RSPCA accused of political agenda

8 May 2012

I am not sure if this prosecution is political or not.

But one does have to wonder about there motives.
Time's are not good for RSPCA financially at the moment. The RSPCA recently said that it is facing a funding crisis, with rising costs and legacies dropping. So to my mind it makes it all the more important that funds raised are directed to genuine causes.
In July 2005, the RSPCA announces a 78% rise in animal cruelty cases
In July 2006, the RSPCA says that conviction cases had risen by 20%
In April 2007, the RSPCA reveals that its workload had increased by 50%
In April 2008, the RSPCA states that cases of abandoned pets rose by 25%
In May 2011, the RSPCA says that cases of alleged cruelty rose by 10%
In April 2012, the RSPCA states that cases of cruelty have risen by 23.5%
Concentrate on spending there charitable donations from the general public on the real animal cruelty I say, and leave politics to others.

8 May 2012

There is no such thing as bad publicity. People against fox hunting will see this and no doubt donations will increase as a result.

8 May 2012

Quote by Gee_Wizz
There is no such thing as bad publicity. People against fox hunting will see this and no doubt donations will increase as a result.

A valid point I had completely missed
Bit of a gamble though, you have to make more than you spend
And politics, anthoer dangerous pit fall for a charity, in my view

8 May 2012

Political reasons? So any enforcement of any law should not go ahead if David Cameron has any connection with it? Hogwash.
If the law has been broken then it should be investigated and prosecuted if deemed to meet the evidential and public interest test.
Dave_Notts

8 May 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
There is no such thing as bad publicity. People against fox hunting will see this and no doubt donations will increase as a result.

A valid point I had completely missed
Bit of a gamble though, you have to make more than you spend
And politics, anthoer dangerous pit fall for a charity, in my view
The RSPCA to me seems to be one of those "untouchable" charities - they can't do anything wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of taking these people to court is a fraction of the funds raised from the publicity.

8 May 2012

Have to question why the RSPCA have launched a private prosecution when we understand it's the Law (Hunting Act 2004) thats been deeemed to have been broken by some members/supporters of the Heythrop Hunt.

8 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Political reasons? So any enforcement of any law should not go ahead if David Cameron has any connection with it? Hogwash.
If the law has been broken then it should be investigated and prosecuted if deemed to meet the evidential and public interest test.
Dave_Notts

But we don't know if the law has been broken yet do we, why not hand over the evidence to the police and let them investigate and prosecute, if required, without the need for charitable funds being waisted?

8 May 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
Political reasons? So any enforcement of any law should not go ahead if David Cameron has any connection with it? Hogwash.
If the law has been broken then it should be investigated and prosecuted if deemed to meet the evidential and public interest test.
Dave_Notts

But we don't know if the law has been broken yet do we, why not hand over the evidence to the police and let them investigate and prosecute, if required, without the need for charitable funds being waisted?
Well if law has been broken then the RSPCA have every right to go ahead with it. To me the very fact they are going ahead with it, at a time funds are low, would mean they must think they have a very good chance of winning !! Therefore no money spent or wasted...and indeed people may well be more ready to hand over a few pennies to the RSPCA, if they see they won't be itimidated by some politicians friends !!

8 May 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
Political reasons? So any enforcement of any law should not go ahead if David Cameron has any connection with it? Hogwash.
If the law has been broken then it should be investigated and prosecuted if deemed to meet the evidential and public interest test.
Dave_Notts

But we don't know if the law has been broken yet do we, why not hand over the evidence to the police and let them investigate and prosecute, if required, without the need for charitable funds being waisted?
I would like to think they are doing it because nobdoy else is going to take any legal action against the Hunt, perhaps the CPS dismissed the case or someone else didn't deem it worthy of pressing charges, I would like to think they are doing it because they feel that if they don't do it other Hunts will believe they can get away with it or because no charges are being brought for political reasons and therefore that it is worth the expense and time, that's what I would like think .......

