RSPCA-NOT-WHAT-THEY-SEEM

RSPCA FRAUDSTERS LOSE GILL CASE

2010-11-30T12:20:00.000-08:00

RSPCA loses court appeal against £2.35m will ruling

Charity failed to reverse high court decision that overturned a will leaving them a 287-acre farm in north Yorkshire

Congratulations to Christine Gill and may those money grabbing fraudsters at the RSPCA now leave her alone in peace

The RSPCA has lost a court of appeal challenge against a ruling thatoverturned a will leaving them a £2.35m farmhouse and land in Northallerton, North Yorkshire.

University lecturer Christine Gill, 59, an only child, had won a high court battle to overturn her parents' will that left their 287-acre farm to the charity, after claiming her "domineering" father coerced her mother into making it.

Gill said in a statement: "It was a matter of huge regret and disappointment to me and my family that the RSPCA chose not to accept the original decision, forcing us to endure another court hearing."

She added: "We can now settle back into our lives on the family farm that I love, and which I have dedicated many years to maintaining."

Before the appeal, a number of charities said they were "very concerned at its possible implications for the charity sector".

Wonder who is picking up the tab for the courts costs.

£120m in a year in donations and still scrounging. Remember that this money does not go the the branches, which are all independent franchised businesses responsible for their own fundraising

Remember that in 2009 the RSPCA killed a total of 63,000 animals - a rise of over 3000 on the previous year. Nice to know how your donations are spent

Guardian

ANIMAL LOVERS FURY OVER RSPCA'S TREATMENT OF STRAY DOG

2010-11-08T10:19:00.001-08:00

No surprises here since they no longer help stray dogs. Too expensive to actually help a needy animal with so many fat cats to look after at H/Q

ANIMAL lovers who discovered a dog almost dying in the street called in the cops and the RSPCA – but were shocked to be told by the charity to “let it go, and it will find its own way home”.

Last night they lashed out at the RSPCA for not turning out to help the pooch, which was in a terrible state.

Tina Fitzpatrick, who was one of those who found the French Bullmastiff dodging traffic on Queslett Road in Great Barr, Birmingham, said: “The dog was in awful condition.

“It kept collapsing. It had belonged to somebody but had been badly neglected.

“It was dehydrated, underweight and had marks around its neck from where it had been kept on a chain.

“Its mouth was full of ulcers and all its teeth had gone from gnawing at the chain. It was terrible to see.”

The passers-by rang the police, who managed to get the dog to safety at the side of the road and then contacted the RSPCA.

What happened next outraged Tina, 41, of Kingstanding, who has three dogs herself.

“The RSPCA said they didn’t have any wardens free to come out and collect the animal,” she said. “The police officer asked, ‘what shall I do with the dog?’ and the RSPCA told him, ‘just let it go and it will find its own way home’.

“He was shocked and couldn’t believe it. There was no way you could let the dog go. What would have happened if it had got hit by a car or run into the road and caused an accident?

“It wasn’t a small dog. It was enormous, the size of a small Shetland pony.”

The dog stayed with a friend of Tina’s overnight, and they rang an emergency vet.

Yesterday Tina rang Birmingham City Council, which despatched a warden to collect the dog to take it to a vet for treatment. It was later due to be transferred to Birmingham Dogs Home.

“I know the dog wasn’t injured,” said Tina. “But we told the RSPCA it was in a bad way and kept collapsing. They still refused to come out. For them to tell us to let the dog loose on a busy road was irresponsible and unforgivable.

“I’m disgusted by their behaviour. I used to give money to them, but won’t anymore.”

But a spokeswoman for the RSPCA said the organisation would never have told anybody to release a dog on the road.

“If a dog is injured or in danger then we always try our best to get there,” she said.

“If an inspector is not available then we advise the caller to contact the police, or call out a vet. We would never, under any circumstances, tell someone to just let the dog go, because that would put the animal in danger.”

In this situation, she said, the dog was the responsibility of the council’s wardens because it was not injured,

“If there’s nothing wrong with the dog then it’s the local authority who should take it,” she said.

“They receive money from the Government for this service.”

So where were your inspectors this time Mr Waas? Of course, no cameral rolling, no mileage in this case.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. ...

Sunday Mercury

JAILED FOR DROWNING CATS YET RSPCA GET AWAY WITH BRUTALLY SLAYING 10 GSD'S

2010-10-30T06:26:00.000-07:00

Oxfordshire woman jailed for drowning eight cats

Julie Carter claimed she could not afford the phone call to have the animals rescued

The RSPCA couldn't afford the phone call or maybe couldn't be bothered, to help the 10 German Shepherds left on their own after their owner died in 2009.

An Oxfordshire woman who admitted drowning eight cats in a bath has been jailed for 12 weeks.

Julie Carter, 43, of Bicester, told RSPCA staff she could not afford a phone call to have the cats rescued so killed them one by one over a week.

The cats were all aged between one and three years old. Another three were later rehomed.

Carter told Banbury magistrates she had killed the cats because housing officials had told her to remove them.

The RSPCA said that when an inspector later visited her property, she had initially lied, saying the animals had been put to sleep by a vet.

'No choice'

She later confessed, saying she had not had enough money to contact any animal charities, and had drowned the pets in a baby bath instead.

She told the inspector "she felt she did not have any other choice," the RSPCA said.

Carter, of Herald Way, who had admitted a charge of causing unnecessary suffering at an earlier hearing, was also banned from keeping animals for life.

Speaking after the case, RSPCA inspector Doug Davidson said: "The callous and brutal drowning of her eight pet cats is not acceptable in the 21st Century.

So the slaughter of 10 German Shepherds with a captive bolt gun after their owner had died by an RSPCA inspector, wasn't callous and brutal!! It seems that there is one rule for them and another for everyone else. Nice to know how your donations are being spent.

"She did not even attempt to seek help to rehome the animals, and instead caused them unnecessary suffering by drowning them."

Propaganda media

RSPCA KILL BAMBI FOR BEING TOO TAME!!!!

2010-10-28T10:46:00.001-07:00

RSPCA volunteer quits after ‘miracle’ deer is put down

Hands up those that thought the RSPCA were an animal welfare charity!!

A FURIOUS animal charity volunteer has resigned and launched a scathing attack on the RSPCA after it put down a young deer that miraculously survived a car accident.

Mervyn Symonds, aged 63, said the RSPCA had “lost its way” after their specialists killed the healthy male fawn because it was “too tame”.

The deer was hailed as a miracle when it emerged unhurt from its mother’s womb after a car accident in Chapeltown Road, Turton, in June.

The story came to a sad end, however, when RSPCA deer experts at a centre in Norfolk tried to release the fawn into the wild.

