Will they describe this as a phase of negative?

RSPCA Membership figures (sourced from Annual Reports via Charities Commission WS)

2008 – 30,3042007 – 31,231

2006 – 31,271

2005 – 35,108

2004 – 36,319

2003 – 39,364



= lost almost a quarter of its members in five years.




Shall we take bets on 2009 and 2010?

Sharp fall in fundraising income predicted for 2009

Charity Market Monitor predicts dramatic loss

Fundraising income for the UK's largest charities could fall by £185m in 2009 compared with the previous year, according to the latest Charity Market Monitor report, published last week.

The report, written by Cathy Pharoah of Cass Business School, is based on annual accounts filed by the biggest 300 fundraising charities in 2007 and 2008.

It shows that overall income rose by 0.9 per cent on the previous year, a figure similar to the 0.7 per cent growth in the wider economy over the same period. If this correlation continues, income is likely to decline significantly in the year ahead, the report says.

"Fundraising income appears to be particularly close to the 'temperature' of the wider economy," it says. "If fundraising were to follow the 3.5 per cent contraction predicted for the national economy as a whole in 2009, that could mean a loss of £185m to the major fundraising charities, on current incomes."

The report highlights several other trends in charity income, including the rapid growth of the top 10 largest fundraising charities.

The top 10 saw their income grow by 2.3 per cent last year, compared with the 0.9 per cent overall average growth for the top 300 charities.

The top 10 charities are the same as the previous year, with the RNLI moving above the NSPCC into third place, the Salvation Army moving ahead of the RSPCA into seventh and the British Heart Foundation moving ahead of Save the Children into ninth.

The report also highlights marked differences in sub-sectors, with income increasing by 79 per cent for arts charities and falling by 17 per cent for faith-based charities.

The overall value of donations fell by 1.6 per cent, but legacy income rose by 8 per cent. However, the report says legacies are likely to suffer when the effects of the recession set in.

The report also predicts sharp falls in the value of grants from charitable trusts and foundations, including corporate trusts, because of the recession.

Charitable expenditure by the top 300 charities was £7.5bn for the period - about 74 per cent of total income. This was an increase of only 0.2 per cent on the previous year.

"Charitable expenditure barely grew, possibly revealing an extremely cautious attitude towards expenditure by trustees who are anxious and uncertain about the depth of the recession," the report says.

TOP 20 CHARITIES BY FUNDRAISING INCOME £M (ROUNDED DOWN)

1 Cancer Research UK 353m

2 Oxfam 207m

3 RNLI 141m

4 NSPCC 124m

5 British Red Cross Society 123m

6 Macmillan Cancer Support 106m

7 Salvation Army Trust 106m

8 RSPCA 99m

9 British Heart Foundation 93m

10 Save the Children UK 87m

11 Tate 79m

12 National Trust 74m

13 PDSA 73m

14 Marie Curie Cancer Care 71m

15 Christian Aid 66m

16 Sightsavers International 65m

17 RSPB 62m

18 Guide Dogs for the Blind 60m

19 RNIB 55m

20 World Vision UK 54m

Recession Support

How the RSPCA bites the hand that feeds it!

THE INDEPENDENT's VERSION of the appalling behaviour off the RSPCA

When George Mason bequeathed a large chunk of his fortune to the animal charity, little did his brother think that they'd come back for a second helping. Chris Green reports

Visitors to the website of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are told that more than half of the charity's annual income – which totalled almost £120m in 2008 – comes from legacies in wills. "We're incredibly grateful to these thoughtful animal lovers and, as with any donation, their gifts will be put to good use," the site says.

But John Mason, whose brother George bequeathed more than £480,000 to the charity when he died, would probably disagree. The 85-year-old, from Enfield in north London, recently joined a growing list of people who have been dragged through the courts by the RSPCA after disagreements with the charity.

He said it was "clear" from George Mason's will that he had never intended for any tax liability to fall on his brother or friends. Despite the ruling, he said, the RSPCA would still receive £370,000 of Mr Mason's money.

"Everybody knew that George was an animal lover, so [his will] wasn't a surprise at all," said Jonathan Troop, John Mason's godson. "The surprise was when the letters from Withers [RSPCA's solicitors] started arriving. We decided that the only way forward was to try to stand up to them. To be honest, we didn't think they would ever take it to court, because their position was so tenuous and their argument was so technical we thought they wouldn't risk it."

Clare Kelly, John Mason's solicitor, said she thought it was "quite disgusting" that a donation which had been left in good faith by an elderly animal lover had been used to pursue his relatives for more money. "You'd think that a charity that had essentially had a windfall of £370,000 would not then think: 'Let's go for more,'" she said. "I don't know why they're playing such a tough game. My view is that it's a complete misuse of the funding they're getting. In this case they were left several hundred thousand pounds, and they were trying to get several hundred thousand more."

Ms Kelly added that Mr Mason would have struggled to cover the costs if he lost, and found the proceedings "very distressing".

This entire case has made me think very carefully about what I do with money," she said. "I think people leave money to charity to do good. But had [Mr Mason] known that this was how his brother would be treated then he probably would have thought much more carefully about what he did with the money." Another legal source who observed the proceedings said there had been "no merit" in the RSPCA's case. "I could not believe it went as far as court. What would possess any charity to make such claims and to put people through that is beyond me. Pure greed is the only logical explanation I can come up with," the source said. A further notable recent case is that of Dr Christine Gill, 59, pictured below, an academic from North Yorkshire who took the charity to court over the inheritance of her parents' £2.3m farm. She won her battle after the judge ruled that her father had coerced her mother into drawing up a will in which she left the farm to the charity. Last week, the RSPCA was ordered to pay the bulk of the hefty £1.3m legal costs.

