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?”

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/

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 TELL RESCUER TO TURN DOG OUT ON THE STREET

SHAME ON YOU RSPCA, ISNT THIS WHAT PEOPLE DONATE MONEY TO YOU FOR ?

A FYLDE animal-lover claims the RSPCA told her to dump a lost dog she had rescued from the streets.
Catherine Whatmough rescued the black Collie, which was wandering alone in the middle of Freckleton Street in Lytham on New Year's Day.

The 43-year-old took the dog to her local police station, only to be told they had no facilities to take the dog in.She then tried to contact Fylde Council's dog wardens, but none was available.

After contacting the RSPCA, she says she was told they could not take the dog and that she should let it back out on to the street.

The mother-of-three said: "I was really worried it could cause an accident, because a driver might swerve or slam the brakes on to avoid it so I took it in.

I felt I couldn't just leave it there."I called the police, who said they did not deal with stray dogs and I needed to contact the wardens."I rang the council and they said there was no dog warden on duty.

They took my details and said someone would ring me back but no one did."I called the RSPCA emergency number and they said if there was no other option then I would have to let it free. I was quite shocked by that."I have two dogs so I didn't want to risk it staying with me.

The dog ended up staying with my dad."She was lovely and well-behaved.

The next day we managed to get in touch with the owner who had reported her missing to the council."The dog ran off on New Year's Eve because it got scared by the fireworks but the owner had similar problems trying to report her missing."He was thrilled she was safe."

A spokesman for the RSPCA stressed it was not the charity's policy to tell people to release stray dogs back on to the street and the call operator would be spoken to as "a mistake had been made".She added: "We are glad this issue has been highlighted as legislation means stray dogs are the responsibility of councils and the police."Being a charity, the issue is if we step in then we can start being used to plug the gap. If a dog is injured, then we will help but it is the responsibility of the local authority."A council spokesman said: "We have two on-call dog wardens to cover the entire Fylde and there are occasions when neither is available."If that is the case provisions are made and our call centre staff will usually be able to direct people to a dog home that will try to home or locate owners of lost animals."

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/39Turn-lost-dog-out-on.4841180.jp

RSPCA TELL RESCUER TO TURN DOG OUT ON THE STREET

SHAME ON YOU RSPCA, ISNT THIS WHAT PEOPLE DONATE MONEY TO YOU FOR ?

A FYLDE animal-lover claims the RSPCA told her to dump a lost dog she had rescued from the streets.
Catherine Whatmough rescued the black Collie, which was wandering alone in the middle of Freckleton Street in Lytham on New Year's Day.

The 43-year-old took the dog to her local police station, only to be told they had no facilities to take the dog in.She then tried to contact Fylde Council's dog wardens, but none was available.

After contacting the RSPCA, she says she was told they could not take the dog and that she should let it back out on to the street.

The mother-of-three said: "I was really worried it could cause an accident, because a driver might swerve or slam the brakes on to avoid it so I took it in.

I felt I couldn't just leave it there."I called the police, who said they did not deal with stray dogs and I needed to contact the wardens."I rang the council and they said there was no dog warden on duty.

They took my details and said someone would ring me back but no one did."I called the RSPCA emergency number and they said if there was no other option then I would have to let it free. I was quite shocked by that."I have two dogs so I didn't want to risk it staying with me.

The dog ended up staying with my dad."She was lovely and well-behaved.

The next day we managed to get in touch with the owner who had reported her missing to the council."The dog ran off on New Year's Eve because it got scared by the fireworks but the owner had similar problems trying to report her missing."He was thrilled she was safe."

A spokesman for the RSPCA stressed it was not the charity's policy to tell people to release stray dogs back on to the street and the call operator would be spoken to as "a mistake had been made".She added: "We are glad this issue has been highlighted as legislation means stray dogs are the responsibility of councils and the police."Being a charity, the issue is if we step in then we can start being used to plug the gap. If a dog is injured, then we will help but it is the responsibility of the local authority."A council spokesman said: "We have two on-call dog wardens to cover the entire Fylde and there are occasions when neither is available."If that is the case provisions are made and our call centre staff will usually be able to direct people to a dog home that will try to home or locate owners of lost animals."

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/39Turn-lost-dog-out-on.4841180.jp

RSPCA INVASION OF PRIVACY

It would be hard to think of a charity that stirs more controversy than the RSPCA.

Whole websites are dedicated to it, smarting with injustice, bristling fur balls of virtual rage.

The webmasters are not frustrated badger-baiters, dog-eaters or seal-clubbers thirsting for blood. They are animal lovers in the full, mildly eccentric British tradition of enjoying the company of other species rather more than their own, and placing animal welfare at the top of the moral pyramid.