They said the young roe deer had to be put down because it was too tame and posed a danger to humans.

Now Mr Symonds, who has spent the last five years volunteering for the RSPCA, has quit because he is so angry and upset.

Mr Symonds, of Newbury Road, Little Lever, said: “I felt that I was helping animals by working for the RSPCA.

“I thought they were against cruelty to animals, but the shocking story of them killing this poor defenceless deer has really stunned me.

“Even I know organisations that would have taken this poor animal in, so they must be able to think of alternatives.

“I could understand if it was ill or injured, but this was a healthy animal. I think the RSPCA have lost their way.

“They’re more interested in money than helping animals.

“To kill this poor animal goes against everything they should stand for — it’s cruel, and I’m quite upset about it.”

Mr Symonds, a retired carpet shop owner, volunteered twice a week at the RSPCA shop in Chorley Old Road.

He handed in his letter of resignation yesterday, along with a furious letter of complaint about the RSPCA’s handling of the matter.

An RSPCA spokesman said: “We are obviously disappointed to hear this individual no longer wishes to be a volunteer.

As the work we do to rescue, rehome and promote animal welfare attests, we do care about animals.

“Obviously this particular incident is very sad. Our staff spent many hours over the last five months hand-rearing the deer in the hope he could be successfully released back into the wild.

“We took the chance we could rear it knowing we might have to euthanase it if it sadly proved unsuitable for a life in the wild.”

BOLTON NEWS

Yet in another article:

Chief Insp Ian Briggs, of the RSPCA’s special operations unit, said: “People have this idea that poaching is just a little old man getting a few rabbits for the pot from under the gamekeeper’s nose, but it’s not.

“A lot of the time, it involves gangs armed with firearms and dogs which are specifically bred for taking down game.

“It’s a massively serious problem from the RSPCA’s point of view.

“The people who do this like killing wildlife and the fact they can make money on the side is a bonus.”

That just about describes the RSPCA perfectly - they kill and make lots of money out of doing it!!

BIRMINGHAM POST

RSPCA TAKING OUT THE COMPETITION - ANOTHER SMALL RESCUE RAIDED

2010-10-21T07:24:00.000-07:00

Sanctuary could be shut by RSPCA cruelty probe

Yet another raid on another small sanctuary. It seems that the RSPCA like to target smaller rescues. Is it an attempt by them to make it increasingly difficult for small rescues to exist thereby forcing many to close? Just think, soon they will control all rescue which means more money for them and more animals for them to kill!!!

AN animal charity which has saved the lives of countless creatures, could be forced to close after 30 years.

The Rescuers Wildlife Sanctuary in Benfleet has been told to stop taking in poorly animals, pending the outcome of an investigation by the RSPCA.

It is bringing 17 charges of cruelty against the founders of the charity Veronica Mepham and her husband Rye.

The sanctuary is home to about 40 owls and parrots, formerly kept as pets, as well as foxes and rabbits not able to survive in the wild because of injuries.

Veronica, 70, who lives at the centre in Watlington Road, strongly denied the charges.

She said “We have put 30 years of blood, sweat and tears into the sanctuary.

“We are devastated by this. Looking after animals has been our lives. It’s our passion.

“I would never have harmed an animal.”

Despite suffering three strokes in recent years, Veronica has still maintained her work at the charity.

She does all the fundraising to pay for the care of the animals.

The couple and helpers nurse back to health abandoned baby foxes, hedgehogs, squirrels and other wildlife and always avoid putting an animal down unless absolutely necessary.

Veronica added: “I dread to think what will happen if they close us down.

“There is nowhere else for animals to go in this area.”

The charity is well known in the community and Veronica regularly goes to schools for free with her animals to educate youngsters.

Squirrels from the sanctuary even became movie stars when they starred alongside Johnny Depp in the remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

The creatures were handpicked to be in the 2005 Tim Burton movie for the famous nut room scene.

Yesterday she was due to visit Funhouse Pre School in Laindon, to show the pupils some hedgehogs. Veronica has now had to rehome all her hedgehogs, so could not make the appointment.

The RSPCA court hearing is due to take place in November. A spokesman for the RSPCA would not confirm details of the charges at the time of going to press.

ECHO NEWS

MORE SHOCKING FOOTAGE FROM AN RSPCA FREEDOM FOOD EGG FIRM

2010-10-12T07:55:00.000-07:00

An investigation by Sky News and Viva has uncovered evidence suggesting Britain's largest egg producer is contravening strict guidelines on animal welfare.

Noble Foods own hen farms accredited to the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme, designed to offer particularly high standards of welfare for farm animals.

But footage obtained by Sky News and Viva from two farms in Fife, Scotland, suggests the guidelines are being breached.

An employee for Noble Foods was covertly filmed revealing electric wires are used to control the hens, who are also encouraged to remain indoors until 80% of them are laying.

The Happy Egg website projects the image of a playground for its hens

Another worker admitted at least one barn was infested with red mite, a parasite that causes skin irritations.

On a second visit to the farm, investigators filmed dozens of birds which had lost feathers due to disease and being pecked by other hens.

For their Happy Egg brand, Noble Foods portrays an image of welfare standards beyond the requirements of the Freedom Food scheme.

The investigation into The Happy Egg Company shows a very different picture - one of disease, incarceration, short lives and electric shocks.
Justine Kerswell from Viva

The company's website states hens are given activities to enhance their natural surroundings such as "an adventure playground and sandpit".

Yet on two separate visits to the farm Sky News discovered muddy surroundings and a water-logged sandpit.

The reality of the hell inside Noble Foods

A Noble Foods worker was recorded admitting the farm had problems with soil drainage and conditions for the hens were different to those officially portrayed.

Justine Kerswell from Viva, told Sky News: "Contented hens pecking at the ground and enjoying a dust bathe in the sun - that's most people's view of free range egg production.

"Viva And Sky News' investigation into The Happy Egg Company shows a very different picture - one of disease, incarceration, short lives and electric shocks."

In a statement, Noble Foods said: "We take the treatment of our hens extremely seriously.

"As soon as we were made aware of the video footage the company instigated an internal enquiry.

"Last night, at our request, both farms involved were audited by RSPCA Freedom Food inspectors and both were given very positive reports.

"We will continue to work with RSPCA Freedom Foods to ensure the highest possible welfare standards across our farms."

The RSPCA told Sky News they take any potential breach of welfare standards very seriously and would be suspending the farms in question from the Freedom Food scheme pending their own investigation.

Noble Foods supplies Happy Eggs to supermarkets including Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury's and Ocado.

Sainsbury's welcomed the RSPCA investigation while Ocado have announced they will de-list Happy Eggs from their range as a precautionary measure.