"I was a little bit daunted by the fact that it was an extremely wealth charity," said Dr Gill, who is now waiting to see if the RSPCA will appeal against the decision. "If you're infinitely rich like the RSPCA then it doesn't matter, but my family could have been out on the streets if it had all gone badly wrong. I've been very fortunate really. I know they're a charity in favour of animals, but the way they treat people seems to be rather harsh. It would be nice to just get on with my life. The money worries, always waiting for decisions. It just takes you over. It's an overwhelming thing, a constant cloud in the sky."

One of the judge's main criticisms of the RSPCA in the Gill case was its "unreasonable" attitude towards mediation: nobody from the charity agreed to meet Dr Gill to hammer out a settlement before the case came to court.

"I think there's been a perception that charities are seen as a soft touch in will disputes, and there was a conscious decision by the RSPCA to send a message that they weren't a soft touch any more," said Dr Gill's solicitor, Mark Keenan. "But this was not the right case to do that. Had they met Christine, I think that their views would have changed."

But Paul Hewitt, a partner at Withers law firm who fought the RSPCA's case against Mr Mason, told The Independent yesterday that he felt the ruling in that case had been "grossly unfair" and that the judge had been "wrong" to dismiss the case. He also pointed out that the "vast majority" of legacy cases in which the charity is involved are settled out of court.

"Although I do a lot of work for charities, I hardly ever go to court, because one always tried to sort out these things in advance. But resolving it wasn't possible here," he said. "The RSPCA did not take the decision to do this lightly. We thought, and we still do, that we were honouring Mr Mason's wishes.

"If I say to a charity: 'I'm leaving you £200,000', and the charity only receives £50,000, should it just walk away? If the benefactor wants the charity to have this money, the charity has an obligation to use it. It would be a breach of the trustees' duties if they walked away from bequests."

A spokeswoman for the RSPCA said: "Each case is examined on its merits. Where it seems appropriate to seek a settlement without resorting to court action then of course we will do so. Over the last 17 years we have processed a total of over 30,000 bequests. Of this figure in only 30 instances have we been involved in court proceedings."

When asked how it justified spending people's legacy donations on court costs, the charity said: "Of course we would rather spend monies generously left to us on direct animal welfare, but it is because their last wishes have been questioned that charities find themselves in having to defend their generosity. If we were to ignore their wishes it could be argued that no animals would ever benefit from any such legacy that comes to us.

"We are a charity devoted to the cause of animal welfare, and we believe that our donors would expect us to ensure that we receive people's kind bequests. Indeed we could be criticised for being negligent in this regard."

What some of the public have to say:

'Greed knows no limit in today's Britain. What a shame! I am curious to know the salary of the director of this trust.'

'They really are shameless - it's actually worse than wasting tax payers' money because they are a charity supposedly doing good work - this isn't the first scandal they have been involved with it's just the tip of the iceberg.
I'd rather give my money to another charity after their sickening behaviour going after even more of a dead mans money.'

'Perfectly understandable that the RSPCA should try for the jack-pot. People seem to forget there are a lot of extremely highly-paid do-gooders and lay-abouts on the payrole of these organisations. They have one thing in common -' they believe fervently in the old adage that charity begins at home. On a humane note; where would they go to earn a living if the public stopped supporting them ? They are not otherwise employable. We live in an age where damn near everything is a scam. It comes from the top down.'

'With this attitude, the RSPCA could find themselves at the bottom of anyone's list when giving away free money. Their unadulterated greed has not only cost them about a million pound over the two cases mentioned but millions more in donations in the future.

If they come knocking at my door, I would have to pretend I'm not in, incase they sue me. Besides, doesn't this charity put down thousands of perfectly healthy animals in their care every year for lack of funding?
How much more good could they do if they ditched the lawyers and spent donations on what they said they would?'

'Where is the charity in the all of this ?

The Trustees need to reassess their priorities ?

Suing for money from elderly people simply is not charity, the type of thing some Machiavellian lawyer would do.'

'Somewhere at the heart of all this there is an extreme idealogue.

Following the dreadful case of Dr. Gill's mistreatment, it is time for The Queen to step in and ask them to reconsider their position, or lose all rights to the word 'Royal'.

Responding to Paul Hewitt's point, if a tax complication arises because of a will drafting that means they get a lesser amount, that is an education problem for those who draft wills, not the individual who made the promise.

And the sentiment that 'If the benefactor wants the charity to have this money, the charity has an obligation to use it.' seems to be some strange justification for terrorising the lives of older people because either family issues or poor will drafting caused a problem. And now two justices have robustly thrown out Hewitt's cases.

I am certainly not donating a penny any more.'

'...that when God read this, he made sure extra kittens died due to their money being spent on legal fees!'

'The RSPCA like other money grabbing organisations that masquerade as 'charities' lost my support years ago. These sort of court cases do them little merit but the plus side is that they are exposed for what they really are.'

'This organisation is well known for going after pet owners who actually haven't broken any law, and simply been reported by malicious neighbours trying to settle a score.
They are well known for pursuing cases for years and years even on the most unreliable evidence.
The 'private eye' publication has published these reports which the mainstream media refuses to print.

This notion that the RSPCA is some sort of cute long time establishment all round good organisation is so wrong.
It's time they stopped harassing pet owners who are found to be doing no harm, stop abusing their power and do something about that over active greed gland pursuing dead people's money in such a disgusting manner.'

'The RSPCA prevents and deals with a great deal of cruelty committed against the animals of this country and should be applauded for doing so; however, on this topic they are totally wrong.

Be grateful for the money that you are given and do a better job of educating solicitors on how donors can maximise their legacies without disadvantaging other beneficiaries. This will prevent such cases ever having to take place and avoid the drop in donations that I fear actions like Gill and Mason's will cause

If the RSPCA does not change its immoral policy towards those kind enough to leave it a legacy then the only true losers will be the very animals that the RSPCA is supposed to be protecting.'