But it’s “welfare” that is the problem. Welfarists believe they have a duty of care to wild, domestic and companion animals, which, crudely put, means treating them kindly.

Against this school of thought stands the rights movement, which rejects human exploitation of animals in all its forms: as meat, pet, workhorse, laboratory tool, racer, fighter, public exhibit, performer or quarry in the hunt. It is towards this school of thought that the RSPCA, amid much well-publicised clamour, has shifted its ground.

This places in the front line every cat- and dog-owner but especially pet shops, a point made clear by the RSPCA in a letter to local authorities in 1999. “The RSPCA,” it said bluntly, “is opposed to the sale of animals in pet shops.” It is this demonisation of the trade, and what critics regard as the harassment of individuals, that has done more than anything to widen the rift.

Any allegation of cruelty by one person against another is likely to result in the appearance of a police lookalike demanding to inspect or even seize their animals. Widespread misunderstanding of the Animal Welfare Act means that many pet-owners do indeed believe RSPCA inspectors have the power to do this.

It is a misapprehension that the organisation finds convenient and which it seems in no hurry to correct. As the spokesman said, “We would prefer you didn’t publish that.”

It is a position that many might applaud. Legal nicety versus relief of animal suffering? It’s a no-brainer. But it’s not always as simple as that. Conflict arises because the police, who do have bona-fide powers of entry, have neither the resources nor the expertise to enforce the act.

For this reason, says Chris Newman, chairman of the Federation of Companion Animal Societies, enforcement defaults to the RSPCA. “They impersonate police officers and commit trespass. People do believe they have powers of entry.”

Nigel Weller, a solicitor based in Lewes who specialises in defending RSPCA prosecutions, puts it more strongly: “In every single case I’ve been involved in, they have abused their power.” Often, he says, the RSPCA ask police to attend, ostensibly to avoid a breach of the peace. “Then they argue it was a police officer, acting legally, who seized property, when in fact it was the RSPCA.”

As RSPCA prosecutions are brought privately and do not require the sanction of the Crown Prosecution Service, this raises issues both of accountability and conflict of interest.
Sally Case, head of prosecutions, insists that RSPCA inspectors are trained specifically to make clear to pet-owners that they have no such right.

They act without an owner’s permission, she says, “only if an animal is suffering in a dire emergency. If the court feels evidence has been wrongly obtained, it can refuse to admit it”.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1848410.ece

RSPCA INVASION OF PRIVACY

It would be hard to think of a charity that stirs more controversy than the RSPCA.

Whole websites are dedicated to it, smarting with injustice, bristling fur balls of virtual rage.

The webmasters are not frustrated badger-baiters, dog-eaters or seal-clubbers thirsting for blood. They are animal lovers in the full, mildly eccentric British tradition of enjoying the company of other species rather more than their own, and placing animal welfare at the top of the moral pyramid.

But it’s “welfare” that is the problem. Welfarists believe they have a duty of care to wild, domestic and companion animals, which, crudely put, means treating them kindly.

Against this school of thought stands the rights movement, which rejects human exploitation of animals in all its forms: as meat, pet, workhorse, laboratory tool, racer, fighter, public exhibit, performer or quarry in the hunt. It is towards this school of thought that the RSPCA, amid much well-publicised clamour, has shifted its ground.

This places in the front line every cat- and dog-owner but especially pet shops, a point made clear by the RSPCA in a letter to local authorities in 1999. “The RSPCA,” it said bluntly, “is opposed to the sale of animals in pet shops.” It is this demonisation of the trade, and what critics regard as the harassment of individuals, that has done more than anything to widen the rift.

Any allegation of cruelty by one person against another is likely to result in the appearance of a police lookalike demanding to inspect or even seize their animals. Widespread misunderstanding of the Animal Welfare Act means that many pet-owners do indeed believe RSPCA inspectors have the power to do this.

It is a misapprehension that the organisation finds convenient and which it seems in no hurry to correct. As the spokesman said, “We would prefer you didn’t publish that.”

It is a position that many might applaud. Legal nicety versus relief of animal suffering? It’s a no-brainer. But it’s not always as simple as that. Conflict arises because the police, who do have bona-fide powers of entry, have neither the resources nor the expertise to enforce the act.

For this reason, says Chris Newman, chairman of the Federation of Companion Animal Societies, enforcement defaults to the RSPCA. “They impersonate police officers and commit trespass. People do believe they have powers of entry.”