SKY NEWS

Euthanasia statement- RSPCA SUSPEND ILLEGAL AND BARBARIC METHODS OF SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS

2010-10-12T07:36:00.000-07:00

It looks like all the negative publicity about the barbaric and illegal methods utilised by RSPCA slaughterman to kill animals, has forced them to review their policies.

As you may be aware, the RSPCA is currently reviewing its euthanasia policy.

The RSPCA's first concern is to prevent animal suffering and we are often called to alleviate this by putting an animal to sleep, for instance if a cat has been seriously injured in a road traffic accident.

As part of this review we are making changes to the way we deal with the handling of veterinary drugs used to alleviate suffering by putting an animal to sleep.

As a result we have decided that our non-veterinary staff will no longer use these types of drugs.

WHO ILLEGALLY SUPPLIED THESE CONTROLLED DRUGS TO NON QUALIFIED RSPCA STAFF?

WHY HAS THERE BEEN NO POLICE INVESTIGATION?

However, RSPCA vets at animal centres and hospitals will continue to have access to pentobarbitone sodium (PBS) for euthanasia purposes.

We have been in close correspondence with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on this and have been looking to update our euthanasia procedures in line with current legislation.

CONTROLLED DRUGS ARE GIVEN BY UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE YET THE RCVS IGNORE THIS !

In those cases where seriously injured animals need to be euthanased, usually wildlife or traffic accident victims, our inspectors and animal welfare officers will look at all other options available to them, including calling independent vets to the scene.

Other forms of euthanasia will continue to be considered and used. However, we can confirm that the use of captive bolt guns on dogs is still suspended.

We have considered the welfare implications and are working with both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) on these changes.

We want to reassure the public that the RSPCA will continue to do what is in the best interest for the animals in helping to alleviate suffering.

THE RSPCA IS ALL ABOUT MAKING MONEY NOT WHAT"S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE ANIMALS!!!

ARSEPCA

RSPCA TAKE 3 MONTHS TO RETURN OWNERS HORSES AFTER LOOSING THEIR CASE AGAINST HIM

2010-10-04T01:26:00.000-07:00

Anglesey horse breeder reunited with his animals

A HORSE breeder on Anglesey was finally reunited with his animals after a three year ordeal fighting to clear his name after an RSPCA neglect prosecution.

Michael O’Neill, of Rainbow Farm, Pentraeth, saw trained harness racing horse Mickey-Bob, and Barney taken by officers from the animal charity in 2007 after being found in a poorly condition.

This started years of hell for the respected breeder as he was dragged through the courts, with proceedings delayed further after he had a stroke in Holyhead Magistrates Court in 2009.

In July this year he was finally cleared of all neglect charges and the RSPCA were told to promptly return his horses.

It has taken nearly three months to comply with the order but yesterday the horses arrived back on Anglesey.

Mr O’Neill, in his 50s, said the three year fight has cost him thousands of pounds and lost the potential of racing Mickey-Bob, who was bred from a top class racing father.

He said: “All that potential has now been lost and I feel very bitter and disappointed. If the horses had been returned promptly I could have covered a couple of my own mares with Mickey-Bob but it is too late in the year now.”

Mr O’Neill won the case at Caernarfon Magistrates Court after the court accepted that abscesses on their throats were caused by a bacterial infection called strangles, and not neglect.

They had been bought in August 2007 for around £10,000.

Zoe McKenna, of Rhoscefnhir, who was accused alongside him, also had charges against her dropped at an earlier date.

He said: “For three years my life has been on hold, no one wanted to know me and my business as a horse dealer came to a halt.

“Mickey-Bob was over the worst of the strangles when he was seized and the recovery is quite rapid, he would have been race fit for the 2008 season but now we will never know. I feel cheated and that Mickey-Bob has been robbed of a career that he was bred and trained for.”

Mr O’Neill, who is originally from Ireland, is the fifth generation of horse breeder in his family.

DAILY POST

How heart-warming that it took only three months for the RSPCA to return the animals that they were ordered to give back forthwith. Do you see them being committed for contempt? Perhaps the RSPCA just decided to prolong his agony (and massive financial loss) for another quarter of a year.

THEY SHOOT HORSES DON"T THEY?

2010-09-16T03:13:00.001-07:00

Police to investigate handling of incident involving shooting of horses near Dunnington

POLICE are to review their handling of an incident near York which ended with them shooting dead two horses, leaving locals outraged.

During the incident at Dunnington, near York, on Sunday, police and members of the public spent hours trying to control four horses which had got loose near the A1079.

After several hours of attempts to corral the horses safely, police marksmen killed two of the horses, and the remaining two were contained in a nearby field.

Superintendent Andy McMillan, of North Yorkshire Police, said the killing was a last resort, but the incident would be investigated following concerns raised by locals and witnesses to the operation.

He said: “The decision to shoot the wild horses was taken to protect the public from a potentially dangerous situation of the animals running on to a busy road and causing a serious or even fatal collision.

“The decision was made following assistance from a specialist equine vet and having contacted the RSPCA. Every effort was made to bring the situation under control without having to destroy any of the horses, but ultimately public safety has to be our number one priority.

“Nevertheless, we are very mindful of the concerns that have been raised about the way the incident was handled by North Yorkshire Police. To address this issue I am undertaking a detailed review of the circumstances surrounding the incident.”

Lorna Marchi, owner of York Riding School, said she was “appalled” by the handling of the operation.

She said: “If someone had called us we could have had them all safe. I can’t believe that a group of people who are used to dealing with horses couldn’t have been brought in to help and avoid the animals being shot. Why didn’t they just call up one of the riding schools in York and ask for help?”

“As I understand it, the horses were in a field. If they were not on a highway, why couldn’t they just use an electric fence around where they were and leave them there.”

Yesterday, vet James Christie told The Press “several attempts had been made to manually round up and capture the horses, but had been unsuccessful”. Mr Christie said tranquiliser darts were considered but not used, and the shooting of the horses was a decision made by police after efforts to control them were unsuccessful.

Thank goodness that the police are investigating the way that this dreadful operation was handled - clearly RSPCA's press dept - Henry Macaulay's network, will not allow this to be published in the national press, but it's good to see the local papers doing their job for once. Doubtless, the RSPCA will be exonerated too.

York Press

WIDOW PLANNING FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST 'NAZI' RSPCA

2010-09-10T05:12:00.000-07:00

No doubt it will be made to appear that Ann Baker, 79, was actually lucky not to be prosecuted for cruelty - despite the fact that Nightshift was actually under the care of her own vet, and he did not see the problems allegedly observed by the RSPCA

A SELBY widow is planning to make a formal complaint to the RSPCA after her cat was seized by the animal charity and put down just hours after he went missing from her home.

