not afford to treat the mite problem that caused the dogs to be covered with painful sores.

Mills, an unemployed welder, was ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work in the community and his partner was given a conditional discharge for two years. Both were disqualified from owning and keeping dogs for 15 years and were ordered to give up their two-year-old Staffordshire bull terrier, Steph.

Jason Stevens, prosecuting for the RSPCA, said that inspectors visited the couple's home on July 16 following concerns about the health of their dog.

Mr Stevens said that the defendants admitted that they could not afford the vets bill, but had sought some advice from a family friend who was trainee vet. He added that the case represented a “medium-term” level of neglect, which had gone on for a minimum of two weeks.

Malcolm Plummer, in mitigation, said the pregnancy of his clients' Staffordshire bull terrier had been “unplanned” and it was “unfortunate” that they had to hand-rear nine puppies, which put an extra strain on their finances. Five of the puppies had been given to good homes before the incident, he said.

“It was getting very tight with finances. They got some special shampoo from the pet shop and tried to treat the puppies with antibiotics and nappy rash cream. They thought it might help, but it was misplaced,” said Mr Plummer.

Magistrates also ordered the couple to make a contribution of £250 each to the RSPCA's £5,500 costs.

http://www.wymondhamandattleboroughmercury.co.uk/content/wam24/news/story.aspx?brand=WAMOnline&category=news&tBrand=WAMonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED22%20Jan%202009%2014%3A28%3A33%3A933

YOUNG COUPLE WHO NEEDED HELP ARE PROSECUTED BY CHARITABLE RSPCA

UNEMPLOYED, WITH A YOUNG FAMILY, COUPLE ARE PROSECUTED BY RSPCA BECAUSE PUPPIES HAVE MITES FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

THEY GET FINED AND A 15 YEAR BAN.

SHAME ON YOU RSPCA, CALL YOURSELF A CHARITY !

A couple who attempted to treat four puppies suffering from a “severe” skin condition with nappy rash cream and human antibiotics were this week banned from keeping dogs for 15 years.

David Mills, 29, and Sarah Kirby, 19, of Diss, admitted four counts of neglecting the Staffordshire bull terrier pups between July 2 and 16 last year by failing to seek proper veterinary treatment for the 15-week-old animals.

Thetford Magistrates' Court heard on Monday that the couple, who have two young children, could not afford to treat the mite problem that caused the dogs to be covered with painful sores.

Mills, an unemployed welder, was ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work in the community and his partner was given a conditional discharge for two years. Both were disqualified from owning and keeping dogs for 15 years and were ordered to give up their two-year-old Staffordshire bull terrier, Steph.

Jason Stevens, prosecuting for the RSPCA, said that inspectors visited the couple's home on July 16 following concerns about the health of their dog.

Mr Stevens said that the defendants admitted that they could not afford the vets bill, but had sought some advice from a family friend who was trainee vet. He added that the case represented a “medium-term” level of neglect, which had gone on for a minimum of two weeks.

Malcolm Plummer, in mitigation, said the pregnancy of his clients' Staffordshire bull terrier had been “unplanned” and it was “unfortunate” that they had to hand-rear nine puppies, which put an extra strain on their finances. Five of the puppies had been given to good homes before the incident, he said.

“It was getting very tight with finances. They got some special shampoo from the pet shop and tried to treat the puppies with antibiotics and nappy rash cream. They thought it might help, but it was misplaced,” said Mr Plummer.

Magistrates also ordered the couple to make a contribution of £250 each to the RSPCA's £5,500 costs.

http://www.wymondhamandattleboroughmercury.co.uk/content/wam24/news/story.aspx?brand=WAMOnline&category=news&tBrand=WAMonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED22%20Jan%202009%2014%3A28%3A33%3A933

CAT RESCUE COUPLE SPEND 2 HOURS TALKING TO RSPCA NATIONAL CALL CENTRE ONLY TO BE TOLD, ITS NOW YOUR PROBLEM !

A kindly couple who took pity on a stray cat have found themselves stuck with it.

For the RSPCA told them: You fed it, so now it’s yours!

Bill and Dorothy Harrison started feeding the black and white cat after it turned up outside their Gargrave home at Christmas. But they are about to go on an extended holiday and are worried what will happen to it.

Mr Harrison said: “It’s a lovely little cat and we’d take it in, but we can’t because my wife has asthma and is allergic to cats. The smallest amount of hair sets her off.”

They believe the cat – which they’ve named Squeaky – might have wandered off a canal boat or got lost when its owners moved home. “It’s obviously been with a family at some time because it’s so friendly. We feed the birds and it won’t go anywhere near them,” said Mrs Harrison.

She had contacted the RSPCA’s national call centre and was initially told someone would collect the cat. But then came the shock.

“I was on the phone for about two hours being passed to different people and eventually I was told that, because we’d fed the cat, it was now ours,” said Mrs Harrison.

The couple spend a lot of their time abroad and are about to set off again. “I told the woman we were going away and were worried about what would happen to the cat. She told me it would fend for itself,” said Mrs Harrison.

The couple are now in touch with the RSPCA’s Craven and Upper Wharfedale branch, which has promised to take Squeaky as soon as possible. But the branch is faced with huge numbers of abandoned cats and dogs and is in desperate need of foster carers.

Pam Laking, branch co-ordinator, said she was sorry the Harrisons had had problems with the national call centre and would do what she could to help.