Nigel Weller, a solicitor based in Lewes who specialises in defending RSPCA prosecutions, puts it more strongly: “In every single case I’ve been involved in, they have abused their power.” Often, he says, the RSPCA ask police to attend, ostensibly to avoid a breach of the peace. “Then they argue it was a police officer, acting legally, who seized property, when in fact it was the RSPCA.”

As RSPCA prosecutions are brought privately and do not require the sanction of the Crown Prosecution Service, this raises issues both of accountability and conflict of interest.
Sally Case, head of prosecutions, insists that RSPCA inspectors are trained specifically to make clear to pet-owners that they have no such right.

They act without an owner’s permission, she says, “only if an animal is suffering in a dire emergency. If the court feels evidence has been wrongly obtained, it can refuse to admit it”.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1848410.ece

RSPCA FAIL TO ACT OVER DROWNING DOGS

TRAGIC DOG OWNERS ANGERED AT RSPCA RESPONSE

TWO pet dogs drowned after being swept into a drainage gulley while out with their owners on a canalside walk.
Lesley Weare and her husband Paul, of Scotland Road in Melksham, were left shocked and angry after losing their dogs, Lady and Kaitlyn, during the torrential downpours on Saturday.
Their pets were swept into a drainage gulley and tunnel running under the Kennet and Avon Canal near The Barge Inn in Seend, by floodwater pouring off nearby fields. They had been on a towpath walk heading towards Bradford on Avon when the tragedy happened.
After realising their pets had been swept away, the distraught couple called police for help and were directed to the RSPCA charity.
But Mrs Weare, 40, and her husband, 41, were unhappy at the charity’s call handler’s response, and were left trying to find the bodies of their dogs alone.
She said: “I ran down the field sobbing to where the tunnel came through the other side.

All I could see were branches and debris and concrete blocking up the exit, the water was so fast.
“In the meantime my husband had rung the police who directed him to the RSPCA and this was where our anger started.
“The woman at the RSPCA told my shaking, freezing cold, distraught husband that if he thought the animals were probably dead then there really wasn’t a lot she could do.”
Shortly after, the couple found the body of their four-year-old springer spaniel Lady before heading to the nearby Barge Inn to see if they could find out who owned the fields next to the towpath to continue the search for Kaitlyn.
Mrs Weare said staff were very helpful and both they and a local farmer offered to go back to the scene the next morning to search for Kaitlyn, the two-year-old offspring of Lady and another of the couple’s dogs, golden retriever Boomer.
They found Kaitlyn’s body at about 8.30am on Sunday.
Mrs Weare said they were furious at the response of the RSPCA.
She said: “I can say now that the RSPCA will never get another penny of my money. Why didn’t they help us when it mattered?”
An RSPCA spokeswoman said: “We received a call at 14.25pm from the police passing on a message from a member of the public that two dogs were trapped in a tunnel. No mention was made of water but it was still logged as an emergency.

http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/3990023.Dogs_drown_in_flood_drama/

RSPCA FAIL TO ACT OVER DROWNING DOGS

TRAGIC DOG OWNERS ANGERED AT RSPCA RESPONSE

TWO pet dogs drowned after being swept into a drainage gulley while out with their owners on a canalside walk.
Lesley Weare and her husband Paul, of Scotland Road in Melksham, were left shocked and angry after losing their dogs, Lady and Kaitlyn, during the torrential downpours on Saturday.
Their pets were swept into a drainage gulley and tunnel running under the Kennet and Avon Canal near The Barge Inn in Seend, by floodwater pouring off nearby fields. They had been on a towpath walk heading towards Bradford on Avon when the tragedy happened.
After realising their pets had been swept away, the distraught couple called police for help and were directed to the RSPCA charity.
But Mrs Weare, 40, and her husband, 41, were unhappy at the charity’s call handler’s response, and were left trying to find the bodies of their dogs alone.
She said: “I ran down the field sobbing to where the tunnel came through the other side.

All I could see were branches and debris and concrete blocking up the exit, the water was so fast.
“In the meantime my husband had rung the police who directed him to the RSPCA and this was where our anger started.
“The woman at the RSPCA told my shaking, freezing cold, distraught husband that if he thought the animals were probably dead then there really wasn’t a lot she could do.”
Shortly after, the couple found the body of their four-year-old springer spaniel Lady before heading to the nearby Barge Inn to see if they could find out who owned the fields next to the towpath to continue the search for Kaitlyn.
Mrs Weare said staff were very helpful and both they and a local farmer offered to go back to the scene the next morning to search for Kaitlyn, the two-year-old offspring of Lady and another of the couple’s dogs, golden retriever Boomer.
They found Kaitlyn’s body at about 8.30am on Sunday.
Mrs Weare said they were furious at the response of the RSPCA.
She said: “I can say now that the RSPCA will never get another penny of my money. Why didn’t they help us when it mattered?”
An RSPCA spokeswoman said: “We received a call at 14.25pm from the police passing on a message from a member of the public that two dogs were trapped in a tunnel. No mention was made of water but it was still logged as an emergency.

http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/3990023.Dogs_drown_in_flood_drama/

DOES A HALF HEARTED APOLOGY AND A REPLACEMENT COW HELPS RSPCA AVOID LEGAL ACTION ?