9 May 2012

The R.S.P.C.A. are driven by their greed, they don't do anything unless they think they'll get paid

9 May 2012

There is nothing wrong with greed, providing your greed does not lead you to make others suffer, greed is one of Mans human traits along with jealousy, a desire to better themselves and more.
There is greed in any business, in Sport, just look at football, in almost every walk of life, for some enough is never enough.
If in thier greed they are able to do more then greed is fine, yes there will be some fat cats creaming off high salaries or benefits but that is the same for all big business and no matter what thier motivation I can at least think they are doing something for others in thier quest for more, unlike many big business fat cats.

9 May 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
The R.S.P.C.A. are driven by their greed, they don't do anything unless they think they'll get paid

A sweeping statement and not supported by any factual evidence.

9 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
There is nothing wrong with greed, providing your greed does not lead you to make others suffer, greed is one of Mans human traits along with jealousy, a desire to better themselves and more.
There is greed in any business, in Sport, just look at football, in almost every walk of life, for some enough is never enough.
If in thier greed they are able to do more then greed is fine, yes there will be some fat cats creaming off high salaries or benefits but that is the same for all big business and no matter what thier motivation I can at least think they are doing something for others in thier quest for more, unlike many big business fat cats.

+1 Greed fuels growth.

9 May 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
The R.S.P.C.A. are driven by their greed, they don't do anything unless they think they'll get paid

A sweeping statement and not supported by any factual evidence.
as is usually the case rogue. :thumbup:

9 May 2012

after reading the article as least the RSPCA have the guts to act against these toffy nose snobs. in one of the pictures the right honourable Julian Barnfield, now there's a name if ever there was a name that belonged to a toff. a cambridge graduate in the past i bet.
this has been debated to death on this forum and many others. the RSPCA ( the fucking clue is there in the name fgs ) have decided to take a hunt to task for what they beleeve is blatant breach of the law. i stand behind them 1000% in anything that stops the blatant cruelty to animals on the precept that the toffs say it helps the countryside. bollox does it.
but putting that aside the RSPCA are there to help and care for animals, and for some to mention greed as there motives, stinks more than a huge pile of human shite.
i hope that this hunt if guilty are slapped with the most heaviest of fines, but seeing as this is in the other toffs backyard ( toffy Cameron ), i am sure he will have a word with his mates in the CPS. :twisted:
but for anyone in any doubt about the charges.
" The four accused of unlawfully hunting a fox with dogs in contravention of the Hunting Act 2004are Vanessa Lambert, 29, who is a Joint Master of the hunt, Richard Sumner, 67, Duncan Hume, 32, and 48-year-old Julian Barnfield, a professional huntsman ".
something that i find disgusting and why do i think in my heart of hearts, that these toffs are as guilty as hell as they think they can get away with almost murder when you have the PM as a chum.

what a load of double sided nonsense.
" Since the introduction of the (temporary) Hunting Act it has no longer been possible to play our proper role in the management of fox populations but we have resolved to hunt ‘within the law’ until the Act is repealed - an outcome to which all supporters are expected to be committed. Currently the pack meets to:
notice the way they have worded the " temporary " in that oh so smug way. 2005 till 2012 does not seem like a temporary amount of time.
" • Trail Hunt - this involves using hounds to hunt a trail laid with a rag steeped in a fox-based scent.
• Hound Exercise - basically lots of people taking a large group of hounds for a walk.
• Flushing to a bird of prey - Using a pack of hounds to flush to a bird of prey ".
I just absolutly love the second excuse. rotflmao

the first one is rubbish and just an excuse to hunt if they happen to come across a fox well sorry. i cannot read anymore of there rubbish and will let others read the rest of the content.
in case anyone is in any doubt as to the wonderful work they do,,,,

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

9 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
after reading the article as least the RSPCA have the guts to act against these toffy nose snobs. in one of the pictures the right honourable Julian Barnfield, now there's a name if ever there was a name that belonged to a toff. a cambridge graduate in the past i bet.