“We’ve had quite a few cats abandoned in recent weeks including seven kittens who had spent the first eight weeks of their lives in a carrying basket,” she said.

“We’re full to the brim and in addition to Squeaky I’ve got five other cats who need to come in. What we really need is kind people to offer foster homes. We’ll provide the food, if they can just give these cats a home for a while until they can be re-homed.”

The Harrisons are desperate to find Squeaky a home soon. “We just want Squeaky to have a nice home. I’ll even buy a month’s supply of food,” said Mr Harrison.

CAT RESCUE COUPLE SPEND 2 HOURS TALKING TO RSPCA NATIONAL CALL CENTRE ONLY TO BE TOLD, ITS NOW YOUR PROBLEM !

A kindly couple who took pity on a stray cat have found themselves stuck with it.

For the RSPCA told them: You fed it, so now it’s yours!

Bill and Dorothy Harrison started feeding the black and white cat after it turned up outside their Gargrave home at Christmas. But they are about to go on an extended holiday and are worried what will happen to it.

Mr Harrison said: “It’s a lovely little cat and we’d take it in, but we can’t because my wife has asthma and is allergic to cats. The smallest amount of hair sets her off.”

They believe the cat – which they’ve named Squeaky – might have wandered off a canal boat or got lost when its owners moved home. “It’s obviously been with a family at some time because it’s so friendly. We feed the birds and it won’t go anywhere near them,” said Mrs Harrison.

She had contacted the RSPCA’s national call centre and was initially told someone would collect the cat. But then came the shock.

“I was on the phone for about two hours being passed to different people and eventually I was told that, because we’d fed the cat, it was now ours,” said Mrs Harrison.

The couple spend a lot of their time abroad and are about to set off again. “I told the woman we were going away and were worried about what would happen to the cat. She told me it would fend for itself,” said Mrs Harrison.

The couple are now in touch with the RSPCA’s Craven and Upper Wharfedale branch, which has promised to take Squeaky as soon as possible. But the branch is faced with huge numbers of abandoned cats and dogs and is in desperate need of foster carers.

Pam Laking, branch co-ordinator, said she was sorry the Harrisons had had problems with the national call centre and would do what she could to help.

“We’ve had quite a few cats abandoned in recent weeks including seven kittens who had spent the first eight weeks of their lives in a carrying basket,” she said.

“We’re full to the brim and in addition to Squeaky I’ve got five other cats who need to come in. What we really need is kind people to offer foster homes. We’ll provide the food, if they can just give these cats a home for a while until they can be re-homed.”

The Harrisons are desperate to find Squeaky a home soon. “We just want Squeaky to have a nice home. I’ll even buy a month’s supply of food,” said Mr Harrison.

RSPCA TARGET ANOTHER PENSIONER

THE RSPCA are set to take their case against a Chatteris man to the county court as they look to finally recover a fine of more than £31,000.

Roger Barrett (pictured) was fined a total of £31,291.41 in June 2004 for causing unnecessary suffering to three ponies.

Barrett, lost an appeal against the fine 12 months later and then went to the High Court for permission to appeal.

However, there was never a hearing.

The animal charity is now looking to take the case to the county court and recover the costs from Barrett "when the property is released".Jason Stevens, prosecuting, said: "The RSPCA incurred substantial costs keeping the horses and treating the horses through the investigation."The court finds itself with a large debt outstanding in their files. It's a bit of an eyesore and they would like to see it done away with because it would make life easier with some administrators."I don't suggest repossession; a release when the property is transferred would be the normal way all debts are recovered."Barrett, 70, was given a two-year conditional discharge after pleading guilty to ill-treating the ponies.The court ruled however that Barrett, a breeder whose animals had won international competitions, was unlikely to reoffend and the ponies were returned.David Chapple, defending, said: "Quite extraordinarily and quite wrongly the court then imposes what is effectively an extremely draconian penalty on someone who has just been imposed with a conditional discharge."Sue Morris, chairman of the bench, said Mr Stevens deserved the right to apply to the county court for "having the courtesy of coming back" to Fenland magistrates.She said: "Because it is such an important issue we are going to allow Mr Stevens to make his application to the county court and, subject to what happens there, we will allow him to come back if appropriate.

RSPCA TARGET ANOTHER PENSIONER

THE RSPCA are set to take their case against a Chatteris man to the county court as they look to finally recover a fine of more than £31,000.

Roger Barrett (pictured) was fined a total of £31,291.41 in June 2004 for causing unnecessary suffering to three ponies.

Barrett, lost an appeal against the fine 12 months later and then went to the High Court for permission to appeal.

However, there was never a hearing.

The animal charity is now looking to take the case to the county court and recover the costs from Barrett "when the property is released".Jason Stevens, prosecuting, said: "The RSPCA incurred substantial costs keeping the horses and treating the horses through the investigation."The court finds itself with a large debt outstanding in their files. It's a bit of an eyesore and they would like to see it done away with because it would make life easier with some administrators."I don't suggest repossession; a release when the property is transferred would be the normal way all debts are recovered."Barrett, 70, was given a two-year conditional discharge after pleading guilty to ill-treating the ponies.The court ruled however that Barrett, a breeder whose animals had won international competitions, was unlikely to reoffend and the ponies were returned.David Chapple, defending, said: "Quite extraordinarily and quite wrongly the court then imposes what is effectively an extremely draconian penalty on someone who has just been imposed with a conditional discharge."Sue Morris, chairman of the bench, said Mr Stevens deserved the right to apply to the county court for "having the courtesy of coming back" to Fenland magistrates.She said: "Because it is such an important issue we are going to allow Mr Stevens to make his application to the county court and, subject to what happens there, we will allow him to come back if appropriate.