Sorry we killed your cow, RSPCA tells Hindus – have another one !

Archbishop of Canterbury helps to heal bitter rift after temple animal is put down
By Jerome TaylorSaturday, 13 December 2008

Gangotri the cow suffered paralysis after a vigorous mating session and was put down
When animal welfare officers walked into the grounds of Watford's Bhaktivedanta Manor Temple on13 December 2007 and put down one of its cows, the local Hindu community was outraged. Gangotri, a 13-year-old blue Jersey cross, was being nursed by temple officials after becoming paralysed during an overly vigorous mating session with Karma Deva, the resident bull. But the officials, from the RSPCA, believed Gangotri was "suffering unnecessarily" and killed her.

The decision caused a bitter rift to develop between Britain's Hindus, who regard cows as sacred, and the RSPCA. But a year on, the two groups have buried the hatchet thanks to a series of high-level talks and a little encouragement from the Archbishop of Canterbury, a patron of the society.
The Independent has learnt that a meeting between temple officials and the RSPCA's chief executive, Mark Watts, took place earlier this week. The society agreed to apologise for upsetting the Hindu community and offered to give a replacement cow to the temple as a goodwill gesture.
Officials from Lambeth Palace yesterday said they played no part in brokering that final meeting but one temple official admitted that progress in the talks only came about once Rowan Williams was contacted. "The Archbishop is a patron of the RSPCA and we wrote to him asking for his help," said Stuart "Shyamsundar" Coyle, the chief herdsman on the temple's farm, which claims to be Europe's largest cow sanctuary.
"The Church of England worked very hard in getting the RSPCA to talk to us about our concerns and we are extremely grateful for their help."
A spokesman from the RSPCA stressed yesterday that its vets had acted within the law when they put Gangotri down but admitted that they had upset the Hindu community in the way it was carried out. "We recognise we offended religious sensibilities," the spokesman said. "We know what happened caused a lot of offence to the Hindu community and we wanted to show that we want to work with Britain's Hindus in the future. The RSPCA has so much in common with Britain's Hindus when it comes to our attitude towards animal welfare."
Kapil Dudaki, who led the temple's "Gangotri Task Force" campaign group, said the donation of a new cow would help calm tensions between Hindus and the RSPCA.
"It is a wonderful gesture and we gladly accept it," he said. "It will very much help repair some of the damage done to our community in the past year. It was the way and the manner in which the RSPCA killed Gangotri which upset our community the most. To see a cow killed on the temple's grounds was utterly devastating."
In Hindu culture and scripture cows are considered sacrosanct. Bhaktivedanta Manor, a community of Hare Krishna devotees that was set up by the Beatles guitarist George Harrison, has a herd of 48 cows, most of which are milked or used to work the land.
Other temples have clashed with the RSPCA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) over the care of sick animals. Under the Animal Welfare Act officials can kill an animal if they believe it is suffering unnecessarily. Defra has powers to destroy any animals that have contracted a contagious disease.
But most Hindus believe that killing a cow, even for merciful reasons, is sacrilegious because only God can decide when a sacred animal should die.
Yesterday Defra released a new set of guidelines on how to deal with sacred temple animals without offending the Hindu community. A spokesman from the Hindu Forum of Britain welcomed the new protocol.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sorry-we-killed-your-cow-rspca-tells-hindus-ndash-have-another-one-1064471.html?startindex=50

DOES A HALF HEARTED APOLOGY AND A REPLACEMENT COW HELPS RSPCA AVOID LEGAL ACTION ?

Sorry we killed your cow, RSPCA tells Hindus – have another one !

Archbishop of Canterbury helps to heal bitter rift after temple animal is put down
By Jerome TaylorSaturday, 13 December 2008

Gangotri the cow suffered paralysis after a vigorous mating session and was put down
When animal welfare officers walked into the grounds of Watford's Bhaktivedanta Manor Temple on13 December 2007 and put down one of its cows, the local Hindu community was outraged. Gangotri, a 13-year-old blue Jersey cross, was being nursed by temple officials after becoming paralysed during an overly vigorous mating session with Karma Deva, the resident bull. But the officials, from the RSPCA, believed Gangotri was "suffering unnecessarily" and killed her.