Quote by starlightcouple
A sweeping statement and not supported by any factual evidence. as is usually the case

Who's to say? Can you be sure he wasn't a Oxford graduate dunno

9 May 2012

Quote by GnV
Who's to say? Can you be sure he wasn't a Oxford graduate

can you tell the difference? no neither can i :twisted:

9 May 2012

I see this week a lot of media coverage on TV at the increasing number of "urban foxes", in my humble opinion this increase is due to the obvious easy access take away meals available to foxes in urban areas, and the hounding (no pun intended) of them in thier natural environment. I think perhaps they took a leaf from the Book of Human, if your hounded where you live, emigrate to nicer places, can't fault them lol

I do support culling of herds and wild animals, culling takes out old or infirm animals from a herd in order that the herd is more equipped to survive and prosper, the culling of squirrels, birds, foxes, badgers and so on involves a similar practice, taking out the old and infirm in order that the remaining animals will have sufficient territory to hunt, eat and survice.
Most culling is done in a humane way, though not all, culling deer for example is normally done by a single shot to the head by a marksman, I support humane culling but will never support hunting for sport that involves killing animals of any description, using the "keeping the numbers down" excuse is pathetic, quoting how long we have done it for and how popular it used to be is equally pathetic, we are supposed to have moved on and got more civilised haven't we, or would it still be ok to burn suspected witches just because it used to be popular.
I disagree that it is only the posh that do it, yes many members of a hunt are from afluent backgrounds but not all, and many of the "back up" staff necessary for hunt organisations to exist are not afluent neither are the pub owners that welcome them or the farmers who allow them on to thier land. Let us not let the less afluent people get away with this barbaric "sport".

9 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
I see this week a lot of media coverage on TV at the increasing number of "urban foxes", in my humble opinion this increase is due to the obvious easy access take away meals available to foxes in urban areas, and the hounding (no pun intended) of them in thier natural environment. I think perhaps they took a leaf from the Book of Human, if your hounded where you live, emigrate to nicer places, can't fault them

yes mids the human hounding of wildlife to sustain out own greed, be it a new bridge or a new motorway. of course we have to have those things but also the human who in many cases has become so lazy that drive through eateries are now rife. where the human drives through and orders there big mac and fries, and then eats in there car. then just opens up there windows and throws it on the floor, when there is a bin only feet away. we have become a food throw away society mids, and the foxes have been one of the many animals that benefit from it. blame the lazy human who cannot walk a few feet to put there half eaten crap into a bin.

Quote by MidsCouple24
I do support culling of herds and wild animals, culling takes out old or infirm animals from a herd in order that the herd is more equipped to survive and prosper, the culling of squirrels, birds, foxes, badgers and so on involves a similar practice, taking out the old and infirm in order that the remaining animals will have sufficient territory to hunt, eat and survice.

the herd would prosper and survive mids without the human deciding which animals can live or die.

Quote by MidsCouple24
Most culling is done in a humane way, though not all, culling deer for example is normally done by a single shot to the head by a marksman, I support humane culling but will never support hunting for sport that involves killing animals of any description, using the "keeping the numbers down" excuse is pathetic, quoting how long we have done it for and how popular it used to be is equally pathetic, we are supposed to have moved on and got more civilised haven't we, or would it still be ok to burn suspected witches just because it used to be popular.

i am in many instances in the middle lane mids as far as my feelings go towards animals. yes of course i eat meat and that i am aware makes me a hypocrite on so many levels. but this debate is about the needless killing of a fox, in many cases by a pack of dogs and ripped to pieces. as you rightly say, they then dare to call it sport in the same way the romans used to call it sport when gladiators were fed to the lions. we have learnt very little in over 2000 years.