Ann Baker, 79, said Nightshift – a neutered male tabby, who she had kept since 1992 – was her last living link with her retired university professor husband Clyde Manwell, who died in December 2007.

Ann, who lives close to Selby Abbey, said: "I'm very upset – furious. They just put Nightshift down as if he was so much rubbish. They tried to justify it by saying he was old.

"I told them well I'm old too! Then they said he had most of his teeth missing. Well, I have no teeth at all! It was just like something out of Nazi Germany."

Ann said Nightshift had been taken ill and was treated at a highly-regarded vets in Howden on August 30 for respiratory difficulties.

Selby Times

RSPCA KILL PENSIONERS BELOVED CAT

2010-09-04T11:47:00.000-07:00

What gives the RSPCA the right to steal someone's pet and kill it?

A Selby pensioner has told how the RSPCA seized her beloved pet cat from the street and put him down within the space of 24 hours.

Ann Baker, 79, of Church Avenue, said she had owned the tabby cat, Nightshift, since 1992 and he was the last living link she had with her late husband, who had still been alive when they took the animal in as a stray.

Mrs Baker said that over the weekend, Nightshift had come down with a respiratory problem. She took him to the vet on Bank Holiday Monday and paid more than £100 to have him treated.

On Tuesday, he was whining to go out of the house so she let him into the garden. But when she came to let him in, he was nowhere to be seen.

A neighbour later told her that an RSPCA van had been seen in the area and Mrs Baker then contacted the charity.

She said: “A woman confirmed they had picked up a cat in Selby. She phoned back and said she had bad news – he had been put down. I can’t understand it as his fur was healthy, his eyes were clear.”

She said the female inspector who had taken Nightshift was asked to bring the cat’s body back to Mrs Baker, and he had now been buried in her garden.

Mrs Baker said there appeared to have been no attempt to find out who owned the animal before he was taken away.

She said: “She (the inspector) just grabbed him off the street, bundled him into a van and had him destroyed.”

A spokeswoman for the RSPCA said that if the cat had been microchipped it would have meant he could have been returned.

She said: “We are sorry that the cat’s owner has been caused upset and distress. We have been in touch with her to convey our sympathies.

“Our staff have animals’ best interests at heart. An RSPCA inspector took the cat to a vet who confirmed that it was extremely ill and suffering from several problems including kidney failure and breathing problems.

“Generally, if an RSPCA inspector finds a healthy cat then it is kept for seven days while we make inquiries and endeavour to track down an owner, but this cannot always be the case if an animal is very ill or injured and needs immediate veterinary treatment.”

Yorkpress

MORPETH SQUIRREL KILLER IS ARRESTED

2010-08-20T06:06:00.001-07:00

You just couldn't make this up could you?

A WILDLIFE campaigner who challenged the RSPCA to prosecute him for drowning a grey squirrel has been arrested.

Norris Atthey, 66, was arrested by police at his home in Ulgham yesterday (Wednesday) after refusing to take part in a voluntary interview with an RSPCA inspector.

He was taken into custody for questioning on suspicion of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

His arrest follows a report in the 'Herald' last week in which Mr Atthey said he had drowned a grey squirrel to show it was a humane method of culling.

He was incensed after reading of the RSPCA's prosecution of Raymond Elliott in Burton last month for drowning a grey in a water butt and said he had acted to challenge the charity, arguing that he could show the killing was humane.

He believes grey squirrels should be killed to protect the native red species.

Speaking just minutes before his arrest on Wednesday, Mr Atthey told the 'Herald' he has no regrets about the drowning and is unconcerned about any action taken against him, revealing that he has recently had a cancer diagnosis.

"I had bowel cancer in 2001 and was given a 30 to 40 percent chance of surviving five years so I see anything in my life after 2006 as a bonus. I have just been diagnosed with prostate cancer so perhaps I see things differently to other people," he said.

"This action doesn't bother me. I think I'm right and I'm going to protect my red squirrels."

Mr Atthey was contacted by the RSPCA on Tuesday and refused to co-operate with their enquiries.

An officer returned to his home on Wednesday morning and Mr Atthey handed over a written statement, but refused to speak to the official.

Assistance was then requested from police to arrest him.

A Northumbria Police spokesman said: "Police were called to assist an RSPCA officer at an address in Ulgham at around 10.45am.

"Officers arrested a 66-year-old man at the address for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal."

Why were no arrests made when an RSPCA inspector slaughtered 10 German Shepherds with a captive bolt gun last year? Which is an act of truly barbaric cruelty? Drowning an animal classed as vermin or mercilessly dragging 10 gsd's one by one out of their home on a catchpole then dead bolting them at least once with a CBG and finally killing them by pithing with a screwdriver? We know they killed at least 65 dogs in this horrific way last year.

MORPETH HERALD

SEND IN THE HEAVIES AND THE RSPCA LEGAL TEAM!!

2010-08-12T10:39:00.000-07:00

Squirrel killer issues RSPCA prosecution challenge

A MORPETH wildlife campaigner has drowned a grey squirrel in a challenge to the RSPCA to prosecute him.

Norris Atthey, Chairman of Morpeth Red Squirrels, killed the creature last week as part of his grey culling activities.

His actions were meant as a direct challenge to the animal charity following its prosecution of Raymond Elliott at Burton Magistrates Court last month for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal after he drowned a grey squirrel in a water butt.

Elliott, who admitted the charge, was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £1,547 costs.

However, the matter is believed to be going to appeal.

Mr Atthey, who thinks grey squirrels should be killed to ensure the survival of Northumberland's red species, said he was incensed by the prosecution and set out to show that drowning was a humane method of culling.

He said the death of the squirrel in the greater Morpeth area last Wednesday was over in seconds, quicker than his usual method of shooting them, and minimal distress was caused to the animal.

"I submerged this grey squirrel for a few seconds in the water and it was dead within 30 seconds," he said.

"Of approximately 250 greys that I have killed, that has been the quickest method. Normally it can take one to three minutes.

"The usual method is shooting them. Ninety per cent have been one-off shots, but it is still possible that you might miss or not kill it properly.

"Another method is to transfer a grey into a hessian sack and hit it with a club. I think that is absolutely brutal so I don't use it."

However, Mr Atthey said he will wait to see if any legal action is taken against him before drowning another squirrel.

"This drowning was a one-off. I'm trying to prove a point. This is to test the RSPCA, it is a challenge. I can demonstrate the trapping procedures if it goes to court," he said.

"This was humane and this grey squirrel was not under stress. What I have done is better because it was quicker so it has to be more humane.

"I believe that under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act, drowning a grey squirrel is legal as long as it is done quickly as part of pest control. What I am doing is pest control."

