Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

RSPCA court controversy

last reply
188 replies
5.4k views
0 watchers
0 likes
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.
Quote by GnV
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.

Well as always GnV there is always another side of a Daily Mail's story.

In a statement, the RSPCA said it was "deeply disappointed in the bias" in the Mail's article. The journalist was fully aware of the truth and has chosen not to report it, it adds.
"The RSPCA is examining the appropriate way forward and we are demanding a right to set the record straight in accordance with the facts," says the RSPCA statement."
With the facts?? The Daily Mail being biased?? Surely not. Something the Daily Mail fail to report on as that simply does not generate a good story does it?
As I have stated already, I would rather we have the RSPCA than not have them.
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
Quote by Bluefish2009
"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

Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your 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!
Quote by flower411
And taken in context the photos posted by bluefish were in response to somebody else posting emotive images.

Were they? I think you need to take another look, ( as he now runs along and tries to find the offending pictures ) lol
Quote by Trevaunance
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!

Trev my Daughter currently lives in Ramsgate and being fair to that seaside town ( the sea is like sewage water btw )it is a total hovel of a place. People go there because they either live there, or to catch a ferry. The place is a dive currently hugely occupied by Polish and Eastern European immigrants searching for work. The whole place needs a huge facelift and I wonder how much the Ramsgate tourist board offered the DM reporter for his words?
If the reporter cannot even get the basics right as he surely has never had a wander around Ramsgate to make such wild assumptions about the place, then you have to wonder how much of his story is correct, and my guess would be very little indeed, seeing the constant slagging off of the RSPCA from this newspaper, with news being the operative word here.
Quote by flower411

And taken in context the photos posted by bluefish were in response to somebody else posting emotive images.

Were they? I think you need to take another look, ( as he now runs along and tries to find the offending pictures ) lol
Don`t need to take another look ....I remember it .
Go on........you know you want too. :lol2:
Quote by Trevaunance
Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your cause?

He also was the one who started the fox debate on here many a time. He also started the RSPCA thread where they had to take that hunt to court over the ILLEGAL hunting of a fox, and then argued about it being a waste of money by them.
Sorry but it kind of seems that Bluefish has hidden agendas where the RSPCA are concerned, obviously works in some capacity for the Daily Mail.rolleyes
I as a contributor to their causes would rather my money was spent on the conviction of illegal barbaric hunters of wildlife, than to have no RSPCA and the country toffs allowed to do as they please, when they please. :thumbup:
As a country toff and a supporter of barbaric killings of course those people will constantly try and blacken the RSPCA's name whenever they can to try and cover up their own dirty tricks, but the public can see straight through that as contributors to them seem to have no problem with them spending their money on court cases that try and stop this barbaric sport from taking place.
Quote by flower411

Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your cause?

He also was the one who started the fox debate on here many a time. He also started the RSPCA thread where they had to take that hunt to court over the ILLEGAL hunting of a fox, and then argued about it being a waste of money by them.
Sorry but it kind of seems that Bluefish has hidden agendas where the RSPCA are concerned, obviously works in some capacity for the Daily Mail.rolleyes
I as a contributor to their causes would rather my money was spent on the conviction of illegal barbaric hunters of wildlife, than to have no RSPCA and the country toffs allowed to do as they please, when they please. :thumbup:
As a country toff and a supporter of barbaric killings of course those people will constantly try and blacken the RSPCA's name whenever they can to try and cover up their own dirty tricks, but the public can see straight through that as contributors to them seem to have no problem with them spending their money on court cases that try and stop this barbaric sport from taking place.
Hidden ?????
My god, what does it take for something to be clear to you ?
The agenda couldn`t be less hidden !
I was hoping for Blue to answer the question, give him a chance to answer eh ? :giggle:
Quote by Trevaunance
"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

Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your cause?
Below is my response to that false accusation at the time
Quote by Bluefish2009
You are introducing emotion into a rational argument

As you well know I was responding with like.
But to answer you question, what I was saying was and still is, if the hunting act was put in place to prevent creulty to foxes it is failing badly, and very slanted at only on section of fox control
Again, I did not kill the animals my self to promote a cause
Quote by starlightcouple
He also was the one who started the fox debate on here many a time. He also started the RSPCA thread where they had to take that hunt to court over the ILLEGAL hunting of a fox, and then argued about it being a waste of money by them.
Sorry but it kind of seems that Bluefish has hidden agendas where the RSPCA are concerned, obviously works in some capacity for the Daily Mail.rolleyes
I as a contributor to their causes would rather my money was spent on the conviction of illegal barbaric hunters of wildlife, than to have no RSPCA and the country toffs allowed to do as they please, when they please. :thumbup:
As a country toff and a supporter of barbaric killings of course those people will constantly try and blacken the RSPCA's name whenever they can to try and cover up their own dirty tricks, but the public can see straight through that as contributors to them seem to have no problem with them spending their money on court cases that try and stop this barbaric sport from taking place.