RSPCA WASTE £110,000 PROSECUTING YET ANOTHER CAT LOVING PENSIONER

IS THIS REALLY WHAT DONATORS THINK THE RSPCA SHOULD BE SPENDING THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY ON ?

A DEFIANT pensioner who kept 40 cats at her home has been found guilty of animal cruelty.
In a case which cost the RSPCA over £110,000, Elsie Nash, aged 79, was told that her well-intentioned actions had led to unnecessary suffering.
Animal welfare experts found that many of the 40 cats had respiratory and ear infections, and criticised the state of the three-bedroom house.
Nash will be sentenced next month. But, speaking outside Birmingham Magistrates Court, she refused to accept that she had acted wrongly, and said she had no regrets.
“My life is my own, and the cats were my life,” she said.
“They couldn’t care less about the welfare of cats.”
The court was shown a video of the house, in Kingsbury Road, Erdington, which was run-down and dominated by cats.
Nash was found guilty of 13 charges of cruelty, but not guilty over the death of one cat following a nose infection.
Judge Qureshi warned that he would be considering all his options for sentencing - including prison .

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/01/16/pensioner-elsie-nash-found-guilty-of-animal-cruelty-97319-22707290/

RSPCA WASTE £110,000 PROSECUTING YET ANOTHER CAT LOVING PENSIONER

IS THIS REALLY WHAT DONATORS THINK THE RSPCA SHOULD BE SPENDING THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY ON ?

A DEFIANT pensioner who kept 40 cats at her home has been found guilty of animal cruelty.
In a case which cost the RSPCA over £110,000, Elsie Nash, aged 79, was told that her well-intentioned actions had led to unnecessary suffering.
Animal welfare experts found that many of the 40 cats had respiratory and ear infections, and criticised the state of the three-bedroom house.
Nash will be sentenced next month. But, speaking outside Birmingham Magistrates Court, she refused to accept that she had acted wrongly, and said she had no regrets.
“My life is my own, and the cats were my life,” she said.
“They couldn’t care less about the welfare of cats.”
The court was shown a video of the house, in Kingsbury Road, Erdington, which was run-down and dominated by cats.
Nash was found guilty of 13 charges of cruelty, but not guilty over the death of one cat following a nose infection.
Judge Qureshi warned that he would be considering all his options for sentencing - including prison .

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/01/16/pensioner-elsie-nash-found-guilty-of-animal-cruelty-97319-22707290/

DRACONIAN VENGANCE AS CHARITABLE RSPCA PERSECUTE PENSIONER, TO THE GRAVE !

Horse owner may have to pay £31K court costs after death to RSPCA

A CHATTERIS man could be forced to pay £31,291.41 to the RSPCA after he dies if the charity wins a court case against him.

Roger Barrettt owes the animal charity the cash following a court case in 2004 when he pleaded guilty to ill-treating horses and was given a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay the money in costs. However, since then Barrett has lost an appeal against the costs and had also applied for permission to appeal at the high court - a move he had not followed up.
Jason Stevens, for the RSPCA, told magistrates at Wisbech on Friday the costs had arisen from the earlier court case and caring for the horses, which had been taken off Barrett and cared for by the charity. They were later returned to him. Mr Stevens said following a previous hearing Barrett had been ordered to pay the costs off at £5 a week out of his pension - which meant he would still be paying them for the next 120 years. He told magistrates the RSPCA were planning to take the case to the County Court to ask for a charge to be put on Barrett's home at Meadowside Cottage, 158 High Street. Mr Stevens said the charity would not force Barrett to sell his home, but would wait until the property was sold - even if that happened after his death. David Chapple, defending, argued it was unusual for a court to make such an 'extraordinarily draconian order' for costs especially in a case where the actual sentence was a conditional discharge. And he said it was not usual to expect someone to pay court fines out of their estate after they have died.
Magistrates were told they had three options: to leave the current payment plan in place; look at remitting some of the outstanding money so that it was reduced to a level that could be paid off within the next three years; or allow Mr Stevens time to make his application to the County Court. Magistrates agreed to adjourn the case to March 12, to give the RSPCA chance to get a decision from the County Court on putting a possible charge on Barrett's home.
http://www.fenlandcitizen.co.uk/news/Horse-owner-may-have-to.4885873.jp

DRACONIAN VENGANCE AS CHARITABLE RSPCA PERSECUTE PENSIONER, TO THE GRAVE !

Horse owner may have to pay £31K court costs after death to RSPCA

A CHATTERIS man could be forced to pay £31,291.41 to the RSPCA after he dies if the charity wins a court case against him.