The RSPCA refused to comment on the incident due to the ongoing legal case in Burton.

A factsheet on grey squirrels from the charity says killing them should only be considered as a last resort if there is a serious problem and alternative means of control are ineffective or impractical.

It warns that killing is unlikely to be a long-term solution and that it is an offence if any unnecessary suffering is caused to captured animals.

Natural England advises that grey squirrels can be run into a sack and killed by a sharp blow to the head, or shot in a cage, but trapped squirrels should not be drowned as it is considered inhumane.

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is illegal to release grey squirrels or allow them to escape into the wild.

A Natural England spokesman said: "The Animal Welfare Act 2006 protects 'animals under the control of man' and so squirrels in traps or cages would be covered.

"This Act prohibits causing unnecessary suffering to such animals.

"It would be for the courts to decide whether the method of killing, be it drowning or any other method, caused any suffering and if so if this was unnecessary or not in any particular case brought before them."

MORPETH HERALD

RSPCA PERSECUTE ANOTHER VICTIM

2010-08-08T03:32:00.000-07:00

RSPCA: End this cruelty to animal owners

The animal charity is spending too much time prosecuting innocent animal owners, believes Christopher Booker

Last week I reported on the tragic story of Alan Brough, the retired builder who became so depressed, after the RSPCA had – for no good reason – taken the herd of 90 semi-wild ponies he had looked after for 30 years on the Cumbrian moors, that he hanged himself.

This week’s story, again passed on to me by SHG (the Self-Help Group set up to advise victims of RSPCA persecution), concerns Michael O’Neill, an Anglesey horse breeder. For three years he was dragged through the courts by the RSPCA, after one of its officials had in 2007 seen sores on two horses he had bought from Ireland for £10,000.

The RSPCA instigated criminal charges against Mr O’Neill, claiming that the sores must have been caused by collars round his horses’ necks. Mr O’ Neill’s vet had already diagnosed their cause as a rare bacterial infection called strangles, for which he had been treating the animals. As the case dragged on, threatening the closure of his business, Mr O’Neill became so stressed that his health deteriorated. At one hearing last year, he had a stroke in the courtroom.

Last week, when the trial finally concluded, the magistrates acquitted Mr O’Neill of all charges, saying he could leave the court with “an untarnished reputation”. Such stories should be brought to the attention of all those generous folk who still provide the RSPCA with an income of £115 million a year in donations, without realising what a change has come over that once admirable organisation – and how much of its activity, according to critics, is now devoted to prosecuting innocent animal owners in order to generate the publicity that keeps those donations rolling in.

Christopher Booker- Daily Telegraph

MAN FOUND HANGED AFTER RAID BY RSPCA BULLYBOYS

2010-07-28T02:08:00.000-07:00

CUMBRIA ANIMAL LOVER ARRESTED OVER FELL PONIES 'CRUELTY' FOUND HANGED

A Cumbrian ‘animal lover’ who owned the wild ponies of Caldbeck Common is thought to have killed himself after they were taken away by the RSPCA and he was arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty.

Alan ‘Tutty’ Brough, 68, from Newbiggin, near Penrith, was arrested at 8.30am on Wednesday shortly before a major RSPCA and police operation began to catch about 90 of his ponies that had lived wild on Uldale and Caldbeck commons for 30 years.

After being released from Carlisle’s Durranhill police station at 3pm, Mr Brough returned home but later drove to St Ninian’s Church at Brougham, where his family say he was found hanged.

One of his four daughters, Kathleen Michie, from Carlisle, said: “It was not my dad who walked out of the police cells – he was trance-like. He said they had taken his life. He was not a people person, he preferred animals. We ran down to the car to stop him leaving the house and I took the keys out of the car.

“We spent 45 minutes talking to him and eventually he agreed to take his grand-daughter Natasha with him – he wanted to go and think.

“He stopped at Rheged for fuel and drove off when Natasha went to pay. She chased him and jumped in front of the car. But he drove off when she tried to get in.”

The 18-year-old alerted the rest of the family, who gave chase. Natasha eventually found her grandfather by the River Eamont.

His daughter Kathleen added: “We had begged him to carry on and fight for the ponies. He spent half his life fighting the parish council and Caldbeck Commoners to keep the ponies on the common.

“He got up at 5am every day to go out and gather grass for his horses. He spent every day with them.”

The ponies were rounded up and loaded onto lorries on Wednesday before being taken to new homes. Mr Brough, a builder, was not told of the operation before it started.

He first released the Shetland ponies onto the common when he lived at Mosedale when his daughters outgrew them. The ponies bred and multiplied, becoming a tourist attraction on the commons.

In an effort to control numbers, a castration programme was started by landowners, The Lake District National Park Authority, two years ago. Mr Brough co-operated with the programme but the RSPCA got involved after welfare concerns were raised.

Following advice from a vet, four ponies were seized by Cumbria police last Friday. The RSPCA said one pony was put to sleep because of its poor condition.

Redwings Horse Sanctuary, World Horse Welfare, the British Horse Society and Horse World were involved in Wednesday’s operation and they are housing the ponies in undisclosed locations. Mr Brough’s family have not been told where they are.

A statement from the RSPCA and other horse charities involved in Wednesday’s operation said: “We are saddened by what has happened and our thoughts are with Mr Brough’s family at this time.”

Paragon Veterinary Group has castrated many of the ponies over the last two years.

David Black from the group said this week: “Of the ponies we saw, considering their management as wild ponies, the vets involved did not have concerns about their body condition.”

Mr Brough was well-known in his home town of Penrith and once kept lions at his Mosedale home in the hope of starting a zoo.

His family said he would never have let any animal suffer and that he was treating the horse that was put down by police. His daughter Cindy said the family were angry with police.

She added :“He was taken away for the best part of the day. They put him in the cells and broke his heart. It was as if they wanted him out of the way so they could take the horses.”

Mr Brough leaves his wife Kathleen, four daughters and nine grandchildren.

Enquiries into Mr Brough’s death are ongoing, but officers are not looking for anyone else in connection with the incident.

Cumberland News

RSPCA PERSECUTING SQUIRREL KILLERS NOW!

2010-07-20T03:36:00.000-07:00

Remember that RSPCA figures for 2009 show that they killed 63,321 animals - an increase of over 3000 on 2008!

When a bird lover managed to trap one of the grey squirrels raiding his nut feeders, he decided that drowning would be the most humane way to dispose of it.

What happened next landed Raymond Elliott with a bill for £1,500 and, even worse, a criminal record.

A neighbour tipped off the RSPCA that he had submerged the animal in a water butt.

Mr Elliott, a 58-year-old window cleaner, insisted that the squirrel died 'almost instantaneously'.

