The charity that kills animals strikes again, I wonder if they are currently courting controversy. I am not a fan of the RSPCA as many here will be aware, but the more I read the more I dislake
RSPCA shoot dead more than 40 sheep in a grisly dockside massacre
But one fact about the photograph of these bloody carcasses might surprise animal lovers --- and even some of Ramsgate's animal rights protestors. Almost every single one of the sheep was shot dead by an employee of Grant's own RSPCA.
The episode will certainly have given RSPCA donors food for thought. After all, the charity recently decided to shed 90 of its 1,100 employees, allegedly to save money.
While the RSPCA now spends around a year prosecuting headline-making court cases, many of its day-to-day operations are woefully underfunded. Its Preston branch, which costs £600 a day to run, claims to be weeks from bankruptcy.
Figures uncovered last week revealed that the RSPCA rehoused 10,000 fewer animals in 2011 than it did in 2009, and that it now kills 44 per cent of the animals it supposedly rescues --- which amounts to a shocking 53,000 animals a year. Of that number, 3,400 are destroyed for 'non-medical reasons', such as lack of space in underfunded catteries.
These grim statistics coincide with falling membership figures. A decade ago, the RSPCA had about 35,000 members, whereas today the charity has just 25,000. (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, by contrast, boasts one million).
Meanwhile, the Charities Commission has declared it the third most complained-about charity in Britain, behind the Jehovah's Witnesses and a non-profit organisation called The HFSH Charitable Trust, devoted to faith healers.
Against this backdrop, the events of September 12 offer an interesting snapshot of Gavin Grant's modern RSPCA.
Is this another deliberate controversial thread by yourself Bluefish, as we know your not a great lover of them, or their views and actions on foxhunting as has been vigorously defended by yourself.
Firstly I would want a bit more information on this particular news story, and not just from the one sided Daily Mail's reporters, as they are way too quick in my opinion to paint a negative picture of the RSPCA.
Secondly and for me more importantly, is the fact that I would much rather there be an RSPCA than not to have one at all.
I am seriously thinking about raising my monthly amount to them via a direct debit mandate, so they can fight even more good causes. As for this news story why oh why do the Daily Mail take great delight in only ever producing one sided news stories?
Nothing personnel against you Blue but you are fully aware that articles such as this have caused many a rumpus in here, and will continue to do so. :notes:
Your comment at the start of your thread stating, ' The charity that kills animals strikes again', sums up without any doubt your intentions on starting this thread.
Hummmmmm
Well star, did they or did they not execute all those poor little innocent sheep?
You should read blue's other thread about them being taken to task by the Charities Commission. The RSPCA do seem to have lost the plot somewhat and they certainly wouldn't get any cash from me.
I must admit to being, to some extent, on the RSPCA's side as regards disposing of unwanted animals. A pet without an owner is just a food consuming expense. If there is no realistic prospect of finding a suitable owner I have no problem with a humane death. It's not like release into the wild is an option.
Shooting sheep (I haven't read the article) on a dockside seems necessarily messy, cruel and public. Let alone wasteful - was there a reason that these animals could not enter the food chain - at least as pet food?
"The following morning, the RSPCA released the graphic picture of the slaughtered sheep via its website, claiming it laid bare the casual cruelty of an animal export industry that ought to be banned."
This is the kind of thing I dislike, the graffic pictures were of there making and then they attempt to use them to further there cause
The Daily Mail article is talking total gibberish.
'With sweeping views of the English Channel and a 700-berth Royal Harbour Marina catering only to 'the most discerning boaters', the Kentish port of Ramsgate proudly sells itself as one of the south coast's hidden gems.
Visitors are drawn by its 'cosmopolitan cafes and bars' and 'picturesque waterfront' — as well, of course, as the chance to catch a ferry to the Continent, 35 miles across the Channel. They return year after year — or so tourist leaflets claim — because of its 'stunning location' and 'intriguing past'.'
I lived in Ramsgate for five years and it's nothing like the image it's being portrayed as! It's a hole, a great big stinking hole; But not as big a hole as Margate.
Come on Daily Mail, get at least some of your facts straight!
Research by YouGov for Third Sector shows that both brand value and a measure called 'buzz' fell in the month after it spent £327,000 on its successful action
The public’s perception of the RSPCA dimmed after the charity’s successful private prosecution of a hunting group, new research shows.
So, perhaps not all publicity is good publicity
Some of us city dwellers have also lived in the countryside.
With regards to the funds the RSPCA recently spent on prosecution, has anyone come across some sort of breakdown of those costs?
The reason that I ask is this. The RSPCA spent that sum of money to try and bring about prosecutions for 56 (correct me if I'm wrong) alleged offences, but eventually dropped 52 of these for reasons I have yet to come across. If that is the case then the average cost of each case is actually only around £6000. Which would also explain why the Costs awarded were also so low.
In edit: Damn sausages fingers pressing the wrong buttons when I type!