Hare Coursing; A Major Police Priority ?

One of the 3,500 new offences created by New Labour was to criminalise the hunting of hares with dogs. Hare coursing was, until 2005, a popular and legal countryside sport, as it remains in Ireland.
Oxfordshire PCs Darren James and Marc Lester are just two of the officers whose time is now spent on this animal crime as part of "Operation Migrate" and "Operation Countrywatch". Both PC James and PC Lester patrol the Downs near Wantage in one of several long-wheelbase Landrover Defenders.
Anne Kasica of the SHG said:
"We now have far too many demands on the time and resources of the police. One of their biggest problems is that highly funded animal rights campaign groups such as the RSPCA put intense pressure on the police to concentrate on more minor offences instead of dealing with burglaries and assaults."
"We need to know how police priorities are decided. Surely the main priority must be community safety, not assisting the RSPCA."
The issues raised over the Oxford situation are being repeated all over the country.
Chris Newman of the Federation of Companion Animal Societies (FOCAS) wrote to the Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary last year when his 15 year old son was assaulted and needed hospital treatment and the police were too busy to interview him until some six weeks later.
In the letter Mr. Newman contrasted this with the police presence at an animal welfare incident only two and a half weeks after his son was assaulted, in which, in addition to other attendees, two police officers and three Police Support Officers were present for approximately four hours.
Council appointed Animal Welfare inspector Paula Davies was present throughout and led the investigation into whether the comfort of some pet rabbits had been met.
Mr. Newman asked the Chief Constable whether it was police policy to give priority to animal welfare over human welfare, under what remit civilians such as the RSPCA are permitted to use police facilities to pursue private prosecutions, and whether costs of the use of those facilites are recovered from the RSPCA.
Ernest Vine commented:
"This isn't anyone's idea of keeping the community safe."
"When police initiatives are announced, hare coursing isn't the first crime which leaps to mind - unless, of course, you are an animal rights extremist or you work for MORI."
Mr. Vine concluded:
"It is vital that there is a full and open debate on how police time should be prioritised and whether the police should be at the beck and call of the RSPCA in future."

http://www.the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm

http://groups.google.com/group/AR-News/browse_thread/thread/d6b1e0c5ae6e156f/9e716da9f484961d#9e716da9f484961d

Hare Coursing; A Major Police Priority ?

One of the 3,500 new offences created by New Labour was to criminalise the hunting of hares with dogs. Hare coursing was, until 2005, a popular and legal countryside sport, as it remains in Ireland.
Oxfordshire PCs Darren James and Marc Lester are just two of the officers whose time is now spent on this animal crime as part of "Operation Migrate" and "Operation Countrywatch". Both PC James and PC Lester patrol the Downs near Wantage in one of several long-wheelbase Landrover Defenders.
Anne Kasica of the SHG said:
"We now have far too many demands on the time and resources of the police. One of their biggest problems is that highly funded animal rights campaign groups such as the RSPCA put intense pressure on the police to concentrate on more minor offences instead of dealing with burglaries and assaults."
"We need to know how police priorities are decided. Surely the main priority must be community safety, not assisting the RSPCA."
The issues raised over the Oxford situation are being repeated all over the country.
Chris Newman of the Federation of Companion Animal Societies (FOCAS) wrote to the Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary last year when his 15 year old son was assaulted and needed hospital treatment and the police were too busy to interview him until some six weeks later.
In the letter Mr. Newman contrasted this with the police presence at an animal welfare incident only two and a half weeks after his son was assaulted, in which, in addition to other attendees, two police officers and three Police Support Officers were present for approximately four hours.
Council appointed Animal Welfare inspector Paula Davies was present throughout and led the investigation into whether the comfort of some pet rabbits had been met.
Mr. Newman asked the Chief Constable whether it was police policy to give priority to animal welfare over human welfare, under what remit civilians such as the RSPCA are permitted to use police facilities to pursue private prosecutions, and whether costs of the use of those facilites are recovered from the RSPCA.
Ernest Vine commented:
"This isn't anyone's idea of keeping the community safe."
"When police initiatives are announced, hare coursing isn't the first crime which leaps to mind - unless, of course, you are an animal rights extremist or you work for MORI."
Mr. Vine concluded:
"It is vital that there is a full and open debate on how police time should be prioritised and whether the police should be at the beck and call of the RSPCA in future."

http://www.the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm

http://groups.google.com/group/AR-News/browse_thread/thread/d6b1e0c5ae6e156f/9e716da9f484961d#9e716da9f484961d

RSPCA loses High Court case, More Donations Required ?

RSPCA loses High Court case over avian flu cull method

HOW MUCH DID THIS CASE COST THE RSPCA ?