However a vet said the process would have taken three minutes, so Mr Elliott was taken to court accused of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

The landmark case sets an important precedent for killing grey squirrels, which are classified as a non-native invasive species, and could pave the way for hundreds of other prosecutions across the country.

The RSPCA warned that many common methods of killing grey squirrels and other pests could now fall foul of the law, and said the only humane way to dispatch them would be to take them to a vet for a lethal injection - at a cost of up to £70.

Mr Elliott, from Branston, Staffordshire, was prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

After pleading guilty at Burton Magistrates' Court, he was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £1,547 to cover RSPCA costs.

'This is an injustice,' he said yesterday.

'People do it across the country all the time - they are just making an example of me. I do not feel what I did was inhumane or cruel.'

Doug Walton, defending, described Mr Elliott as a man of good character. He added: 'The drowning of squirrels and rats is a widespread practice, so what are the alternatives for these people?

'Realistically, I can't see many opting to take the creatures to the vets to pay to have them euthanised.'

John Sutcliffe, prosecuting, said the case was the first to be brought under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in respect of a non-domestic animal.

He said that Mr Elliott was 'extremely open and frank' about what he had done and 'believed it was the most humane way of disposing of the animal'.

He also warned that official advice - that squirrels should be caught in a sack and killed with a single blow to the head - could be a breach of the act as the animal could suffer before it dies.

An RSPCA spokesman said: 'Drowning grey squirrels causes unnecessary suffering, as this case demonstrates.

'Realistically the only humane method would be to take the squirrel along to vet, as you would with a pet.'

Tim Bonner, a spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, said the RSPCA was using the courts to push its policy on animal rights.

'Killing grey squirrels is a good thing - there are far too many of them and they threaten our native species and woodland,' he said.

'It is absolutely ridiculous that the RSPCA has spent thousands dragging this man through the courts when he was clearly unaware of the law.

'They are using the courts as a propaganda vehicle.'

Carri Nicholson, project manager for Save Our Squirrels, said: 'I feel very sorry for this man being prosecuted as most people don't know the law and it's not always clear what they should do.

'I would advise people to check with their local wildlife trust and ask advice on the best way to kill a squirrel.

'I would not recommend taking the animals to the vet to be put down as we have had advice that transporting animals to vets can cause unnecessary suffering and would therefore not be in keeping with the act.

'It is also prohibitively expensive and can cost up to £70.'

Daily Mail article

CHEATING RSPCA FUND RAISERS EXPOSED

2010-07-02T04:47:00.000-07:00

Of course this has been spun in a way that eliminates the true thrust of the story - that RSPCA fundraisers were being paid commission by the charity to raise money by knocking doors, and tried to con the public and thereby dishonestly obtain commission.

THESE crooks were exposed after cheating charities out of thousands of pounds.

Armed with application forms, Kathryn Ashcroft and Gregory Cameron were supposed to be knocking on doors to sign up householders wanting to donate towards charity.

But instead the pair, who worked for Marketing North East and were paid commission for each application, resorted to making up names and addresses, pretending to sign up scores more donors.

Ashcroft, 29, had submitted 21 incorrect forms while 24-year-old Cameron sent in 42 applications that were found to be made up.

Charities that were set to gain from their work included the RSPCA.

In total the thieves, who both pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation, received £3,233 and £4,399 respectively from their employer.

Newcastle Magistrates heard yesterday that the pair were only caught out when the banks refused to set up the direct debits and sent out an attention report to their employer, Gary Lewis.

Becky Gibson, prosecuting, said: “Mr Lewis was alerted that two of his staff had a number of forms that were submitted, but rejected due to false details.

“When Mr Lewis received the report, he rang around all the numbers on each of Miss Ashcroft’s forms to ascertain if the householders had subscribed to the charity on the form.

“He discovered that every number was invalid. He called them both into the office and told them he would be ringing the police.”

When Ashcroft and Cameron were interviewed by officers they each admitted the donors were not genuine.

Lewis Pearson, defending Ashcroft, said: “Miss Ashcroft had a son to look after and had tried to leave before due to the intense hours. But because she was Mr Lewis’ best employee, he was extremely persuasive. She is extremely apologetic.”

Michael Gibson, defending Cameron, told the court in mitigation that his client hadn’t even had a police caution in the past.

He said: “It was a high intensity job and employment depends on returning forms. He felt pressure to hand in a certain amount.

“The RSPCA were never in danger and no individuals were ever going to have to pay out money. He knew they would bounce. Now he just wants to put it in the past and get on with his life.”

Mother-of-one Ashcroft, of Orlando Road, North Shields, was handed a four-month custodial sentence, suspended for a year. She was also ordered to do 200 hours’ unpaid work as well as pay £1,500 compensation and £40 court costs.

And the case against IT technician Cameron, of Cartington Terrace, Heaton, Newcastle, was adjourned until next week for pre-sentence reports.

Journal Live Article

Ten firefighters, two engines, police and RSPCA officers sent to rescue... two CROWS

2010-07-02T04:30:00.000-07:00

Yet another publicity stunt by the RSPCA to try and convince people they care when they only want more of your money

What a pity the RSPCA didn't show the same compassion towards the 10 GSD's they shot through the head with a captive bolt gun last year after their owner died.

Emergency services launched a massive rescue operation – after two crows were spotted trapped on a restaurant roof.

Ten firefighters, two engines, police and RSPCA officers showed up to free the birds that had been caught in anti-seagull netting.

The exercise, in which an aerial ladder was scaled to reach the roof of the KFC outlet in Exmouth, Devon, was criticised as a waste of taxpayers’ money at a time when public services face severe cutbacks.

Of course KFC would never condone the ill treatment of any birds now would it? The same KFC that introduced halal but had to back down because of public disgust.

Firefighters justified the costly operation by saying it was a ‘humanitarian’ mission to spare members of public having to watch the birds suffer.

But witness Barry Drinkall, 40, said: ‘It was totally ridiculous that so many firefighters turned out.

‘They are funded by the taxpayer and, for a relatively small incident, I thought it was excessive the amount of people who turned up.’

He added: ‘I’m not anti-birds and animals, but it is not like a person was hurt.’

Another angry local resident said: ‘Council tax rates for many areas have increased not so long ago.

‘It begs the question why when you see this type of thing happening.

‘An operation like this could have cost thousands and we're paying for every penny.’

A Devon Fire Authority spokesman said: ‘There was concern that the chicks would die painfully in view of members of the public so one fire appliance from Exmouth attended - as opposed to die a painful death in the back of an RSPCA inspectors van out of sight of the public. But wait, there's a publicity opportunity here!!!