Roger Barrettt owes the animal charity the cash following a court case in 2004 when he pleaded guilty to ill-treating horses and was given a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay the money in costs. However, since then Barrett has lost an appeal against the costs and had also applied for permission to appeal at the high court - a move he had not followed up.
Jason Stevens, for the RSPCA, told magistrates at Wisbech on Friday the costs had arisen from the earlier court case and caring for the horses, which had been taken off Barrett and cared for by the charity. They were later returned to him. Mr Stevens said following a previous hearing Barrett had been ordered to pay the costs off at £5 a week out of his pension - which meant he would still be paying them for the next 120 years. He told magistrates the RSPCA were planning to take the case to the County Court to ask for a charge to be put on Barrett's home at Meadowside Cottage, 158 High Street. Mr Stevens said the charity would not force Barrett to sell his home, but would wait until the property was sold - even if that happened after his death. David Chapple, defending, argued it was unusual for a court to make such an 'extraordinarily draconian order' for costs especially in a case where the actual sentence was a conditional discharge. And he said it was not usual to expect someone to pay court fines out of their estate after they have died.
Magistrates were told they had three options: to leave the current payment plan in place; look at remitting some of the outstanding money so that it was reduced to a level that could be paid off within the next three years; or allow Mr Stevens time to make his application to the County Court. Magistrates agreed to adjourn the case to March 12, to give the RSPCA chance to get a decision from the County Court on putting a possible charge on Barrett's home.
http://www.fenlandcitizen.co.uk/news/Horse-owner-may-have-to.4885873.jp

BANNED POLICE PRACTICE STILL COMMON PLACE IN RSPCA

Will the RSPCA stop “colluding” too?

Mark Saunders’ family are to drop their action against the police,following the Court of Appeals confirmation that allowing police officers to “confer” before making their statements provides them with an “opportunity for collusion”.
The Association of Chief Police Officers have outlawed the practice.The RSPCA has been repeatedly criticised by the courts for allowing its inspectors and witnesses to meet each other in conference – and even to alter their statements.
Anne Kasica of the SHG said:“It is good news that Mark Saunders tragic loss has resulted in apositive result for justice. ACPO’s decision is obviously right. The question remains whether other agencies – perhaps most notably the RSPCA– will follow suit.
The RSPCA’s pre-trial conferences are such anendemic part of their culture, I wonder whether they will ever be ableto stamp it out – even if their Prosecutions Department tries to stop it.”

Contributor Simon de Walt said...
This post says it all. Barrister Sally Case (big salary plus indexed-linked pension and other benefits) and her "independent" fat-cat lawyers won't be happy about ACPO's concession reported above. Tim Wass and his holy-cow-killers in the RSPCA's sinister "Special Operations Unit" will never give up their secret pre-trial conferences. The RSPCA needs to keep its conviction rate high - besides, its lawyers just make too much money from them. The charity is, I hear, paying a top barrister £6,500 a day to prosecute a three month in the Magistrates Court. Do the math on that ... a brand new car every day? Wow!

BANNED POLICE PRACTICE STILL COMMON PLACE IN RSPCA

Will the RSPCA stop “colluding” too?

Mark Saunders’ family are to drop their action against the police,following the Court of Appeals confirmation that allowing police officers to “confer” before making their statements provides them with an “opportunity for collusion”.
The Association of Chief Police Officers have outlawed the practice.The RSPCA has been repeatedly criticised by the courts for allowing its inspectors and witnesses to meet each other in conference – and even to alter their statements.
Anne Kasica of the SHG said:“It is good news that Mark Saunders tragic loss has resulted in apositive result for justice. ACPO’s decision is obviously right. The question remains whether other agencies – perhaps most notably the RSPCA– will follow suit.
The RSPCA’s pre-trial conferences are such anendemic part of their culture, I wonder whether they will ever be ableto stamp it out – even if their Prosecutions Department tries to stop it.”

Contributor Simon de Walt said...
This post says it all. Barrister Sally Case (big salary plus indexed-linked pension and other benefits) and her "independent" fat-cat lawyers won't be happy about ACPO's concession reported above. Tim Wass and his holy-cow-killers in the RSPCA's sinister "Special Operations Unit" will never give up their secret pre-trial conferences. The RSPCA needs to keep its conviction rate high - besides, its lawyers just make too much money from them. The charity is, I hear, paying a top barrister £6,500 a day to prosecute a three month in the Magistrates Court. Do the math on that ... a brand new car every day? Wow!

RSPCA COULD PROSECUTE YOU FOR NOT HAVING A LITTER TRAY !

WHERE WILL THIS INSANITY STOP ?
My bunny-hugging antagonist’s embarrassed silence on the BBC radio phone-in told me all I needed to know.
Yes, it really is now a criminal offense in Britain to abuse an ant, a worm, a slug, cockroach, a scorpion, a stick insect or whatever creature you care to name.
The moment you decide to keep it as a pet you are obliged by our Animal Welfare Act to take full account of its welfare needs -- or face a £30,000 fine or a twelve-month prison sentence.
And if you think cockroach rights sound crazy, wait till you hear how the law applies to the way you keep your dog or your cat.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) -- one of the numerous, busybody branches of our socialist New Labour administration -- recently issued guidelines to pet owners clarifying the law.
You risk prosecution if:

• You fail to groom your long-haired dog or cat once a day


• You feed your dog from the table.


• You use your hands or feet when playing with your cat (as this may encourage aggressive behavior).


• You fail to provide every cat in your household with its own litter tray (even if the cat has access to a garden)


• You try to make your cat vegetarian by denying it meat.

