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?

Wednesday, 14 October 2009


The RSPCA has made misleading statements in the wake of losing a High Court battle to keep a legacy worth around £2m, according to the winning claimant Christine Gill.

Last week, the RSPCA lost a bid to keep the legacy which was successfully contested by the will-maker's daughter, Dr Gill (pictured with her father).

In a press statement after the decision, the charity said: “Throughout this, the RSPCA has been in an extremely difficult position. The will left by Dr Gill’s parents was very clear - in one sentence they left their entire estate to the RSPCA, and in the next they said their daughter should receive nothing.

“In that situation the RSPCA cannot just walk away, in fact we are legally obliged to seek the funds under charitable law. That said, we are a compassionate organisation, and that’s why we’ve tried to settle this matter amicably before it even came to court. Unfortunately our offers were rejected.”

Gill: RSPCA rejected my offers

However, Dr Gill has disputed the charity’s claim.

She said she had made several offers that the charity had rejected, and had also been willing to take part in mediation, an offer that was also turned down.

“I am extremely disappointed that the RSPCA has chosen to make this misleading press statement and that it has forced me to provide this explanation, ” she said.

'Repeated assurances' from parents about inheritance

Dr Gill told the court she got repeated assurances from her parents that she would inherit the home when they died. However when her mother passed away in 2007 she found she would receive nothing.

The High Court agreed that Dr Gill’s father had forced her mother into leaving their home - Carr Farm in North Yorkshire - to the RSPCA before his death in 1999 and found in favour of Dr Gill. The court also upheld Dr Gill’s claim in proprietary estoppel – that she had altered her life and cared for her mother in the expectation that she would inherit the farm.

The RSPCA plans to lodge an appeal against the High Court decision.

The RSPCA was still considering its response to Dr Gill's claims at the time Charity News Alert went out.

Vibeka Mair
14 October 2009

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.