Quote by MidsCouple24
I disagree that it is only the posh that do it, yes many members of a hunt are from afluent backgrounds but not all, and many of the "back up" staff necessary for hunt organisations to exist are not afluent neither are the pub owners that welcome them or the farmers who allow them on to thier land. Let us not let the less afluent people get away with this barbaric "sport".

the back up staff mids make money out of the hunt. they make money out of the rich peeple on the hunt. can an average person on average money really afford to keep a horse in stables? to feed it and the upkeep of a horse? then to be able to go out on a hunt with all the financial things that there entails? what an average paid person? never mids, most average peeple struggle to run a car.
the back up peeple are mere financial puppets for the rich country folk, while they play there sport, catching and ripping to pieces an animal that is defenseless. sport mids? no mids as i am sure that you and me could nowhere near affords to play this sport.
for the rich mids always has been and that is why peeple like the right honourable julian hate the peasants who try and stop them at every opportunity. the peasants who have stopped them from doing there sport mids. they hate them and that is good enough a reeson for me and the stopping of innocent animals being killed, by the hopefull prosecution of these peeple with the help of the RSPCA.:thumbup:

9 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
I see this week a lot of media coverage on TV at the increasing number of "urban foxes", in my humble opinion this increase is due to the obvious easy access take away meals available to foxes in urban areas, and the hounding (no pun intended) of them in thier natural environment. I think perhaps they took a leaf from the Book of Human, if your hounded where you live, emigrate to nicer places, can't fault them

yes mids the human hounding of wildlife to sustain out own greed, be it a new bridge or a new motorway. of course we have to have those things but also the human who in many cases has become so lazy that drive through eateries are now rife. where the human drives through and orders there big mac and fries, and then eats in there car. then just opens up there windows and throws it on the floor, when there is a bin only feet away. we have become a food throw away society mids, and the foxes have been one of the many animals that benefit from it. blame the lazy human who cannot walk a few feet to put there half eaten crap into a bin.
I agree entirely which is why I said I can't fault the foxes for heading for urban areas, though my refernece to take away meals meant all easy access food such as that to be found available in our back gardens and unsecured bins and rood thrown everywhere and anywhere I myself fed the Magpies some very tasty burger rolls whilst sat in a car park last week.

Quote by MidsCouple24
I do support culling of herds and wild animals, culling takes out old or infirm animals from a herd in order that the herd is more equipped to survive and prosper, the culling of squirrels, birds, foxes, badgers and so on involves a similar practice, taking out the old and infirm in order that the remaining animals will have sufficient territory to hunt, eat and survice.

the herd would prosper and survive mids without the human deciding which animals can live or die.
Not so all herds, Old and infirm animals can hold back a herd in migration or simply moving to better feeding pastures, they can get tired and unable to keep up which in turn causes them a lot of duress, they can become detached from a herd by being unable to cross rivers, streams, rough terrain again causing stress and anxiety, too many numbers for the grazing available since as you say we keep nibbling at the area they can use means many of the herd going hungry and even starvation for some of the herd

Quote by MidsCouple24
Most culling is done in a humane way, though not all, culling deer for example is normally done by a single shot to the head by a marksman, I support humane culling but will never support hunting for sport that involves killing animals of any description, using the "keeping the numbers down" excuse is pathetic, quoting how long we have done it for and how popular it used to be is equally pathetic, we are supposed to have moved on and got more civilised haven't we, or would it still be ok to burn suspected witches just because it used to be popular.

i am in many instances in the middle lane mids as far as my feelings go towards animals. yes of course i eat meat and that i am aware makes me a hypocrite on so many levels. but this debate is about the needless killing of a fox, in many cases by a pack of dogs and ripped to pieces. as you rightly say, they then dare to call it sport in the same way the romans used to call it sport when gladiators were fed to the lions. we have learnt very little in over 2000 years.
Which is why I am against blood sports, I don't even believe in inhumane pleasure fishing.