‘They determined that the only safe way to reach the birds was to use a hydraulic ladder platform, which was requested to attend from Exeter, and the chicks were retrieved successfully.

‘Both the fire engine and the aerial appliance would have responded immediately to a more serious incident had it occurred while they were dealing with the birds.

‘Part of our role is to offer humanitarian assistance at the request of other agencies’

The 2009 accounts for the RSPCA show that they killed 63,231 animals last year, an increase of over 3000 on 2008. Why would they give a damn about 2 crows?

Daily Mail Article

RSPCA to turn away unwanted animals - NO REALLY!!!!

2010-04-20T13:58:00.000-07:00

The RSPCA is to begin turning away people who bring in stray or unwanted animals, according to a leaked package of documents obtained by Channel 4 News.

Err - haven't they been doing this for years? Isn't it cheaper to turn an animal away or kill it!!
Many of the 75,000 unwanted animals which are taken to RSPCA centres each year across England and Wales could be affected.
This comes after the RSPCA itself complained that the number of abandoned animals is soaring as a result of recession.
The leaked internal documents disclose that from 4 May, 17 animal centres run by the RSPCA's national body should begin turning away people who come to them with unwanted animals. The hope is that the 40 centres run by the charity's branches across England and Wales will follow suit.
Animals that have been "RSPCA generated" - those which have been seized in cruelty or animal protection cases or at immediate risk - will be the only animals taken in after that date.
Pets that belong to people taken into hospital, evicted from their homes, or unwanted or stray animals, will now be turned away. Unless the animal is at immediate risk, the unfortunate visitor holding the animal will be told to contact the police, the council or a vet.
RSPCA staff are being issued with a one-line script to tell the public that the most pressing need of RSPCA animal centres is to care for abused and damaged pets rescued by its officers from neglect or cruelty. They must also make sure they have room for the animals, while "offering advice" to owners of unwanted pets who come to them for help.
The documents say the move will allow the RSPCA to become more efficient, by reducing the need for the organisation to pay to house animals in private boarding facilities.
The RSPCA had an income of £119 million in 2008 and is Britain's eighth largest charity. This latest move is part of its £54 million savings scheme over three years, after donations fell during the recession.
The RSPCA investigated 140,575 cases in 2008. That is up from 110,841 three years earlier. It spent £11.1 million on prosecutions in 2008, compared with £7 million in 2007.
The rise is in part the result of the Animal Welfare Act, which came into effect in 2007 and which was strongly supported by the RSPCA, which introduced new offences of failures in animal welfare, rather than just cruelty.
The move is controversial because it signals a move away from the charity’s role in animal welfare to concentrate instead on policing animal cruelty.
Some vets warn that if the RSPCA turns away unwanted animals, it could result in more pets being abandoned.
The British Veterinary Association President-elect, Harvey Locke said: “I think the concern is that more unwanted pets may be left to fend for themselves, that people will just leave them on the streets or turf them out of their cars on the motorway. I would like to think that that would not happen but that is a risk.
“We need to look at the cause of this. Why are more and more dogs and cats, and exotic pets as well, being taken on by people and then disposed of because they're unwanted?”
RSPCA Chief Superintendant Tim Wass rejected suggestions the policy would lead to more animals being illegally abandoned.
He said: “We will not let that happen. If there is any evidence of that we will be the first to see it and if anything like that happens we will re-focus. We will in each and every case make sure that animals’ welfare is protected.
“Like any organisation at the moment we have to answer some difficult economic challenges. RSPCA has always prioritised which animals it takes in. We are looking to formalise that…and to make sure that our finite resources go to the animals that need them most.
“It is not simply turning people away. We will still be taking animals in from the public where we perceive that there is a risk to those animals’ welfare.”
Mr Wass conceded that the move would put extra pressure on smaller animal charities but said charities could not be expected to deal with the issue of unwanted pets and there was a need for new measures to prevent the problem.
He added: “Owners have to accept responsibility and that starts when they decide to take on the pet in the first place.”
The potential burden of tens of thousands of unwanted animals, many of which will now be turned away by the RSPCA, will now fall on smaller charities devoted to particular animals such as Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, as well as smaller rescue centres such as the Mayhew Animal Home and Celia Hammond Trust in London.
The RSPCA’s 169 local branches are independent of the national charity. Angela Walder, Chairwoman of the RSPCA branch in Isle of Sheppey, Kent, and a member of the charity’s governing Council, said some branches may ignore the new policy.
She said: “I think what the national society is doing with this policy is trying to reduce the number of just animals people don't want any more, for various reasons, coming in to us in order to make sure we've got spaces for the other at-risk animals.
"But I think, when it comes to the branches, they will do what they've always done which is take in as many animals as they can.”

RSPCA KILL PET CAT

2010-03-15T12:53:00.000-07:00

Brighton man furious after RSPCA put down his cat

An animal lover said his “blood is boiling” after his cat was put down by the RSPCA - without his knowledge.

John Edwards said his beloved Gizmo had been missing for two weeks when he learned he had been mistaken for a stray and picked up by the animal charity.

The white puss, described as a “fluffy furball”, was put down the same day.

Mr Edwards, of Gloucester Street, Brighton, said: “I am absolutely seething. He always used to go out walking and all the neighbours knew this.

“My other cat, who is a Siamese, is grieving as he knows his mate has gone.

“My blood is boiling and I don’t know when I’ll calm down.”

Gizmo was taken two weeks ago by animal inspectors from the RSPCA but Mr Edwards only found out his cat had been picked up on Monday after leaflets were delivered by concerned residents.

A spokeswoman for RSPCA said they were called to the street by members of the public who said they thought the animal had been involved in a fight.

She added: “We are very sorry for the distress caused to Mr Edwards due to the sad death of his cat.

“Unfortunately the animal was in very bad health, with bad teeth and matted fur. He was covered in fight wounds when concerned residents asked us for help. Wonder if they ever considered vet treatment. Oops, no that costs money!!

“Nor was he identified with a collar or a microchip and so we were unable to trace his owner. They obviously didn't try too hard since they killed the poor cat the day they took it in!

“The RSPCA does everything it can to avoid having to put animals to sleep, but sometimes we have little choice.” 2008 figures show the RSPCA kill a staggering 22 dogs and 33 cats per day so guess they didn't try too hard to find homes. We await with baited breath, the figures for 2009.

She reminded pet owners to microchip their pets to avoiding similar situations. Maybe time to remind them that they are an animal welfare organisation, not a slaughterhouse.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/5056556.Brighton_man_furious_after_RSPCA_put_down_his_cat/#

KILLING BLACKIE THE COLLIE COSTS THE RSPCA DEARLY

2010-03-02T12:12:00.000-08:00

You just couldn't make this up!!

