RSPCA-NOT-WHAT-THEY-SEEM: RSPCA to decide on action over logo use by dog campaigners

RSPCA - ONE OF THE RICHEST CHARITIES IN THE UK

In its ‘RSPCA policies on animal welfare’ it states under its Objects of the RSPCA that ‘The charitable objects of the RSPCA are to promote kindness and to prevent or suppress cruelty to animals

The RSPCA’s vision is, ‘To work for a world in which all humans respect and live in harmony with all other members of the animal kingdom

Under its Mission Statement, the RSPCA declares ‘The RSPCA as a charity will, by all lawful means, prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering.’

And under their General Principles, the RSPCA states ‘The general principles on which the RSPCA operates, derived from extensive scientific evidence, is based on the fact that vertebrates and some invertebrates are sentient, and can feel pain and distress.’

What happened to all those honorable and admirable objects, visions, statements and principles when RSPCA inspectors arrived at an address in South Wales and proceeded to slaughter ten German Shepherd dogs with a captive bolt?

Thursday 15 October 2009

RSPCA to decide on action over logo use by dog campaigners

Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 16:00

THE RSPCA will decide today whether to take legal action against animal protesters angry about the charity's decision to destroy 10 dogs in Swansea. Nice to know how they spend your donated money.
The charity says the German Shepherd Rescue (GSR) Network (who are they?) breached copyright when it altered the RSPCA logo. Didn't they make their own logo?
The RSPCA has also moved to have campaign-related material it regards as offensive taken off the social networking site Facebook. There was nothing offensive, just the truth. The RSPCA don't want the public to know the truth!!
A solicitor's letter sent to Jayne Shenstone of GSR states that the RSPCA owns the trademark of the acronym RSPCA "in upper and lower case". What are they supposed to call them?
There has been bitter controversy in animal welfare circles across the UK since the incident at Pontardawe in June, when the German shepherds were put down after their owner died. That's an understatement!!
The RSPCA says inspectors decided to kill the dogs with captive bolt pistols of a kind used in abattoirs to minimise suffering because no other rescue centre would take them. Absolutely barbaric.
But campaigners using internet websites have used emotive tactics like producing a blood-soaked version of the RSPCA's logo to protest against the dogs' destruction, which they claim was inhumane. Of course it was bloody inhumane.
A spokeswoman for the national RSPCA group, not the one running the city's Llys Nini Animal Centre, said: "It is important to protect the RSPCA's logo, which had been altered in an offensive way. We also took action to remove offensive material from websites that are seen by children." The only offensive/abusive posts were written by RSPCA fans and they weren't removed.
Anne Kasica, of an organisation called the Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA (SHG), said: "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." That's exactly what they want - to completely suppress any critcism.
An RSPCA spokeswoman said the dogs had been deemed unsuitable for rehoming due to their aggressive behaviour. Where was the expert witness, where was the vet?
She said: "A decision was made following a discussion between eight RSPCA officers that the most humane form of euthanasia would be to use a captive bolt. Euthanasia means peaceful death. A bolt through the head is not a peaceful death!
"This would minimise distress to the dogs, while also being the safest method for those people responsible for dealing with the animals. Restraining the dogs and then shaving a limb to prepare for a lethal injection would have caused these animals unnecessary suffering. So they dragged each dog out fighting and struggling on the end of a grasper. Somehow they would have had to force the dogs head to the ground then hold the head still enough and get close enough to fire the captive bolt. A captive bolt is a stunning device, it does not stop the heart. It is an inappropriate device for use on a dog because of the shape of the skull!
"It is the RSPCA's raison d'être to prevent cruelty to animals, and it was decided this sad, but ultimately necessary, outcome for the dogs was the best way to prevent the animals any further suffering." Who deemed the animals to be suffering? Where was the expert witness?