Indeed I do feel the money spent on the prosecution to be disproportionate
I do not believe any of my agenda to be hidden, I believe I am completely open in all I post
This thread is not about hunting, you seam obsessed by it. However your remarks require a reponse which I shall post in the “morals” thread
Quote by Bluefish2009
Below is my response to that false accusation at the time

There is no false accusation. You posted graphic pictures of dead animals.
Quote by Bluefish2009
As you well know I was responding with like.

That's as maybe, but the truth is still that you posted pictures of dead animals to promote your cause.
Quote by Bluefish2009
I did not kill the animals my self to promote a cause

I certainly didn't accuse you of killing them yourself, and I don't believe anyone else did.
Can you just answer yes or no to the simple question I posed:
Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your cause?
Quote by Trevaunance
Below is my response to that false accusation at the time

There is no false accusation. You posted graphic pictures of dead animals.
Quote by Bluefish2009
As you well know I was responding with like.

That's as maybe, but the truth is still that you posted pictures of dead animals to promote your cause.
Quote by Bluefish2009
I did not kill the animals my self to promote a cause

I certainly didn't accuse you of killing them yourself, and I don't believe anyone else did.
Can you just answer yes or no to the simple question I posed:
Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your cause?
All ready answered above, but to be clear, pics were not to further my cause and to be even clearer, I have no cause to further
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


Quote by Bluefish2009
Can you just answer yes or no to the simple question I posed:
Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your cause?

All ready answered above, but to be clear, pics were not to further my cause and to be even clearer, I have no cause to further
So that's a yes then? Thank you.
I'm suprised that you feel you have no cause. You come across to me as someone with an axe to grind against the RSPCA and someone who is very much prepared to fight against the hunting ban and for the pro-hunt movement. Maybe I've got you wrong all along dunno
Quote by Trevaunance
I'm suprised that you feel you have no cause. You come across to me as someone with an axe to grind against the RSPCA and someone who is very much prepared to fight against the hunting ban and for the pro-hunt movement.

It certainly seems that way I must admit, as this is not the first ' bash the RSPCA ' thread blue has been involved in.
Quote by Trevaunance
Maybe I've got you wrong all along dunno

I think not. Blue is obviously involved in a hunt in some way or another and therefore knows plenty of people whose lives depends on the hunt. Simply boils down to money again and the people he knows and their livelihoods.
Still it's not a blood sport you know Trev, more of a hero and protector of the countryside kinda thing.
Quote by of blue, Trev
You come across to me as someone with an axe to grind against the RSPCA and someone who is very much prepared to fight against the hunting ban and for the pro-hunt movement.

I doubt you could say the same of me but I too am appalled at the actions of the RSPCA in what I see as a misuse of funds (to the extent that I would never consider putting any money in their collecting tins) and, as for the hunting ban, I too am pro hunt but have never ridden with one or taken part in their activities.
The fact is that the countryside needs to be managed, it doesn't look after itself. Turn all green areas in the UK over to concrete if you like (seems some do) but that's not going to resolve anything. There have already been cases of foxes taking babies out of their cot and they are becoming a real nuisance in urban areas because of a lack of control.
The countryside should be managed by country folk who have centuries of experience handed down, not by city dwellers who think that foxes are really lovely cuddly 'basil brush' characters and that fallen sparrows should be picked up and taken indoors and fed bread and milk. And don't start me me on the subject of feral cats!
You really wouldn't like me (as if you did already!) if I told you my real feelings about them!
City dwellers should restrict themselves to the subject of rubbish collection and potholes and leave the management of the countryside to those who know what they are doing and how to do it.
Quote by GnV
You come across to me as someone with an axe to grind against the RSPCA and someone who is very much prepared to fight against the hunting ban and for the pro-hunt movement.

I doubt you could say the same of me but I too am appalled at the actions of the RSPCA in what I see as a misuse of funds (to the extent that I would never consider putting any money in their collecting tins) and, as for the hunting ban, I too am pro hunt but have never ridden with one or taken part in their activities.
The fact is that the countryside needs to be managed, it doesn't look after itself. Turn all green areas in the UK over to concrete if you like (seems some do) but that's not going to resolve anything. There have already been cases of foxes taking babies out of their cot and they are becoming a real nuisance in urban areas because of a lack of control.
The countryside should be managed by country folk who have centuries of experience handed down, not by city dwellers who think that foxes are really lovely cuddly 'basil brush' characters and that fallen sparrows should be picked up and taken indoors and fed bread and milk. And don't start me me on the subject of feral cats!
You really wouldn't like me (as if you did already!) if I told you my real feelings about them!
City dwellers should restrict themselves to the subject of rubbish collection and potholes and leave the management of the countryside to those who know what they are doing and how to do it.
Not all city dwellers know nothing about the countryside !
Quote by nellie
Not all city dwellers know nothing about the countryside !

Granted.
Some of us city dwellers have also lived in the countryside.
Quote by Trevaunance
Some of us city dwellers have also lived in the countryside.