Quote by MidsCouple24
I disagree that it is only the posh that do it, yes many members of a hunt are from afluent backgrounds but not all, and many of the "back up" staff necessary for hunt organisations to exist are not afluent neither are the pub owners that welcome them or the farmers who allow them on to thier land. Let us not let the less afluent people get away with this barbaric "sport".

the back up staff mids make money out of the hunt. they make money out of the rich peeple on the hunt. can an average person on average money really afford to keep a horse in stables? to feed it and the upkeep of a horse? then to be able to go out on a hunt with all the financial things that there entails? what an average paid person? never mids, most average peeple struggle to run a car.
the back up peeple are mere financial puppets for the rich country folk, while they play there sport, catching and ripping to pieces an animal that is defenseless. sport mids? no mids as i am sure that you and me could nowhere near affords to play this sport.
for the rich mids always has been and that is why peeple like the right honourable julian hate the peasants who try and stop them at every opportunity. the peasants who have stopped them from doing there sport mids. they hate them and that is good enough a reeson for me and the stopping of innocent animals being killed, by the hopefull prosecution of these peeple with the help of the RSPCA.:thumbup:
I have been on a number of anti hunt protests in the Shropshire area, each time there were those that could afford the horses, I agree, a little better off than most, but there were bar owners loving the extra income with the Sherry sales, farm workers earning extra by beating the fox out from hiding, even temporary workers like students earning extra cash by running around after the huntsmen, as beaters, waiters and the like, there were bouncers paid to keep the protestors away, personally I would starve before I earned a penny helping a hunt succeed. Do you really think the rich get thier hands dirty with the menial tasks of a hunt. Whatever the level of participation they are still helping this barbaric act to continue.

9 May 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
The R.S.P.C.A. are driven by their greed, they don't do anything unless they think they'll get paid

A sweeping statement and not supported by any factual evidence.
It is indeed ... but any organisation that proports to be an animal welfare charity and refuses repeatedly to attend animals in distress is a liar.I can only offer anecdotal evidence so I wont bother.
Fucking R.S.P.C.A. I shit 'em all they want is your Grannies legacy and the chance to play at being police

9 May 2012

My ol mum always swore by the PDSA.

9 May 2012

There is a simple solution to the animal cruelty thing. Put down all unwanted pets on Day 1. If people want an animal they can put their name down on a list with vets, RSPCA, PDSA etc - a couple of phone calls should secure a home for any mistreated or dumped pets. If that fails the animal is not (by definition) a pet and they don't survive the wild. Clear out all the 'free to a good home' supplies and there won't be a supply of animals that people who won't look after them (cos they haven't had to pay for them) can pick up. All pets should be neutered before they are allowed to be owned.
How hard is it to understand that storing animals in 'shelters' is pointless and contributing to the problem of unwanted and mistreated pets?

9 May 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
The R.S.P.C.A. are driven by their greed, they don't do anything unless they think they'll get paid

A sweeping statement and not supported by any factual evidence.
It is indeed ... but any organisation that proports to be an animal welfare charity and refuses repeatedly to attend animals in distress is a liar.I can only offer anecdotal evidence so I wont bother.
Fucking R.S.P.C.A. I shit 'em all they want is your Grannies legacy and the chance to play at being police
On this, of the most rarest of moments, I, 100% agree with stags.
Gnv, your granny was also right, at that time they were an upstanding charity. In my view now they are not. Again, only my view, but they care very little about animal welfare.
They have become a money grabbing, (which would be ok if it was to do good) organisation. Which as stags eluded to, has become pissed on there own power.
As some one who used to donate, I have come to dislike everything they now stand for.

9 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Political reasons? So any enforcement of any law should not go ahead if David Cameron has any connection with it? Hogwash.
If the law has been broken then it should be investigated and prosecuted if deemed to meet the evidential and public interest test.
Dave_Notts

But we don't know if the law has been broken yet do we, why not hand over the evidence to the police and let them investigate and prosecute, if required, without the need for charitable funds being waisted?
I would like to think they are doing it because nobdoy else is going to take any legal action against the Hunt, perhaps the CPS dismissed the case or someone else didn't deem it worthy of pressing charges, I would like to think they are doing it because they feel that if they don't do it other Hunts will believe they can get away with it or because no charges are being brought for political reasons and therefore that it is worth the expense and time, that's what I would like think .......
Or, will they waist a million pounds of dead relatives money, on some thing they can not prove in a court of law?