None of these provisions is in itself a criminal offense, a DEFRA spokesman has explained helpfully.
But failure to comply with several of them “may be used in evidence to support a prosecution for animal cruelty.
”Well, that’s me done for then. In the last few years, I have contravened every one of these pet care laws (apart from the last one: encouraging feline vegetarianism -- indeed, encouraging any form of vegetarianism -- really should, I believe, be punishable by imprisonment and torture at the very least), especially the one regarding cat litter trays.
Our ageing cat, Beetle, doesn’t have a litter tray at all. Why? Well, for one, thing he’s a cat, and, from what I’ve observed of the feline species, they’re quite intelligent enough to do their business outside and don't need the option of indoor facilities.
And, for another, I’m the human. I pay the mortgage. I buy the cat food. We’re the master species (or at least we used to be).
So it seems to me only fair that I should be the one who gets to decide whether or not to keep a tray of gravel in my kitchen smelling faintly of cat poop.
But the bunny-huggers disagree. Not only do they disagree, but they now have the full force of the UK law behind them. And -- in the form of our chief animal welfare charity the Royal Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA) -- they even have an army of uniformed enforcers ready to knock on your door at the merest whiff of an infringement.
It was a run-in with the RSPCA which got me into that BBC radio phone-in in the first place. I’d written a magazine article about an unfortunate incident involving two hamsters we’d bought from the pet shop, one to keep for our family, one as a replacement for the school hamster which had accidentally been killed while we were looking after it.
Unfortunately, while one of the two hamsters was docile and friendly, the other one was an evil biter which kept drawing blood. First we tried asking the pet store to take it back, but they wouldn’t. Then we tried palming Devil Hamster off on the school, but they said: “We can’t have this one! He keeps biting our children.” So finally, as the man of the household (and thus the chief vermin exterminator), I was given the job of getting rid of it. Which I did, in a typically cowardly way, by releasing it into our local park.
A few days later, I received a letter from the RSPCA informing me that there had been a complaint and that I had been guilty of a criminal act which rendered me liable for a fine or imprisonment.
On this occasion they were minded not to prosecute. But next time…I was surprised and not a little disturbed.
Since when did the sort of animal welfare charities one used to associate with cute little kittens with bandaged paws suddenly have the right to go round threatening free citizens?
Since the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, I learned. This came into force in 2007 but -- as with so many of the laws New Labour has introduced, at the rate of one imprisonable offense every FOUR days during its twelve years in power -- it has sat on the statute books almost unnoticed. Only in the last month, with DEFRA’s new guidelines (and the publicity given to my “I am a hamster murderer” story) has the British public become fully aware of its manifest absurdities.
Why, for example, is it still perfectly legal for me to poison the colony of mice in my skirting boards, but an imprisonable offence to cause them any harm the moment I capture them and make them my pets?
How low in the biological chain do you have to go before an animal becomes ineligible for protection? Suppose I kept a pet amoeba: could I be imprisoned for being cruel to one of those? Sadly, the law does not specify.Meanwhile, it -- currently at least -- remains perfectly legal in Britain for sportsmen to shoot game birds like pheasants and grouse; to stalk stag; and even to hunt foxes on horseback (provided someone is holding a falcon or other bird of prey and the fox is not killed by the hounds but driven towards a gun).
Such are the messy compromises and idiocies which result when a government gets into bed with the lunatics of the animal rights lobby.
Such are the pleasures, I fear, that await you in the U.S. when your new president and his rag-bag of socialist hangers-on and politically correct bleeding hearts start getting properly into their stride.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30266#continueA

RSPCA COULD PROSECUTE YOU FOR NOT HAVING A LITTER TRAY !

WHERE WILL THIS INSANITY STOP ?
My bunny-hugging antagonist’s embarrassed silence on the BBC radio phone-in told me all I needed to know.
Yes, it really is now a criminal offense in Britain to abuse an ant, a worm, a slug, cockroach, a scorpion, a stick insect or whatever creature you care to name.
The moment you decide to keep it as a pet you are obliged by our Animal Welfare Act to take full account of its welfare needs -- or face a £30,000 fine or a twelve-month prison sentence.
And if you think cockroach rights sound crazy, wait till you hear how the law applies to the way you keep your dog or your cat.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) -- one of the numerous, busybody branches of our socialist New Labour administration -- recently issued guidelines to pet owners clarifying the law.
You risk prosecution if:

• You fail to groom your long-haired dog or cat once a day


• You feed your dog from the table.


• You use your hands or feet when playing with your cat (as this may encourage aggressive behavior).


• You fail to provide every cat in your household with its own litter tray (even if the cat has access to a garden)


• You try to make your cat vegetarian by denying it meat.