'I agree - the problem is the RSPCA knows it does good work and it's hard to find fault with an organisation that helps animals and does such good work, most of the time.

However their recent cases where they have brought cruelty charges against pet owners and been found to have been totally wrong in bringing the cases in the first place is reflective of the culture the RSPCA operates under.
As seen in this case they try to bully and bulldozer people through the courts without any sort of discussion or meetings to try to find a solution. They think they are a law unto themselves or above the law and abuse legal process to get their way for the sake of getting their way.

I am glad useless Judges have woken up to the fact that these 'feelgood' societies sometimes need to be put in their place when their over active greed glands get going.

I read about a case of a horse owner who was reported by a neighbour over a vendetta that was long running. The RSPCA took the horse without so much as a vet present and had the police there to prevent him from stopping them. It was later found the horse was not being mistreated, there was no supporting evidence etc yet the man had to fund something like 16 thousand pounds of his own money to get the horse back through the courts. This is an awful abuse of power by the RSPCA and for this reason I would never donate to them ever again. Personally I don't like this 'royal' title either.'

'Royal Society for the Persecution (or Prosecution) of Children And old people'

'Perhaps someone could investigate the relationship between the RSPCA and the solicitors they use. Who in his right mind would spend £1.3m on legal fees? My first thought would be that somewhere down the line, someone is diverting money to a more personal good cause.'

'I can only speak personally

As seen with the RSPCA the big charities tend to become uncaring and inefficient. The recent legal actions by the RSPCA has cost them over a million pounds due to their insensitive stupidity, thats a million pounds that folk have donated to the RSPCA going to the lawyers instead of the animals. Another big problem of big charities is that they tend to duplicate the roles of other charities, have high administration costs and wage costs.

I prefer to go small and local. So any donations to a charity shop heads to the charity shop that supports a local based charity, in my case a hospice.

I prefer to make sure any donations go to something that counts, again these will be small charities, and I will stipulate how the funds are used.

I have selected three small charities: two being memorial trusts set up in memory of dead children; and one connected to the Cornish Chough. I have plans to create a trust in which to place a sum of money to be distributed to the three small charities on an annual basis. I will refuse to donate any money to any other charity during my life other than to the three charities in question, hence the likes of the money grasping RSPCA will never see a penny.

I am going to be alive for many decades to come, but via the trust I will be able to direct how my money will be used in the three selected charities, these being small enough that I have some influence. This will be a long term relationship over many years, when I eventually die everything goes to the trust and it will continue to direct how the three charities will use my money for all eternity (until the money runs out, or the charities disband, whichever comes first).'

'The point is that the RSPCA are routinely using donations to fund court cases with the hope of settling out of court. It disgusting and they can certainly kiss any hope of a donation from me goodbye. They should be grateful for the windfall not try and upset members of the deceased by trying to take additional funds from them.'

'The people in question did no wrong, the RSPCA came after them for money it had no right to have.

Let me quote from the Independent:
"Last week, the RSPCA was ordered to pay the bulk of the hefty £1.3m legal costs."

In other words a lot of little old ladies donated £1.3m to the RSPCA to be given to those hungry looking things called lawyers instead of cute puppies and kittens.'

'I've never liked them. My wife gives them £5 a month I keep telling her they are a self serving organisation that helps animals merely as an excuse to justify it's continued existence, maybe this and other case will allow me to convince her to cancel the Direct Debit.'

'I read this article with rising indignation until I saw the detail of what George Mason had said in his will. Unless I am missing something, he appears to have left a specific amount to the RSPCA and the rest (presumably after duties etc) was to be shared with his brother and friends. I happen to think it is bizzare to leave such large amounts to animals, but if a friend of mine did that, I would be happy to honour it before getting my hands on the rest, which was presumably still a sizeable windfall.'

'I'm not great fan of Dickens (an early supporter) but he surely would despise this mean spirited, pettyfogging attitude persisting in modern Britain. Well endowed charities seem to employ self righteous packs of snarling greedmongers. (Don't they say dog owners become like their animals?)

Robert Burns said something touching too about 'lawyers' - ('mongrels snapping at the kennels of justice ...') or something similar.

"What a parcel of rogues in a nation."'

'RSPCA - you are a disgrace. I have, for the last 10 years, donated on a monthly basis to your organisation.

I have today cancelled my DD and will never again give you a penny.'

'So the RSPCA, a charity which exists to protect animals, feels it is ok to bully John Mason, a very old man, into a settlement out of court and finally put him through the ordeal of going to court. What heartless, greedy, unprincipled bullies. They know that most people, especially older people, are frightened of going to law or can't afford the risk of losing and having to pay costs. How can a charity which protects animals justify treating old and recently bereaved people in this way? Thank goodness he found a solicitor who stood up for him and a judge who has put a stop to their unfounded claim and denied them leave to appeal. How many more out of court settlements are the RSPCA pursuing at present? How much do they spent on lawyers? Shouldn't the Charity Commission investigate?'

'To answer slyfas' question about how much the Chief Executive earns, these are the figures in the 2008 Annual report, land here they are for you to marvel at:
'the emoluments of higher paid staff within the following scales were:

9 employees were paid £60,000 – £69,999
4 employees were paid £70,000 – £79,999
4 employees were paid £80,000 – £89,999
2 employees were paid £90,000 – £99,999
1 employee was paid £100,000 – £109,999 - I guess this is the Chief Executive
These sums exclude the pension scheme contributions which a further note to the accounts tells you are made by the RSPCA for these already high earning people

Makes you think doesn't it? One assumes all the donations the RSPCA gets go to animal welfare.....'