9 May 2012

Quote by deancannock
Political reasons? So any enforcement of any law should not go ahead if David Cameron has any connection with it? Hogwash.
If the law has been broken then it should be investigated and prosecuted if deemed to meet the evidential and public interest test.
Dave_Notts

But we don't know if the law has been broken yet do we, why not hand over the evidence to the police and let them investigate and prosecute, if required, without the need for charitable funds being waisted?
Well if law has been broken then the RSPCA have every right to go ahead with it. To me the very fact they are going ahead with it, at a time funds are low, would mean they must think they have a very good chance of winning !! Therefore no money spent or wasted...and indeed people may well be more ready to hand over a few pennies to the RSPCA, if they see they won't be itimidated by some politicians friends !!
Since 2004, the RSPCA have not ventured into the hunting act. Since DC road out with the hunt in question, this will be there second attempt at political fame with that very same hunt. :eeek:
This time they are having better news coverage, I will grant to that

9 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
the herd would prosper and survive mids without the human deciding which animals can live or die.

This has little to do with this debate, I hopped to avoid the hunting debate as have done it to death, but I am willing to be drawn.
This is a popular misconception.
The herd will survive, but it will not prosper, to be healthy it must be controlled. The old and sick should be removed!
Look at what nature intended and mimic it
Our countryside is no longer wild, it is now a man made environment, one which our ancestors created. The wild life within it simply has to be managed, weather Star likes that or not. We can not now, having buggered the natural balance up, abdicate our responsibility to manage it. A lack of management now would threatens vulnerable populations, biodiversity, habitat conservation and the production of food. Fact!

10 May 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
The R.S.P.C.A. are driven by their greed, they don't do anything unless they think they'll get paid

A sweeping statement and not supported by any factual evidence.
It is indeed ... but any organisation that proports to be an animal welfare charity and refuses repeatedly to attend animals in distress is a liar.I can only offer anecdotal evidence so I wont bother.
Fucking R.S.P.C.A. I shit 'em all they want is your Grannies legacy and the chance to play at being police
On this, of the most rarest of moments, I, 100% agree with stags.
Gnv, your granny was also right, at that time they were an upstanding charity. In my view now they are not. Again, only my view, but they care very little about animal welfare.
They have become a money grabbing, (which would be ok if it was to do good) organisation. Which as stags eluded to, has become pissed on there own power.
As some one who used to donate, I have come to dislike everything they now stand for.
Again anecdotal, if you were to cite me references where they have grabbed grannys legacy and refused to help animals in distress then I shall change my opinion. But I can only go on my own anecdotal evidence of what I see from one of my close friends who has been an officer for 20 years with them.
The terrible stories that she deals with day in and day out. Humans can be so cruel and calculating. It makes me despair that I share the same genetic make up with these thugs.
The case if the young man who clubbed his terrier pup was one she attended this week. The court should have looked at psychiatric evaluation on that man because he was "wired up" wrong. But no, a fine and banned from owning an animal.

10 May 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
I have come to dislike everything they now stand for.

as an avid believer in " fox hunting " bluefish i am sure you do, with them taking peeple to court and all that.
and the thought of them wasting there money on a poor old stinking fox eh? shocking waste of money,,,
unless of course you are/belong to/support this,,

awful, just fucking awful. in the name of sport for the toffs. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
what a stinking excuse to kill something for ones own pleasure. watch the video if anyone is not convinced as to what goes on in a hunt.

10 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

I have come to dislike everything they now stand for.

as an avid believer in " fox hunting " bluefish i am sure you do, with them taking peeple to court and all that.
and the thought of them wasting there money on a poor old stinking fox eh? shocking waste of money,,,
unless of course you are/belong to/support this,,

awful, just fucking awful. in the name of sport for the toffs. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
what a stinking excuse to kill something for ones own pleasure. watch the video if anyone is not convinced as to what goes on in a hunt.
Nothing to do with sport, nothing to do with toffs.
All to do with the management of foxes. You may find this difficult to watch, but it is no more than what happens in nature every minuet of every day.
Further to that, if those people had not intervened, that fox would have had a swift clean kill and not suffered at all.
Nature