The High Court has upheld the legality of using ventilation shutdown as a last resort for culling commercial flocks in the event of an outbreak of avian flu, according to a BBC report.
Lord Justice Auld rejected a claim from the RSPCA who brought the case to the court that ventilation shutdown was "disproportionate".

Ventilation shutdown was allowed under an amendment in April 2006 to the Welfare of Animals regulations 1995 for use in "exceptional circumstances".
After the ruling, the RSPCA stressed that it still opposed the method which it claimed would cause "substantial suffering and distress".

The charity argued that the rules were incompatable with a 1993 EU directive on the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

The judge added: "The practical difficulties of providing an all-purpose method - or variety of methods - of ventilation shutdown, so as to provide a guarantee of no distress, pain or suffering when meeting an emergency in all circumstances and countrywide are so obvious as to demonstrate the unreality and imbalance of the RSPCA's case."

Contributors to the RSPCA should be asking why so many Court Cases are being lost, and why their hard earned money is being wasted on legal fees rather than Animal Welfare !

For the court direction of the case see;

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/2321.html

RSPCA loses High Court case, More Donations Required ?

RSPCA loses High Court case over avian flu cull method

HOW MUCH DID THIS CASE COST THE RSPCA ?

The High Court has upheld the legality of using ventilation shutdown as a last resort for culling commercial flocks in the event of an outbreak of avian flu, according to a BBC report.
Lord Justice Auld rejected a claim from the RSPCA who brought the case to the court that ventilation shutdown was "disproportionate".

Ventilation shutdown was allowed under an amendment in April 2006 to the Welfare of Animals regulations 1995 for use in "exceptional circumstances".
After the ruling, the RSPCA stressed that it still opposed the method which it claimed would cause "substantial suffering and distress".

The charity argued that the rules were incompatable with a 1993 EU directive on the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

The judge added: "The practical difficulties of providing an all-purpose method - or variety of methods - of ventilation shutdown, so as to provide a guarantee of no distress, pain or suffering when meeting an emergency in all circumstances and countrywide are so obvious as to demonstrate the unreality and imbalance of the RSPCA's case."

Contributors to the RSPCA should be asking why so many Court Cases are being lost, and why their hard earned money is being wasted on legal fees rather than Animal Welfare !

For the court direction of the case see;

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/2321.html

The joyless bureaucrats of the RSPCA

The organisation may look after animals, but its record on people looks pretty weak

The lady looked up at me sourly. “You're ten minutes too late”. They said it would be OK, I pleaded; ten past three - I did ring to check. You see, it's quite hard to find the time and I don't know when...
“3pm”, she said sharply. “There's no one available to speak to you now.”

I looked at the bevy of staff loitering around behind the desk, doing nothing much. One woman caught my eye sympathetically. “You can have a quick look round”, Ms Timetable said. “Then come back another time.”

And then what? “Then you fill in a form.” Could I do that now?“No, because there's no one available to interview you.”

I glanced again at all the staff behind her. Maybe I could fill in the form and leave it? You know, cut out another visit? It was a three-hour round trip, after all.
“You have to fill it in with us.” Then what?

“Then they come and visit you at home, see if your house is suitable. And then you can come back and see the dogs...”

I gave up. This was the second RSPCA animal shelter that I had tried to adopt from - the first being unwilling even to let us look around. And three three-hour trips to this joyless centre of bureaucracy, where animals might be tended, but humans are treated with disdain, without the promise of so much as a hamster at the end of it, was more than I could bear.

Then there was the child problem. I had a four-year-old. And the RSPCA will not allow any child under 5 to have a dog; not even if she'll be 4 by the time that it arrives. Except in special circumstances.

Which were? No one would tell me. I had to jump through their hoops first, with the almost certain promise of rejection at the end of it.

It's funny how many RSPCA refuseniks you come across once you become one yourself. There was the man who was told that he could have a cat only if he built platforms under the skylights in his London flat - in case the cat climbed across the roof and fell through the window. Or the woman in a rural area who was advised to heighten her fence to 20ft, because some cats like to jump high.

And a mother (the owner of two happy dogs) in Norfolk who simply screamed: “RSPCA? Forget it!”
When you see the “Pet Adoption Week” campaign being launched by the RSPCA next week, with Badger the starving terrier who was rescued by a television presenter, remember these stories.
I wouldn't normally have bothered to remark on this. If the charity wants to put down more animals than is necessary, that's its business. Its, and the people who fund it: the RSPCA has an annual income of more than £100 million, and about £200 million in assets, plus many millions more in its 174 branches around the country (the one that I looked up, Solent, had £3.8 million tucked away). The British give more to animal charities than to charities for the disabled. One donkey sanctuary in Devon has higher income than all the main charities fighting abuse against women combined. Still, your business. Give money to what you like.