I have been involved with a very nice gentleman from my local Environmental health department over the last few weeks, with regards to a matter regarding one of my neighbors. Three days ago we were talking about this and that and the issue of foxes came about. He lives in a very nice part of Kent, where it is in the countryside. He stated that in his line of work his hours vary but he does do a lot of call outs late at night. He stated he could not remember the last time he saw a fox anywhere near his house, but sees foxes every night in city areas. Foxes have learned to adapt and so the argument about city dwellers do not have a clue about foxes, is frankly rubbish.
I see foxes all the time in my road and in fact in my small garden, and it does not bother me at all.
Quote by GnV
I too am appalled at the actions of the RSPCA in what I see as a misuse of funds (to the extent that I would never consider putting any money in their collecting tins) and, as for the hunting ban, I too am pro hunt but have never ridden with one or taken part in their activities.

Are they your funds at all? I mean have you ever contributed to their cause? I have for many years and the general opinion of the people who do contribute is that it was money well spent. The law itself is an absolute shambles anyway. The RSPCA had video footage of this hunt openly breaking the law. For whatever reason the powers that be decided not to prosecute this hunt, even with evidence which is surely wrong. The RSPCA were then left with no option but to take out a private prosecution, and they won their case and the hunt masters were fined accordingly. Why then the RSPCA had to then pick up the legal tab is preposterous. Surely if a law was openly broken and there was evidence to prove a person or persons guilt, surely it is in the public interest to prosecute? I mean surely any person here who had evidence of a persons house being broken into would expect the powers to be to use that evidence and to prosecute? How crazy would it be if the person whose house was burgled had to prosecute the burglar privately, and then have to pay the costs when the court found the thief guilty.
That is what has openly happened and it matters not that the powers to be think it was not worth bothering with, a law was broken and so it was not the fault of the RSPCA to see that justice was served, that justice should have been served as a matter of course when a law is broken surely?
Quote by GnV
The fact is that the countryside needs to be managed, it doesn't look after itself. Turn all green areas in the UK over to concrete if you like (seems some do) but that's not going to resolve anything. There have already been cases of foxes taking babies out of their cot and they are becoming a real nuisance in urban areas because of a lack of control.

Really GnV a single case does not warrant the execution of all foxes. As you have lived in France for a while now, the only way you could possibly know about the fox problem would be from reading about it, and we all know that can be a dangerous thing to rely on. You want to worry about anything GnV may I suggest you worry more about the huge rise in rat numbers, who carry all sorts of disease which are in fact harmful to humans.
Quote by GnV
The countryside should be managed by country folk who have centuries of experience handed down, not by city dwellers who think that foxes are really lovely cuddly 'basil brush' characters and that fallen sparrows should be picked up and taken indoors and fed bread and milk.

Often GnV the countryside is managed by people who have made their money in the City, and know nothing about the countryside. The fox was there long before these farmers were and what gives the human, rights over wildlife? Why does everything single thing now have to boil down to fecking money?
Quote by GnV
And don't start me me on the subject of feral cats!
You really wouldn't like me (as if you did already!) if I told you my real feelings about them!

I think I kind of guessed that one, but if you did not know already cats, be it feral or not are covered by the law GnV. The animals rights act in fact, and if I was a cat I would certainly be having a dig around your flower beds.:grin:
Quote by GnV
City dwellers should restrict themselves to the subject of rubbish collection and potholes and leave the management of the countryside to those who know what they are doing and how to do it.

You should read my comment I made with regards to the fox population in city areas, and the now lack of foxes in the country side. Looking after the countryside by those people are done for personnel money making and very little else. You obviously openly support the blood sport trade GnV and that is fair enough, but don't harp on about the wonderful countryside being run by these people. The toffs who hunt don't own the countryside very often it is people like Jeremy Clarkson who own the land that he allows the hunt to ride over. There are loads of other examples of very rich people owning land not to farm on but as part of their property that they brought from making their money on the telly or the City. They know feck all about the countryside, and to say differently is ludicrous.
If there was such a huge problem with foxes, why do councils now no longer do anything about them? I know money once again but as I have said already, rats are a major problem now and some of these rats are growing not only in size but in huge numbers.
Quote by nellie-mwgc
Not all city dwellers know nothing about the countryside !

True Nellie. Couldn't call it countryside really where I was brought up, pit village in greenbelt on the outskirts of Leeds. Still surrounded by fields though, mostly arable, some dairy farming, fair few horse breeders about. Some of the city dwellers round those parts know an awful lot about pest control. Badger population was pretty well eradicated from my area, had to go all the way to Devon to see my one and only live badger, and not because there isn't good habitat there for them. They just get dug up and chucked to a couple of staffies. Pretty good at foxing too, though they don't go in for all that dressing up on horses much. Couple of lads with some lurchers and a torch, that's how they do it round here. Completely illegal too that as it goes, apparently it's cruel. Few would advocate it shouldn't be illegal I think, there's no mass campaign demanding the right to lamp foxes with dogs AFAICS ( though it's still legal to lamp them with rifles, of course ). What's the diff?
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!
Quote by star
.....may I suggest you worry more about the huge rise in rat numbers

EuroRats? AKA politicians?
Quote by GnV
.....may I suggest you worry more about the huge rise in rat numbers

EuroRats? AKA politicians?
Yes GnV and France has some huge feckers too. blink