'what a lot of people sadly dont realise is when they leave money to the rspca or donate by direct debit they are leaving/giving it to there multi million pound headquarters to spend on legal battles like this, and adverts getting you to give them more, and ofcourse the extremly high wage of there headoffice staff. no money donated direct to the rspca goes to the many small branches up and down the country who actually do all the work they are responsible for there own funding and the local inspector, some branches struggle to get by. believe me i am no fan of the rspca i am involved with a very small rescue charity and i hear and see a lot of things that the rspca would rather you didnt know about. like the case of the poor unfortunate gsd's murdered by them with bolt guns cause they couldnt be bothered to take them into care. there have been many such cases, i would never give one penny to the main rspca but i might possibly give to one of the local small branches because they are actually the ones doing all the work related to animal welfare.'

RSPCA criticised for demanding inheritance tax payment

The High Court Judge said: “This was a vexatious attack on the beneficiaries and the claim had absolutely no merit."

Laura Whateley

A High Court judge has criticised the RSPCA for demanding that the heirs of a wealthy donor pay the inheritance tax on his gift.

The friends and brother of George Mason, who left the RSPCA more than £480,000 in his will, were taken to court by the animal charity.

However, High Court judge Mr Justice Peter Smith dismissed the claim and ordered the RSPCA to pay the costs of the legal action on an indemnity basis - the highest level that can be awarded, which usually reflects the court’s displeasure.

Had the RSPCA won its case, legacies to George Mason’s friends Norman and Patricia Sharp, who are in their mid-seventies, would have been cut by more than £130,000, and brother John Mason, 85, would have received just £ 28,820.

This comes just a week after the RSPCA was ordered to pay the bulk of £1.3million legal costs after losing a lengthy court battle against Christine Gill, who was disinherited by her mother’s gift to the charity. Judge James Allen QC punished the charity for refusing to negotiate before the case came to court.

George Mason, who died in 2007 aged 75, left £234,000 and his house in Gosport, Hampshire, worth around £169,000, to Mr Sharp, a seaman he had known for 30 years, and his wife.

Mr Mason had also given them £234,000 from his assets and £66,000 to his brother.

The residue of his estate - £482,820 - went to the RSPCA. The charity claimed the £112,667 inheritance tax should come from the other beneficiaries under the terms of the will.

But Mr Justice Smith commented during the hearing that it was “clear” from reading the will that Mr Mason never intended that any tax liability should fall on his brother or friends and should be paid from the remainder of the estate after their legacy had been calculated.

Mr Justice Smith, who is to give his reasons for dismissing the claim in a written ruling in the future, said although the claim was not “frivolous” it was “extremely weak and should not have been brought”.

Keith Gordon, representing John Mason, told the judge after he dismissed the RSPCA’s claim that the charity should pay the legal costs itself rather than from the money it was gifted.

He said: “This was a vexatious attack on the beneficiaries and the claim had absolutely no merit.

“To award costs directly against the RSPCA would give a message to the charity sector generally to learn from this lesson.”

Even though the ruling had gone against the charity, it would still be receiving £370,000 after paying the inheritance tax bill.

Sarah Cooper, an associate at Hodge Jones & Allen LLP, said: “Generally it is presumed that gifts and legacies in a will are to take effect free of tax unless there is an indication to the contrary, meaning that the beneficiary of the residue is responsible for the inheritance tax.”

The Times

RSPCA SWANSONG

This dead cygnet was taken out of a public lake by the rspca who had no thought for the women and children in close proximety and just threw it by the side of the rspca van and left it there for a very long time. The rspca have no respect for animals

THE NATIONAL SWAN CONVENTION

NEWSLETTER 24

August 2009

THE RSPCA - as we NOW know it.

SWAN RESCUE SOUTH WALES was formed as a rescue and short term care centre more than thirty years ago. Before then birds of all kinds as well as mammals were cared for with many being successfully rehabilitated. Since making the decision to concentrate on water birds, and swans in particular, we have received many hundreds of calls for help, mainly from the RSPCA, but also from the police, the Highways Agency and members of the public. In the early years most of the rescues we attended were here in South Wales from Chepstow and the Wye Valley to Llanelli in Carmarthenshire. Then gradually we began receiving calls from as far north as Herefordshire, eastwards into Gloucestershire and over the River Severn into Avon. We are an entirely voluntary organisation run by just the two of us.

Over the years an extensive and invaluable network of trusted helpers has been built up; this includes other rescue organisations across the country which can be called on to attend an incident if they are nearer to the problem than we are. Every casualty we rescue is assessed carefully and then a joint decision is made as to which experienced wildlife hospital would be most appropriate, to enable the casualty to receive the best treatment and after care. These are the National Swan Sanctuary in Shepperton, Surrey, RSPCA West Hatch near Taunton, Vale Wildlife Rescue near Evesham, occasionally Wychbold Swan Rescue in the West Midlands, and Tinkers Hill Swan & Bird of Prey Rescue centre in Amroth, Pembrokeshire - all of which are used by the RSPCA. We do not use any other hospital.

About fifteen years ago the National Convention for the Welfare of Swans & Wildlife (now shortened and re-named - The National Swan Convention) was formed. This brought together a good proportion of swan rescue groups in England and Wales, interested individuals from the RSPCA and the Environment Agency to discuss regional problems and how these could best be tackled. Swan Rescue South Wales took the lead in setting up a steering committee to co-ordinate activities and one of these was the collation of rescue data from as many groups as possible including the three RSPCA Wildlife hospitals (West Hatch, Stapeley Grange and East Winch). An agreed Swan Rescue Report form was designed and sent to all those who had agreed to support the work. The RSPCA Inspectors and Animal Collection Officers (ACOs) from most parts of the country (except, oddly enough, here in South Wales who did not contribute even one form) were most supportive and we were receiving as many as 600 incident forms on a fairly regular basis. The data produced showed nationally nearly 40% of all rescues (although looking at areas individually, the West Midlands was nearer 75%) were carried out as a result of birds becoming entangled in discarded and lost fishing tackle with many swans showing symptoms of lead poisoning. This enabled us and the Environment Agency to note, in particular, any 'black spots' and to try to deal with them.