None of these provisions is in itself a criminal offense, a DEFRA spokesman has explained helpfully.
But failure to comply with several of them “may be used in evidence to support a prosecution for animal cruelty.
”Well, that’s me done for then. In the last few years, I have contravened every one of these pet care laws (apart from the last one: encouraging feline vegetarianism -- indeed, encouraging any form of vegetarianism -- really should, I believe, be punishable by imprisonment and torture at the very least), especially the one regarding cat litter trays.
Our ageing cat, Beetle, doesn’t have a litter tray at all. Why? Well, for one, thing he’s a cat, and, from what I’ve observed of the feline species, they’re quite intelligent enough to do their business outside and don't need the option of indoor facilities.
And, for another, I’m the human. I pay the mortgage. I buy the cat food. We’re the master species (or at least we used to be).
So it seems to me only fair that I should be the one who gets to decide whether or not to keep a tray of gravel in my kitchen smelling faintly of cat poop.
But the bunny-huggers disagree. Not only do they disagree, but they now have the full force of the UK law behind them. And -- in the form of our chief animal welfare charity the Royal Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA) -- they even have an army of uniformed enforcers ready to knock on your door at the merest whiff of an infringement.
It was a run-in with the RSPCA which got me into that BBC radio phone-in in the first place. I’d written a magazine article about an unfortunate incident involving two hamsters we’d bought from the pet shop, one to keep for our family, one as a replacement for the school hamster which had accidentally been killed while we were looking after it.
Unfortunately, while one of the two hamsters was docile and friendly, the other one was an evil biter which kept drawing blood. First we tried asking the pet store to take it back, but they wouldn’t. Then we tried palming Devil Hamster off on the school, but they said: “We can’t have this one! He keeps biting our children.” So finally, as the man of the household (and thus the chief vermin exterminator), I was given the job of getting rid of it. Which I did, in a typically cowardly way, by releasing it into our local park.
A few days later, I received a letter from the RSPCA informing me that there had been a complaint and that I had been guilty of a criminal act which rendered me liable for a fine or imprisonment.
On this occasion they were minded not to prosecute. But next time…I was surprised and not a little disturbed.
Since when did the sort of animal welfare charities one used to associate with cute little kittens with bandaged paws suddenly have the right to go round threatening free citizens?
Since the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, I learned. This came into force in 2007 but -- as with so many of the laws New Labour has introduced, at the rate of one imprisonable offense every FOUR days during its twelve years in power -- it has sat on the statute books almost unnoticed. Only in the last month, with DEFRA’s new guidelines (and the publicity given to my “I am a hamster murderer” story) has the British public become fully aware of its manifest absurdities.
Why, for example, is it still perfectly legal for me to poison the colony of mice in my skirting boards, but an imprisonable offence to cause them any harm the moment I capture them and make them my pets?
How low in the biological chain do you have to go before an animal becomes ineligible for protection? Suppose I kept a pet amoeba: could I be imprisoned for being cruel to one of those? Sadly, the law does not specify.Meanwhile, it -- currently at least -- remains perfectly legal in Britain for sportsmen to shoot game birds like pheasants and grouse; to stalk stag; and even to hunt foxes on horseback (provided someone is holding a falcon or other bird of prey and the fox is not killed by the hounds but driven towards a gun).
Such are the messy compromises and idiocies which result when a government gets into bed with the lunatics of the animal rights lobby.
Such are the pleasures, I fear, that await you in the U.S. when your new president and his rag-bag of socialist hangers-on and politically correct bleeding hearts start getting properly into their stride.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30266#continueA

NOW THE RSPCA MAY PROSECUTE FOR CLOTHING YOUR PET

RSPCA ANIMAL WELFARE ACT INTERPRETATION ABSURD

The animal welfare charity claims that forcing pets to wear clothing could be harmful, and in some cases there may even be grounds to prosecute.
Canine couture has become fashionable in recent years and there is a dizzying array of products on sale, from bootees, pyjamas, all-in-one trousers and even hoodies for dogs.
Top fashion designers, including Vivienne Westwood and Ben de Lisi, have also created dog designs, while the London store Harrods has an annual fashion show called Pet-a-Porter.
Experts believe there are occasions where dog clothing is acceptable, such as with small dogs and short-haired varieties, and during cold weather.
Jess Bland, a professional dog walker and pet sitter, says: "Dog clothing certainly serves its purpose when it's cold and wet, but it has to fit properly.
"Although dogs would survive in the wild, they're generally used to being indoors. So there is a case that they need coats in the winter, especially shorter haired dogs and smaller dogs."
But the fashion for pet clothes angers Lynn Williams, founder of dog charity Happy Dogs. She said: "People love their pets and the retail trade has latched on to that.
"To see a little dog dressed up in boots, I think, is a little over the top.
"You can buy anything fashion wise for your dog. I have an extreme love of the dog, but I don't like to see them dressed up as little human beings. I don't think they like it either. It's unnatural."
Jo Barr, RSPCA spokeswoman, said: "Dog owners should be aware that under the Animal Welfare Act that came into force in April 2007 they have a duty of care to ensure that all of their pets' needs are met.
"One of those needs is to express normal behaviour and it could mean that with restrictive clothing they are not able to do that properly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4227567/RSPCA-says-people-who-dress-up-their-dogs-could-be-prosecuted.html

NOW THE RSPCA MAY PROSECUTE FOR CLOTHING YOUR PET

RSPCA ANIMAL WELFARE ACT INTERPRETATION ABSURD

The animal welfare charity claims that forcing pets to wear clothing could be harmful, and in some cases there may even be grounds to prosecute.
Canine couture has become fashionable in recent years and there is a dizzying array of products on sale, from bootees, pyjamas, all-in-one trousers and even hoodies for dogs.
Top fashion designers, including Vivienne Westwood and Ben de Lisi, have also created dog designs, while the London store Harrods has an annual fashion show called Pet-a-Porter.
Experts believe there are occasions where dog clothing is acceptable, such as with small dogs and short-haired varieties, and during cold weather.
Jess Bland, a professional dog walker and pet sitter, says: "Dog clothing certainly serves its purpose when it's cold and wet, but it has to fit properly.
"Although dogs would survive in the wild, they're generally used to being indoors. So there is a case that they need coats in the winter, especially shorter haired dogs and smaller dogs."
But the fashion for pet clothes angers Lynn Williams, founder of dog charity Happy Dogs. She said: "People love their pets and the retail trade has latched on to that.
"To see a little dog dressed up in boots, I think, is a little over the top.
"You can buy anything fashion wise for your dog. I have an extreme love of the dog, but I don't like to see them dressed up as little human beings. I don't think they like it either. It's unnatural."
Jo Barr, RSPCA spokeswoman, said: "Dog owners should be aware that under the Animal Welfare Act that came into force in April 2007 they have a duty of care to ensure that all of their pets' needs are met.
"One of those needs is to express normal behaviour and it could mean that with restrictive clothing they are not able to do that properly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4227567/RSPCA-says-people-who-dress-up-their-dogs-could-be-prosecuted.html

RSPCA THREATEN PROSECUTION, IF YOUR DOG WEARS A COAT !