But now the RSPCA, in its joylessness, is telling schools that they can no longer have pets. Research by the charity has found that a quarter of schools own pets, ranging from a hermit crab to a horse. Hurrah! A small piece of chaos, of life, amid the regimented drilling that we call school.
Not for much longer - the RSPCA believes there is a danger that the kids might be too noisy, or the lighting conditions could be wrong, and that the classroom pet may receive variable care from different families at evenings or weekends.

If the RSPCA has its way, no more generations of kids will be taught to care for the school guinea pig or rabbit, or hermit crab; no more learning responsibility and respect for animals, no feeling the joy of holding a live thing in their hands. Laughably, the charity suggests that schools should get a soft toy instead to teach children about animal welfare.

This is no joke. They really do want to stop it. The charity has sent all schools a letter warning them of their duties under the draconian Animal Welfare Act introduced at its own urging two years ago. That Act imposed a duty of care on any adult in charge of a pet, or any adult responsible for a child who is in possession of an animal.

Now the RSPCA has told schools to name a single person responsible for the rabbit's welfare, so that they can hold that person to account. The 2006 Act gave uniformed RSPCA officers the right to enter non-domestic properties without a warrant (they can enter your home only with a warrant, but they like people to believe otherwise) to check for animal rights abuses. Find a hamster being teased by Harry and the nominated teacher could face up to a year in jail. We must not let these people bully the life out of schools.

I went to a different animal sanctuary in the end. They sent over Dave to see whether I might be able to have a cat (I was running with the cat idea by then).
A morose individual, like so many animal obsessives, Dave carefully checked for feline dangers, telling me to be sure to keep the cat shut indoors at night in case it got run over. Isn't depriving a cat of the night a bit like depriving a human being of light? Night-time hunting is what a cat does.
But then, I'm just someone who likes animals. I'm not an obsessive. I think that's healthy. I like humans too. There seems to be a distinction between being a human and being an “animal lover” akin to the difference between riding a bicycle and being a “cyclist”. The militants are similarly at a loss for any sense of humour or humanity.
In the end, we bought a puppy. Please don't tell the RSPCA.

From The Times; Alice Miles

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article4061091.ece

The joyless bureaucrats of the RSPCA

The organisation may look after animals, but its record on people looks pretty weak

The lady looked up at me sourly. “You're ten minutes too late”. They said it would be OK, I pleaded; ten past three - I did ring to check. You see, it's quite hard to find the time and I don't know when...
“3pm”, she said sharply. “There's no one available to speak to you now.”

I looked at the bevy of staff loitering around behind the desk, doing nothing much. One woman caught my eye sympathetically. “You can have a quick look round”, Ms Timetable said. “Then come back another time.”

And then what? “Then you fill in a form.” Could I do that now?“No, because there's no one available to interview you.”

I glanced again at all the staff behind her. Maybe I could fill in the form and leave it? You know, cut out another visit? It was a three-hour round trip, after all.
“You have to fill it in with us.” Then what?

“Then they come and visit you at home, see if your house is suitable. And then you can come back and see the dogs...”

I gave up. This was the second RSPCA animal shelter that I had tried to adopt from - the first being unwilling even to let us look around. And three three-hour trips to this joyless centre of bureaucracy, where animals might be tended, but humans are treated with disdain, without the promise of so much as a hamster at the end of it, was more than I could bear.

Then there was the child problem. I had a four-year-old. And the RSPCA will not allow any child under 5 to have a dog; not even if she'll be 4 by the time that it arrives. Except in special circumstances.

Which were? No one would tell me. I had to jump through their hoops first, with the almost certain promise of rejection at the end of it.

It's funny how many RSPCA refuseniks you come across once you become one yourself. There was the man who was told that he could have a cat only if he built platforms under the skylights in his London flat - in case the cat climbed across the roof and fell through the window. Or the woman in a rural area who was advised to heighten her fence to 20ft, because some cats like to jump high.

And a mother (the owner of two happy dogs) in Norfolk who simply screamed: “RSPCA? Forget it!”
When you see the “Pet Adoption Week” campaign being launched by the RSPCA next week, with Badger the starving terrier who was rescued by a television presenter, remember these stories.
I wouldn't normally have bothered to remark on this. If the charity wants to put down more animals than is necessary, that's its business. Its, and the people who fund it: the RSPCA has an annual income of more than £100 million, and about £200 million in assets, plus many millions more in its 174 branches around the country (the one that I looked up, Solent, had £3.8 million tucked away). The British give more to animal charities than to charities for the disabled. One donkey sanctuary in Devon has higher income than all the main charities fighting abuse against women combined. Still, your business. Give money to what you like.