When we first became involved with the RSPCA, their organisation was divided into ten regions. Wales (region 9) was run by Regional Superintendent Kevin Manning in Brecon with a team of very dedicated, friendly and caring people who 'manned' the telephones. Being in Wales and being able to pronounce the names of often unpronounceable Welsh place names including having a good knowledge of the geography of Wales always made life much easier. This meant incidents we were asked to deal with were fairly straight forward but if we needed more information it was always very easy to phone through to Brecon. Now, even if you're able to get through to the Call Centre, you can often be 'faced' with a recorded message asking you to press 1 for this, press 2 for that and so on which is not what members of the public want. From listening to the many complaints we receive most people want to speak to a real person to talk through whatever the problem it is they are phoning about. Its been suggested the Call Centre is very 'target driven' and all they are interested in is getting calls tasked out and off the screen as soon as possible which must put increased pressure on the Inspectorate, and possible reduction in overtime budgets could be why they are encouraged to put to sleep as many casualties as possible to save both time and money.

As a voluntary group with no outside funding (except for the occasional donation), to begin with all rescues were funded by ourselves so we were more than pleased (and very relieved) to receive a letter from Kevin Manning in August 2001 allowing us to claim 20 pence per mile for those rescues we were asked to deal with on behalf of the RSPCA. Kevin was always friendly and approachable - a very good Regional Manager; correspondence - the little which was necessary - was dealt with promptly and effectively.

Then, in 2003 everything started to change. The regional structure as we had known it was to be scrapped and the National Call Centre (NCC) set up in Doncaster, run by a firm of contractors. Clearly, this was all to do with cost saving, and supposedly to improve efficiency. From a Welsh perspective, this was a disaster. From a situation in which a complaint about the RSPCA was a rarity, complaints became almost a daily occurrence. From our own point of view, correct identification of Welsh place names is obviously vital, but so many times they got it wrong; we received requests for help in dealing with an incident in South Wales, only to discover through our own detailed knowledge of what used to be called STD codes, the incident was actually in North Wales. And this is to say nothing of the absolutely appalling quality of the advice given out by NCC personnel to members of the public phoning for advice, especially in respect of 'distressed' bats, about which we are fairly knowledgeable.

This drastic decision to get rid of the ten regions and have just one call centre, for some reason, also badly affected the numbers of incident forms we were receiving as their numbers dropped dramatically to maybe just one or two a month. Despite several request letters to Sue Stafford at RSPCA HQ in Horsham to send out extra forms with reminders, and we were assured that happened, the numbers remained just the occasional one now and again from the Kent area.

Whether it was at this time, or perhaps earlier, we can only speculate, but probably in line with many large organisations embracing the latest 'management buzz speak' Key Performance Indices (KPI's) appeared in the management 'portfolio'. For an organisation supposed to be concerned with animal welfare, we cannot help wondering how this works. In terms of actually managing an organisation, no doubt KPI's have their place, but one cannot but worry that there must be some, possibly significant, impact on the welfare of the species - perhaps domestic at the expense of wildlife - the organisation claims to have at the heart of its objectives. It has been suggested senior management may even receive bonuses if they reach their KPI targets.

Through 2006, the cost of motor fuel started to increase at an alarming rate from 70 plus pence per litre to almost £1.00 per litre. This meant we were subsidising the RSPCA even more than we were already with each rescue we attended on their behalf. So we felt obliged to write to the incumbent Regional Superintendent, Martyn Hubbard at Regional HQ in Shrewsbury to ask for an increase from the 20 pence to a more realistic amount of 30 or 40 pence per mile. The following is a dated list of the letters we wrote:-

24th April 2006,

1st August 2006,

23rd August 2006,

15th November 2006 and

24th March 2007.

Not one of these letters received a response or an acknowledgement and copies of all previous letters were included each time. We then decided to write to John Hancock, Regional Manager in Shrewsbury. The following is a dated list of those letters:-

5th August 2007,

15th September 2007,

22nd February 2008 and

11th March 2008.

As with our letters to Martyn Hubbard each included copies of all previous letters and also of all those we had sent to Martyn Hubbard. Eventually we received a response from John Hancock dated 11th March 2008 thanking us for ours of the 22nd February 2008 but with no mention of any of the other letters or the enclosures. His letter stated our mileage had been increased to 40 pence and a 'boarding agreement' would be put in place which would incur boarding charges for the Society. For all the years we have been rescuing and caring for casualties brought to us by the RSPCA and those we have rescued on behalf of the RSPCA we have never sought to be reimbursed for any boarding costs. This offer had been volunteered by management and was quite unexpected.

We eventually managed to arrange a meeting with Martyn Hubbard for Wednesday, 21st November 2007. He arrived an hour late for which he gave no apology. The meeting was to discuss amongst other things his total failure to respond to letters, the increase in our travel expenses from 20 pence per mile and a request from us this should be backdated to April 2006 which was the time we first made the approach and since it was entirely his fault our request had dragged on for so long. Although he agreed to the increase in our mileage rate he made no promises regarding backdating; in fact, it was made very clear, we stood no chance - a highly effective bit of cost saving at the expense of the voluntary sector. On Monday 3rd December 2007 we sent him an email summarising the issues talked about at the meeting and asked him to either verify or modify. Needless to say, as with all our letters, we had no response to that either despite us sending him two reminder emails.

A date was arranged by John Hancock for us to meet with him and Chief Inspector Elaine Spence to discuss these new arrangements and to produce, read and sign the Boarding Agreement. This meeting took place on 29th April 2008 at the RSPCA Ringland animal shelter in Newport. After the meeting we assumed, foolishly we now realise, everything was sorted. We were contacted very regularly by our local ACOs and Inspectors to deal with most of, if not all the rescue of swans and other water birds. This allowed them extra time to concentrate on their other calls. We dealt with every incident passed to us no matter what or where it was, in fact we were busier than ever. There were times when we had to make repeat visits to the same incident due to it being a difficult rescue. From 5th January to 19th February this year we dealt with 25 incidents passed to us by the RSPCA with some birds needing very specialist treatment.