As animal lovers see an increase in the use of dog coats, the RSPCA see an oppourtunity for prosecution.


The RSPCA has compared the practice to leaving dogs in cars during hot weather and warned that if people consistently allow their dogs to get too hot when wearing clothing they could face prosecution.

Owners and experts have also said that the growth of "canine couture" – dressing dogs in "fashionable" clothing – is demeaning to the animals and could even encourage bad behaviour.
Dog clothing has become a big business in recent years. Among the products now available are all-in-one trouser suits, which only leave the head and paws exposed, "jumpers", which cover the body and the front legs, and even "hoodies". Fancy dress designs, such as Elvis Presley-style jumpsuits and pirate costumes, are also available.
Designers, including Vivienne Westwood and Ben de Lisi, have also created dog accessories and clothing, while Harrods holds an annual fashion show for canine clothing, called Pet-a-Porter.
But experts say that, barring a few exceptions – such as very small dogs with short hair, thin breeds like greyhounds, or those bred for much warmer climates, like the Saluki – any form of clothing is unnecessary and impedes a dog's ability to regulate its own temperature.
Mark Johnston, from the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, said: "There are very few occasions when an animal needs a coat, even in the recent cold weather.
"Dogs have developed a very effective coat of their own, which will protect them from the elements. It is adjustable so they can raise the fur to control their temperature. Dressing them in a coat diminishes the animal's ability to regulate their own body temperature and could be detrimental if the animal gets too hot.
"Too high a temperature is more of a risk to the dog's health than too low a temperature. Clothing could also rub and cause sores and if the animal is wearing it for a long time, it could cause skin conditions. Fashion-wise, coats are pointless for dogs."
Helen Briggs, a spokeswoman from the RSPCA, added: "Under the Animal Welfare Act, you are obliged to provide appropriate conditions and environments for your dog. So if you are slapping a great big coat on it when it really doesn't need it, then that could cause it to suffer if it is overheating. It is the same as if you leave a dog in a car in hot weather.
"Some breeds have been bred to have less fur, so in some cases it is quite appropriate for a dog to wear a coat in very cold weather. But if an owner is just doing it for a fashion statement or because they think it is cool, I would question that. If people are worried that their dog might be cold, it is worth getting some advice from their vet to see if it is appropriate or not."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4214076/Animal-welfare-experts-hot-under-the-collar-over-dogs-in-coats.html

RSPCA THREATEN PROSECUTION, IF YOUR DOG WEARS A COAT !

As animal lovers see an increase in the use of dog coats, the RSPCA see an oppourtunity for prosecution.


The RSPCA has compared the practice to leaving dogs in cars during hot weather and warned that if people consistently allow their dogs to get too hot when wearing clothing they could face prosecution.

Owners and experts have also said that the growth of "canine couture" – dressing dogs in "fashionable" clothing – is demeaning to the animals and could even encourage bad behaviour.
Dog clothing has become a big business in recent years. Among the products now available are all-in-one trouser suits, which only leave the head and paws exposed, "jumpers", which cover the body and the front legs, and even "hoodies". Fancy dress designs, such as Elvis Presley-style jumpsuits and pirate costumes, are also available.
Designers, including Vivienne Westwood and Ben de Lisi, have also created dog accessories and clothing, while Harrods holds an annual fashion show for canine clothing, called Pet-a-Porter.
But experts say that, barring a few exceptions – such as very small dogs with short hair, thin breeds like greyhounds, or those bred for much warmer climates, like the Saluki – any form of clothing is unnecessary and impedes a dog's ability to regulate its own temperature.
Mark Johnston, from the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, said: "There are very few occasions when an animal needs a coat, even in the recent cold weather.
"Dogs have developed a very effective coat of their own, which will protect them from the elements. It is adjustable so they can raise the fur to control their temperature. Dressing them in a coat diminishes the animal's ability to regulate their own body temperature and could be detrimental if the animal gets too hot.
"Too high a temperature is more of a risk to the dog's health than too low a temperature. Clothing could also rub and cause sores and if the animal is wearing it for a long time, it could cause skin conditions. Fashion-wise, coats are pointless for dogs."
Helen Briggs, a spokeswoman from the RSPCA, added: "Under the Animal Welfare Act, you are obliged to provide appropriate conditions and environments for your dog. So if you are slapping a great big coat on it when it really doesn't need it, then that could cause it to suffer if it is overheating. It is the same as if you leave a dog in a car in hot weather.
"Some breeds have been bred to have less fur, so in some cases it is quite appropriate for a dog to wear a coat in very cold weather. But if an owner is just doing it for a fashion statement or because they think it is cool, I would question that. If people are worried that their dog might be cold, it is worth getting some advice from their vet to see if it is appropriate or not."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4214076/Animal-welfare-experts-hot-under-the-collar-over-dogs-in-coats.html

RSPCA SPEND £12,000 ON PROSECUTION, AND THATS A CHEAP ONE !