But now the RSPCA, in its joylessness, is telling schools that they can no longer have pets. Research by the charity has found that a quarter of schools own pets, ranging from a hermit crab to a horse. Hurrah! A small piece of chaos, of life, amid the regimented drilling that we call school.
Not for much longer - the RSPCA believes there is a danger that the kids might be too noisy, or the lighting conditions could be wrong, and that the classroom pet may receive variable care from different families at evenings or weekends.

If the RSPCA has its way, no more generations of kids will be taught to care for the school guinea pig or rabbit, or hermit crab; no more learning responsibility and respect for animals, no feeling the joy of holding a live thing in their hands. Laughably, the charity suggests that schools should get a soft toy instead to teach children about animal welfare.

This is no joke. They really do want to stop it. The charity has sent all schools a letter warning them of their duties under the draconian Animal Welfare Act introduced at its own urging two years ago. That Act imposed a duty of care on any adult in charge of a pet, or any adult responsible for a child who is in possession of an animal.

Now the RSPCA has told schools to name a single person responsible for the rabbit's welfare, so that they can hold that person to account. The 2006 Act gave uniformed RSPCA officers the right to enter non-domestic properties without a warrant (they can enter your home only with a warrant, but they like people to believe otherwise) to check for animal rights abuses. Find a hamster being teased by Harry and the nominated teacher could face up to a year in jail. We must not let these people bully the life out of schools.

I went to a different animal sanctuary in the end. They sent over Dave to see whether I might be able to have a cat (I was running with the cat idea by then).
A morose individual, like so many animal obsessives, Dave carefully checked for feline dangers, telling me to be sure to keep the cat shut indoors at night in case it got run over. Isn't depriving a cat of the night a bit like depriving a human being of light? Night-time hunting is what a cat does.
But then, I'm just someone who likes animals. I'm not an obsessive. I think that's healthy. I like humans too. There seems to be a distinction between being a human and being an “animal lover” akin to the difference between riding a bicycle and being a “cyclist”. The militants are similarly at a loss for any sense of humour or humanity.
In the end, we bought a puppy. Please don't tell the RSPCA.

From The Times; Alice Miles

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article4061091.ece

SEXUAL HARASSMENT & BULLYING COST RSPCA £30K

Animal lovers will not be pleased to learn of pay-outs to disgruntled employees by pet charities.

This includes the RSPCA: one of its inspectors was awarded constructive dismissal damages after a saga that included attempting suicide with medication designed to put down animals.

Will Clayton, partner in employment law at the Manchester office of national law firm Hill Dickinson, recently brought a successful claim to tribunal on behalf of former RSPCA Inspector, Dimity Crowley.

Crowley reported sexual harassment and bullying by a chief inspector (who resigned prior to disciplinary proceedings), and medical experts said the experience triggered a “short-term adjustment disorder”.

In October 2004 she attempted suicide. She was successfully treated and her consultant occupational psychiatrist said she had emerged both mentally and emotionally stronger, suggesting in January 2006 that she could return to work. An occupational health expert for the RSPCA disputed Crowley's suitability as an inspector.

Following an appeal by Crowley, a second adviser accepted she could return to work, but insisted on changes to her contract and an agreement from Crowley (who was pregnant at the time) that her GP could report any signs of psychological illness directly to the RSPCA. Crowley resigned a short while later before her maternity leave was due to begin.Trial“I was devastated to lose my job as it was my true vocation,” said Crowley.

“The RSPCA"s treatment towards me has been grossly unfair, enormously upsetting and demoralising given that I was a dedicated Inspector. I received no compassion and little support. I am left exasperated by the way in which I was treated.” After a four-day trial in December 2007, the tribunal agreed that Crowley had been constructively dismissed, that the GP consent issue was an unjustified invasion of privacy and represented a fundamental breach of her employment contract and consequently awarded her £30,000 in compensation. “This case is a severe warning to any employer who adopts overly rigid or aggressive health management practices of employees looking to return to work after a period of long term ill-health,” Clayton commented. “I was left with no choice but to take the RSPCA to an employment tribunal.

This lengthy and daunting process was extremely stressful. “Due to a poorly managed HR department, the RSPCA wasted huge donations received from members of the public in order to fight this case.

I am obviously thrilled to have won, however it is a shame that it ended up in a costly four-day trial.” Employees are now much more aware of their rights and if employers want to avoid embarrassment and costly proceedings then they must ensure that their grounds for dismissal are fair and that their procedures are within the law.

http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.co.uk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080623/FREE/89469861/1162/TOC/-/-/the-cool-calm-and-correct-way-to-avoid-a-tribunal

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/10/08/47830/tales-from-the-tribunals.html