We care very much about the birds we rescue and always take them to the best bird hospital we know wherever it is - at no cost to the RSPCA. We are fully aware of the RSPCA's policy of immediate euthanasia for some injuries and we quite agree if a bird really does need to be put to sleep then we have no problem accepting it but only under the guidance of an experienced vet. What we cannot accept and neither should the RSPCA, bearing in mind what their name stands for, is a bird being euthanased without first being assessed by an experienced bird vet. We understand Elaine Spence has complained about the high charges vets are making to euthanase a bird - something which she obviously believes should be carried out by an ACO even although that ACO has no technical training in veterinary matters, let alone suitable qualifications. (It must be stressed again, we do not have these qualifications either, which is why we have always deferred to those who do, to make these decisions). This is no criticism of the ACOs as they are obliged to follow RSPCA instructions, rules and regulations whatever they are, whether right or wrong. In this connection, and again, it is not a criticism of the ACO's, they admit to knowing little if anything about swans, and some say they have never even caught a swan. If there is a criticism at all, it relates to the apparent shallowness of the training given to ACO's before they are let loose on distressed wildlife.

We have always had a very good relationship with the RSPCA so it came as quite a shock when, on 19th February all calls from them stopped. From that date onwards we have not received any calls from the RSPCA except those which continue to come to us from outside the area, via the local animal shelter and the Call Centre in Doncaster. According to the Boarding Agreement, point 8 on page 4 states:- 'Either party may terminate this Agreement with immediate effect by written notice if etc. and then it gives a list of conditions none of which apply to us. Even now three months on, no-one in RSPCA management has had the courtesy or decency to inform us officially of the reasons for this decision to remove us from their approved rescue support list This total silence from them has prompted us to ask a number of very pertinent questions to which we have demanded answers repeatedly. The following is a dated list of each time we sent those questions to Elaine Spence:

29th April 2009,

25th May 2009,

31st May 2009,

2nd June 2009, and

9th June 2009.

None of them were acknowledged let alone answered. On 10th June we received an email from Martyn Hubbard telling us to direct all future messages and questions to him and not to Elaine Spence as he would be dealing with them. Foolishly (again) we believed him and the following is a dated list of emails we sent to him:-

11th June 2009,

21st June 2009,

27th June 2009, and

1st July 2009.

As expected given the history, we have received neither acknowledgement nor replies.

On 13th May, after constant pressure from us to find a solution to this issue, a long overdue meeting by nearly three months, was arranged between us, Inspector Evans and Inspector Hogben (his area is Pembrokeshire - not here in East South Wales!!!). The meeting we were told was to discuss our views on euthanasia (even although, as has been noted already, we do not make the decision as to whether a bird lives or dies - we leave that to the experts) and whether or not we could be 'approved'. Both Inspectors have always been well aware of our views on this subject which, until 19th February this year had apparently not been an issue, particularly as we had been 'approved' last year and previous years. Until then the RSPCA had been quite content to use us for rescues, and our facilities for ducklings in particular.

When the Inspectors arrived, it was more than obvious from their body language their minds were already made up and this meeting was just a token gesture. It was as if they had been given their orders from above - 'go get 'em whatever it takes'. This was confirmed as after about an hour of trying to 'trap' us with various questions and accusations, Inspector Hogben hurriedly packed away his papers and left muttering something undecipherable under his breath. Inspector Evans remained for a short time appearing somewhat embarrassed and apologetic. Having had time to think over what had happened (or not happened) since 19th February we now firmly believe this 'set-up' by the RSPCA had absolutely nothing to do with our views on euthanasia (that was just a pathetic excuse) but everything to do with their obsession to reduce spending at all costs, prompted we suspect, by our last larger than usual claim for travel expenses (due entirely to the increase in our 40 pence fuel allowance which they alone had granted) to cover the 25 RSPCA incidents with which we had dealt. We now seriously question where do their priorities lie - with cost saving or with the animals? What a pity no-one in management was capable or felt able to write to us to explain the charity's financial situation and ask if our travelling expenses could be reduced. We would readily have agreed to this had we been asked - if only for the sake of the birds. Even having been granted the increase in our mileage rate, we were still subsidising the RSPCA on every rescue we dealt with on their behalf.

Following advice from an informed friend, we sent a letter on 2nd June by recorded delivery to Tim Thomas of the RSPCA Wildlife Department in Horsham enclosing documents detailing the history of our organisation and the problems we were experiencing. After nearly four weeks and not receiving a response, we wrote again on 29th June. This prompted a short communication from Horsham telling us Tim Thomas was no longer with the RSPCA and the matter would be dealt with by Adam Grogan. Needless to say, nearly a month later and we had heard nothing.

On the 17th June we wrote to Steve Carter, Regional Manager in Shrewsbury who had replaced John Hancock and who had been copied in on a number of emails sent to Martyn Hubbard so would be very aware of what was happening (or not happening). This letter was ignored as was our second letter dated 8th July and similarly our third letter dated 16th July. We eventually received a response from him thanking us for 'all the help we have given the RSPCA and wishing us the best in the future'!!!! Our questions were ignored completely, and he failed to give any reason for our 'dismissal'. We are now firmly convinced anyone who wishes to apply for a job with the RSPCA must first be able to prove their complete inability to reply to or acknowledge any communication they receive either by post or email before their application can even be considered!!!