ON THE SAME DAY AS THE RSPCA STATE THAT NO CHARGES WILL BE BROUGHT AGAINST PRINCE EDWARD FOR HITTING HIS DOG WITH A STICK,
THEY CROW ABOUT PROSECUTING MARTIN LIGHTFOOT FOR HITTING HIS DOG WITH HIS CRUTCHES.

DOUBLE STANDARDS OR WHAT !

RSPCA INSP DUNDERDALE

A Shropshire man who beat his dog with crutches has been banned from keeping animals for 10 years.
Martin John Lightfoot, from Whitchurch, was also given a three-year conditional discharge, told to hand over his two dogs to the RSPCA and ordered to pay £1,000 compensation and costs after admitting the offences before Market Drayton magistrates at court yesterday.

Animal welfare officials have welcomed the outcome after spending £12,000 to bring the prosecution.
Their comments come almost a year after 36-year-old Lightfoot was seen beating his dog Poppy, a boxer crossbreed, on January 24 last year at Pepper Street, Whitchurch.

Speaking outside court, RSPCA inspector Nayman Dunderdale (pictured) said: “I’m pleased the magistrates took the case so seriously.
“We’re pleased with the 10-year ban on keeping animals and want to thank the witnesses who helped.”

Lightfoot had been due to stand trial yesterday for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, but he changed his plea to guilty.
His legal team argued that he was battling alcoholism and had not “seriously injured” Poppy in the incident.

Following the case Mr Dunderdale also hit out at Lightfoot for entering a guilty plea so late in the proceedings - allowing the charity’s costs to mount up.

“For us it’s not a question of the costs because we are prepared to take that on,” he said.
“If someone is cruel to animals it’s worth the cost to see them get a ban like this one.”

By Tom Johannsen
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/01/09/animal-ban-is-rspca-case-victory/#comment-59818

RSPCA SPEND £12,000 ON PROSECUTION, AND THATS A CHEAP ONE !

ON THE SAME DAY AS THE RSPCA STATE THAT NO CHARGES WILL BE BROUGHT AGAINST PRINCE EDWARD FOR HITTING HIS DOG WITH A STICK,
THEY CROW ABOUT PROSECUTING MARTIN LIGHTFOOT FOR HITTING HIS DOG WITH HIS CRUTCHES.

DOUBLE STANDARDS OR WHAT !

RSPCA INSP DUNDERDALE

A Shropshire man who beat his dog with crutches has been banned from keeping animals for 10 years.
Martin John Lightfoot, from Whitchurch, was also given a three-year conditional discharge, told to hand over his two dogs to the RSPCA and ordered to pay £1,000 compensation and costs after admitting the offences before Market Drayton magistrates at court yesterday.

Animal welfare officials have welcomed the outcome after spending £12,000 to bring the prosecution.
Their comments come almost a year after 36-year-old Lightfoot was seen beating his dog Poppy, a boxer crossbreed, on January 24 last year at Pepper Street, Whitchurch.

Speaking outside court, RSPCA inspector Nayman Dunderdale (pictured) said: “I’m pleased the magistrates took the case so seriously.
“We’re pleased with the 10-year ban on keeping animals and want to thank the witnesses who helped.”

Lightfoot had been due to stand trial yesterday for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, but he changed his plea to guilty.
His legal team argued that he was battling alcoholism and had not “seriously injured” Poppy in the incident.

Following the case Mr Dunderdale also hit out at Lightfoot for entering a guilty plea so late in the proceedings - allowing the charity’s costs to mount up.

“For us it’s not a question of the costs because we are prepared to take that on,” he said.
“If someone is cruel to animals it’s worth the cost to see them get a ban like this one.”

By Tom Johannsen
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/01/09/animal-ban-is-rspca-case-victory/#comment-59818

RSPCA WONT PROSECUTE PRINCE EDWARD

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ?

Prince dog beating claim rejected

The Earl of Wessex, Prince Edward, will not be prosecuted over allegations he beat a gun dog, the RSPCA has said.
The charity has been investigating claims the prince may have struck a Labrador with a walking stick on the Queen's Sandringham estate in Norfolk.
But it now says there is not enough evidence to support the allegation.
The investigation followed public complaints when pictures showing the prince holding a stick over a black Labrador were published in December.
Buckingham Palace said the prince had waved his stick to break up a fight between his two dogs over a dead pheasant.
In a statement, the animal charity said:
"The RSPCA has closed its investigation as there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Prince Edward beat his dog."
Buckingham Palace said it welcomed the charity's findings but did not want to comment further.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7820952.stm

RSPCA WONT PROSECUTE PRINCE EDWARD

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ?

Prince dog beating claim rejected

The Earl of Wessex, Prince Edward, will not be prosecuted over allegations he beat a gun dog, the RSPCA has said.
The charity has been investigating claims the prince may have struck a Labrador with a walking stick on the Queen's Sandringham estate in Norfolk.
But it now says there is not enough evidence to support the allegation.
The investigation followed public complaints when pictures showing the prince holding a stick over a black Labrador were published in December.
Buckingham Palace said the prince had waved his stick to break up a fight between his two dogs over a dead pheasant.
In a statement, the animal charity said:
"The RSPCA has closed its investigation as there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Prince Edward beat his dog."
Buckingham Palace said it welcomed the charity's findings but did not want to comment further.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7820952.stm