The decision caused a bitter rift to develop between Britain's Hindus, who regard cows as sacred, and the RSPCA. But a year on, the two groups have buried the hatchet thanks to a series of high-level talks and a little encouragement from the Archbishop of Canterbury, a patron of the society.
The Independent has learnt that a meeting between temple officials and the RSPCA's chief executive, Mark Watts, took place earlier this week. The society agreed to apologise for upsetting the Hindu community and offered to give a replacement cow to the temple as a goodwill gesture.
Officials from Lambeth Palace yesterday said they played no part in brokering that final meeting but one temple official admitted that progress in the talks only came about once Rowan Williams was contacted. "The Archbishop is a patron of the RSPCA and we wrote to him asking for his help," said Stuart "Shyamsundar" Coyle, the chief herdsman on the temple's farm, which claims to be Europe's largest cow sanctuary.
"The Church of England worked very hard in getting the RSPCA to talk to us about our concerns and we are extremely grateful for their help."
A spokesman from the RSPCA stressed yesterday that its vets had acted within the law when they put Gangotri down but admitted that they had upset the Hindu community in the way it was carried out. "We recognise we offended religious sensibilities," the spokesman said. "We know what happened caused a lot of offence to the Hindu community and we wanted to show that we want to work with Britain's Hindus in the future. The RSPCA has so much in common with Britain's Hindus when it comes to our attitude towards animal welfare."
Kapil Dudaki, who led the temple's "Gangotri Task Force" campaign group, said the donation of a new cow would help calm tensions between Hindus and the RSPCA.
"It is a wonderful gesture and we gladly accept it," he said. "It will very much help repair some of the damage done to our community in the past year. It was the way and the manner in which the RSPCA killed Gangotri which upset our community the most. To see a cow killed on the temple's grounds was utterly devastating."
In Hindu culture and scripture cows are considered sacrosanct. Bhaktivedanta Manor, a community of Hare Krishna devotees that was set up by the Beatles guitarist George Harrison, has a herd of 48 cows, most of which are milked or used to work the land.
Other temples have clashed with the RSPCA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) over the care of sick animals. Under the Animal Welfare Act officials can kill an animal if they believe it is suffering unnecessarily. Defra has powers to destroy any animals that have contracted a contagious disease.
But most Hindus believe that killing a cow, even for merciful reasons, is sacrilegious because only God can decide when a sacred animal should die.
Yesterday Defra released a new set of guidelines on how to deal with sacred temple animals without offending the Hindu community. A spokesman from the Hindu Forum of Britain welcomed the new protocol.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sorry-we-killed-your-cow-rspca-tells-hindus-ndash-have-another-one-1064471.html?startindex=50

RSPCA PROSECUTE RABBIT COUPLE

AWARD WINNING BRITISH RABBIT COUNCIL MEMBERS PROSECUTED BY THE RSPCA BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT THEIR HUTCHES ARE TOO SMALL !


A PAIR of rabbit enthusiasts won top awards for one of their animals the day before being seized by RSPCA officers, a court heard.

Southampton Magistrates’ Court was told a rabbit belonging to breeders Dawn and Peter Bundy won two prizes for “best in show” at an exhibition of rabbits.

The following day RSPCA and environmental health officers went to the couple’s home in Southampton, and took 73 of the pair’s 126 rabbits.
Officers removed the specialist rabbits – worth about £3,000 – from the back yard of the house on the advice of vet Kimberly Evans on October 1 last year.
The bench heard the animals were in such small hutches some could not sit up on their hind legs. Mrs Bundy, a member of the British Rabbit Council, told the court the animals had been kept in small hutches to stop them becoming too long in the body.
She added the rabbits had not been exercised in winter months to keep them in prime condition for showing.
Mr Bundy added: “They didn’t need to stand on their hind legs. They only do that to look out for danger and there was none.”
Mr and Mrs Bundy said they thought the animals had been kept in “perfect” condition.
Mrs Bundy said: “I love my rabbits. I looked after them to the best of my ability.
“The ones with dirty hutches were going to be cleaned that afternoon but I got interrupted.”
Miss Evans previously told the court the seized rabbits were found to have long claws and were slightly overweight but not unhealthy. She added that 16 of the animals had since died or been destroyed humanely.
Mr and Mrs Bundy, who have been breeding show rabbits since 1991, deny contravening two sections of the Animal Welfare Act.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/3839137._I_love_my_rabbits__court_told/