To expand on the issue of ducklings - every year until this year, from spring into summer we have received around 80 Mallard ducklings via the RSPCA - this year we have not received any except those via members of the public. So we now have to ask what has happened to them this year. Have they all been euthansed or have they been taken (in small numbers) to the Gower Bird Hospital near Swansea some 60 plus miles away or to RSPCA West Hatch near Taunton, even further away? Can it really be cost effective to travel all the way to Swansea or Taunton rather than to bring them here, certainly the nearest care centre?

Every now and again we receive calls for help about Mallard ducks showing symptoms of wing or leg damage (probably caused from being shot by trigger happy yobs) and what can be done about it. Anyone who has tried to catch a duck, injured or not will know how extremely difficult it can be. Mallards take off vertically and they can also dive so our usual advice is, unless the bird is obviously suffering and/or deteriorating to the point it will not survive without some action being taken, then we suggest it is left in the habitat it knows with other ducks it knows and to monitor its progress. Ducks are gregarious and like all wildlife, their instinct to survive is very strong. This advice has always worked well so why spend hours trying to catch something which is managing very well and is not really suffering just to have it put to sleep. However, we have found out this is not how the RSPCA deals with injured ducks. According to information we were quite openly given, their method of dealing with such a situation, at least it appears to be here in East South Wales and we believe under the instructions of Elaine Spence is 'if you can't catch it then shoot it'!!! Could this be 'to put it out of its misery' and who says its miserable? A typical example of anthropomorphism?

During the last three months we have talked with other rescue centres. One acknowledged they have never been 'approved', another was unaware of any problem and even their local RSPCA Inspector knew nothing. Another centre had been approved but that was a few years ago and another which also took in domestic animals for the RSPCA was told in no uncertain terms, only the cheapest food must be given to them even if they didn't like it. The comment to this from the RSPCA personnel who delivered the food was 'if they are hungry, they will eat it'!!!!

So far this year, two swans known to us have 'gone missing' and we can't help wondering if the RSPCA is responsible for their 'disappearance'. One was a male swan with a mate and five cygnets and the other a female swan which, although she had a noticeable limp she was able to mate, lay eggs and rear successful broods of cygnets. We knew her well and we find her disappearance very disturbing.

In early January 2008 we were involved in the draining of the Knap lake in Barry, South Wales inasmuch we took the initiative to organise the catching and moving (under licence from the Welsh Office) of 54 Mute swans to allow the lake to be cleaned. The Knap is a man-made lake and the last time it was drained was in 1994 when we were also involved. We suggested the work should be carried out during the time when the majority of swans were in moult. Unfortunately, the council decided against that and started the draining in late December 2007. As the water level was lowered we began receiving calls about dead and dying swans - some at the Knap and others at a nearby lake where some of the birds had flown. These calls continued for nearly a month.

During this dreadful time the staff at West Hatch RSPCA Wildlife hospital were most supportive; in fact this whole episode could not have been managed without their help and input. Post mortems were carried out at the hospital on a number of the dead swans whilst others we took to the VLA in Langford near Bristol, as a result of an introduction provided by the veterinary surgeon at West Hatch. Here the cause of death was identified as necrotic enteritis brought on by exposure to overwhelming concentrations of the bacterium clostridium perfringens the swans had picked up from the sediment which, until the water level had been lowered they had been unable to reach.

Several months following this dreadful episode we began to wonder if the Vale of Glamorgan Council had thanked and reimbursed West Hatch for their involvement so just in case, we emailed the Vale on 17th September 2008 and were eventually told no contact had been made at all. This was quite unacceptable and after sending several emails over a number of weeks to the council we eventually secured an amount of £500 for them plus a 'thank you' letter. Had it not been for our persistence the RSPCA West Hatch would not have received any acknowledgement for all their support and hard work.

It has taken a considerable effort to assemble this statement into some sort of logical sequence but the fact remains we continue to be 'barred' from the RSPCA's approved supplier list. We believe RSPCA management have behaved disgracefully and dishonestly, and have compounded our feelings of complete and utter disillusionment by using a tactic of failing totally to communicate with us professionally whilst we, on the other hand, have endeavoured to conduct ourselves professionally throughout. All the evidence suggests we have been excluded from playing the role we did successfully for so long, not because of our views on euthanasia, but purely because we were so good at what we were doing, RSPCA management took the view we were too expensive. So, why in these difficult economic times did they not approach us with a proposition suggesting a reasonable reduction in our mileage rate? We would have been very sympathetic to such an approach, but instead, we have no alternative but to conclude the RSPCA would prefer to allow distressed wildlife to suffer. What else are we to believe? In their frantic effort to reduce spending at all costs, the RSPCA (at least here in East South Wales) has destroyed an extremely good working relationship and probably to the detriment of our precious wildlife. Shame on them.

Ellen & Peter

July 2009

This Newsletter was completed a month ago and ready for distribution. However, before sending it out we decided we should give RSPCA management a chance to have a rethink. So a copy was sent to a friend who is on the RSPCA council and at his suggestion and with our agreement, he would present it in person to Mark Watts Chief Executive, Daphne Harris Council Chair and Sally Hyman Welsh Regional Rep on the council, and ask for their comments. We agreed they should have three weeks in which to respond. That was four weeks ago and we have heard nothing. To us, this is an absolute indication of their inability to conduct themselves in a professional manner, their inability to understand the animals must be their prime concern at all times and their ability to realise they sometimes get things wrong and should be big enough and adult enough to admit it. Without the help and support of voluntary groups around the country it would be difficult for the RSPCA to continue as the animal welfare and rescue organisation which it was originally set up to be.

Ellen & Peter

Swan Rescue South Wales

July 2009

SWAN RESCUE

RSPCA FACE MILLION POUND LEGAL BILL!!!

Watch out, the begging bowls will be out. Papa Wass will be pleading for your money. They will bleat that they have no money to help all those poor animals. What they don't tell you is that none of the money that goes to these campaigns goes to the centres to help the animals. They need your dosh to pay their inflated salaries, buy their nice shiny executive company cars and for their nice big pension pot!!

RSPCA face legal bill after losing battle over will

The RSPCA has been ordered to pay the majority of a £1.3m legal bill after losing a battle over a £2m estate left to it in a will.

The charity faces costs of up to £1m after Dr Christine Gill from Northallerton, North Yorkshire, overturned her parents' will.

Dr Gill won the case after a court found her father had coerced her mother into making the document.

The will had left the couple's 287-acre farm to the RSPCA.

A judge has now ordered that the RSPCA should pay the majority of legal costs. A written judgment specifying how much is expected to be released next week.

Leeds Combined Court heard on Friday that Dr Gill's legal costs were more than £900,000 while the RSPCA's legal bill came to £400,000.

Mediation attempts

Dr Gill's legal team have argued that that the animal charity should pay about 85 to 90% of her costs.

The court had earlier heard Dr Gill's parents left Potto Carr Farm, near Northallerton, to the RSPCA, despite Joyce Gill's "avowed dislike" of the charity.

But the two parties failed to agree on who should pay for the £1.3m legal bill, with much of the debate centred on what opportunities were available to settle before the lengthy and costly trial.

A judgment by Judge James Allan QC found the charity had failed to resolve the dispute in an alternative way despite repeated attempts at mediation by Dr Gill, a university lecturer.

'Unreasonable' attitude

He described the RSPCA's attitude towards mediation of the case as "unreasonable".

Speaking after the hearing, Dr Gill said: "The judgment reflects the attitude the RSPCA have taken right through this, they wouldn't even talk to me, ever."

The RSPCA, which the judgment stated would be able to recover some of its costs from the estate, said it had acted in accordance with the wishes of Mrs Gill.

In a statement a spokeswoman said because no specific sums had been calculated it was too early too comment on the costs.

She added: "However, we are happy that the judge has ordered that some of our costs are to come out of the estate and that we are not paying the whole of Dr Gill's legal costs."

BBC NEWS

RSPCA VICE PRESIDENT MORLEY'S PORKIES

Fitting that he is an RSPCA Vice president who also have a a criminal record - perverting the course of justice. Read it

MPs' expenses: The charges against Labour MP Elliot Morley

The former environment minister Elliot Morley has been accused of “dishonestly” claiming thousands of pounds for a mortgage that did not exist.

By Holly Watt
Published: 7:00AM GMT 06 Feb 2010

The Labour MP allegedly over-claimed £14,438 for the mortgage on his constituency home between April 2004 and February 2006 and received a further £16,000 between March 2006 and November 2007, although the mortgage had been paid off.

Mr Morley claimed £800 a month to cover the mortgage on his Scunthorpe home. However, the cost of the mortgage even before it was paid off was only around £150 a month.

In order to put together the case against Mr Morley, the police asked for evidence from both his bank and officials from the House of Commons. However, when he was invited to a police interview, Mr Morley would only give a one-line statement saying that he would like to help the police with their enquiries, but was unable to because of Parliament privilege.

Three MPs have been charged and are all represented by the solicitor Gerald Shamash of Steel & Shamash.

The fees office, which handled the paperwork for the MPs claims, repeatedly requested that Mr Morley proved the existence of the mortgage. However, at the end of 2007, Mr Morley “flipped” the designation of his second home and began claiming allowances on a house he owned in London.

Although Mr Morley had been claiming the second home allowance on his house in Scunthorpe, the London property was rented out to a fellow Labour MP Ian Cawsey.

Mr Morley, 57, has been the MP for Scunthorpe for 23 years. Along with David Chaytor and Jim Devine, he has been barred from standing as a Labour MP at the next election. He employs his wife, Patricia, as a part-time secretary, meaning that she will be entitled to a pension and redundancy money from taxpayer funds when her husband steps down at the general election.

Mr Morley was a special needs teacher before he was elected to Parliament and has a long-standing interest in climate change and the environment.

Name: Elliot Morley

Age: 57

Title: Labour MP

Charges: Two counts of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968

Daily Telegraph

STOP THE RSPCA KILLING WITH BOLT GUNS AND PERSECUTING OTHER CERTAIN BREEDS

10 Pet German Shepherds shot with a captive bolt gun after their owner died. No effort made to help the dogs, none of them were worth bothering with.

They won't help this dog Jack, a dog chained outside all through the terrible winter we have just been though. Water frozen over so no access to drinking water. RSPCA say no section 9 offence is being committed!!

They won't help Radar also chained out all over winter, his chain too short for him to reach his kennel which has no bedding. Water frozen over, the owner doesn't even bother to come home some days. When he does come home, Radar is so pleased to see him but he just pushes him out of the way and shuts himself in his caravan. This dog is NEVER let off the chain yet the RSPCA say no section 9 offence is being committed.

50 officers - yes 50, raid a west midlands rescue. They kill 3 dogs on the day - 2 rotties and a bull breed.

Remember the Animal Welfare Act that was supposed to prevent this:

'It makes owners and keepers responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals are met.

These include the need:

• For a suitable environment (place to live)
• For a suitable diet
• To exhibit normal behaviour patterns
• To be housed with, or apart from, other animals (if applicable)
• To be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease'

See a pattern emerging here? RSPCA don't seem to like GSD's Rotties and bull breeds!!!

Please can we ask for your support in signing these petitions and passing it on to others to sign.

The Petition is dedicated to the memory of Bruno and others like him that have suffered.

Please sign out petition to bring about a public enquiry into the dealings of the RSPCA:

CALL FOR A PUBLIC ENQUIRY INTO THE DEALINGS OF THE RSPCA

Stop the RSPCA killing companion animals with a captive bolt gun

BAN THE USE OF THE CAPTIVE BOLT FOR KILLING COMPANION ANIMALS

Join the discussion on FACEBOOK