RSPCA HUGE loss after Caernarfon pet is put down

The RSPCA has lost out on part of a£400,000 legacy after a pet dog was put down.

Blackie's owner Claude Atack, 80, from Caernarfon, Gwynedd, had specified that any charity which found his pet a home would get a large part of his estate.

Solicitor Dewi Pritchard Jones thought the dog was in good health and was shocked he had been put down.

But the RSPCA said Blackie was found to suffer from numerous health problems, and was put down on humane grounds. Blackie's vet said he was a bit overweight and had the start of cataracts but was otherwise perfectly healthy!

Mr Atack was found collapsed at his home by concerned neighbours when they realised they had not seen him walking sheepdog Blackie on 29 January.

'Safe'

"He walked Blackie four times a day, and he lived for the dog," said Mr Pritchard Jones.

Mr Atack died in hospital on 1 February.

A neighbour initially looked after Blackie, then he was handed over to the RSPCA.

"I wasn't concerned because their leaflets state that they do not put animals down without good reason. I thought he was safe," said the solicitor.

He added that Mr Atack had stated in his will that his estate should be shared between different charities, but with no less than one fifth going to an animal charity.

But verbally he had told his solicitor that more of his estate should be given to any charity which found Blackie a new home.

He had stipulated that he could be "especially generous" to any charity which found his dog a home.

Mr Pritchard Jones said that a couple, who do not wish to be named but who knew Mr Atack, came forward to offer Blackie a home on 8 February.

They traced him to an RSPCA kennel at Shrewsbury, but were told he had already been put down on the day he was handed in.

However the RSPCA said Blackie went to them on 2 February, and was only put to sleep on 8 February, after he was assessed for six days. But that's not what the centre said!!

"They said it was because he was in poor health, but I know his health was good," said Mr Pritchard Jones.

"The old gentleman thought the world of him and at any sign of illness he would be whipped off to the vet," he said.

Other charities

"The vet said he (Blackie) had cataracts and was overweight, as a dog which is pampered tends to be," he added.

The incident would have broken Mr Atack's heart, he said.

"He lived by himself, it was just him and the dog," he added.

The solicitor added that the money - in excess of £400,000 - would be shared between other charities.

"I am angry about what happened, because I have a dog which is 15 years old, and you can't put them down just because they are old," he said.

"I think Blackie would have made someone elderly a lovely companion, as he was used to being around an older person, and they often don't want the hassle of getting a puppy," he added.

The RSPCA said all animals that go into RSPCA care go through an assessment period which includes a general health check by a vet.

"Blackie had numerous health problems including a severe heart murmur and the vet recommended he was put to sleep on humane grounds," said a spokesperson.

"The RSPCA has a strong reputation of re-homing elderly animals and the very difficult decision regarding Blackie was purely based on welfare grounds and would not have altered had the RSPCA known about his deceased owner's will." Liar Liar Liar. You would have banked the money and then killed him!!

BBC News

2010-02-16T07:52:00.000-08:00

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!

2010-02-14T11:34:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-11T12:53:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-10T02:04:00.000-08:00

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!!!

2010-02-06T05:15:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-06T05:00:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-02T02:47:00.000-08:00

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

JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING WORSE

2010-01-28T06:58:00.000-08:00

This is part of an email sent to Dogs Monthly January 25, 2010. We cannot print the words we want to say. How could a so called animal welfare society ever stoop this low?

'Just read the article about the unfortunate German shepherds, what a disgrace!
I have never had any time for the RSPCA, especially after the encounter I had with their 'work' in the 1980's.
I used to buy my dog food from a slaughter house in Bedfordshire, visiting there probably every two weeks. On some occasions there were dogs tied up outside, usually German Shepherds or large breeds. For a while I just thought they were dogs belonging to the slaughter men.
Until one day there was a chocolate miniature poodle tied up to the fence. I asked the men why the dog was tied there and they replied that the local RSPCA officer dropped the dogs there for disposal. I of course was horrified, I went on to ask them how they disposed of them. they replied that they were treated the same as the other livestock. That is hopefully stunning them while tied up upside down and then slit their throats.
I was so upset I asked them if I could take the little poodle home, they said I could, I think they were also concerned for the little chap. Cocoa was his name and his only crime in life was that he was a little neurotic. Do you think that his past owners would have let him go if they knew what his end would have been like. I had to sign a form to legalize the transaction and off I went with Cocoa.
We had a local RSPCA officer living in my village at the time and I promptly went to see him and confront him with my findings. He looked at the form and he really didn't believe me, or didn't want to. the name of the Bedfordshire officer was on the form and he assured me that he would investigate. I left the form with him and that was the last I saw of him and the form, soon after ran off with one of the local female parishioners. So all the proof I had had gone, except little Cocoa.'

THEFT OF CONTROLLED DRUGS AND UNSECURED BULLETS FROM RSPCA WORKERS HOME

2010-01-25T12:10:00.000-08:00

How is it that a charity employee, an ordinary member of the public, has dangerous drugs in their possession at home? Is it not illegal for an ordinary member of the public to be in possession of such highly addictive, dangerous drugs?

Why did this same charity worker also have live unsecured ammunition in their home?

Why is it that the RSPCA are above the law?

Shall we ask North Wales Police?

Police have issued an urgent appeal for information after powerful medicine and bullets were stolen in a house burglary in north Wales.

They said the break-in happened at the home of an RSPCA worker in Llangernyw, Abergele, Conwy on Saturday.

As well as personal items like bank cards, a metal box containing two glass bottles of the medicine Pentbarbitone Sodium and bullets was stolen.

Officers said they are concerned where these items are.

The robbery took place sometime between 1230 GMT and 1830 GMT on Saturday.

North Wales Police said anyone who witnessed any suspicious vehicles or suspicious behaviour in the Llangernyw area should come forward.

Anyone with information should contact officers at St Asaph on 101, or 0845 607 1001 (Welsh line) or 0-845 607 1002 (English line), or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8477576.stm

50 OFFICERS RAID KENNELS THAT ARE NO WORSE THAN MOST COUNCIL RUN POUNDS

2010-01-23T08:13:00.000-08:00

So it takes 50 officers to raid a boarding kennels that is no worse than most council run pounds. Three dogs that were ready for rehoming were destroyed during the raid. Bit of target practice for the inspectors no doubt!!

A BOARDING kennels in the Black Country was dramatically shut down by police and the RSPCA after complaints about conditions at the facility.

Animal welfare inspectors and police with a warrant raided the Rosedene Boarding Kennels, Radley Road, Walsall, on Thursday at 9.00am.

Witnesses said around 50 officers entered the site, near Rushall, before moving staff away.

In total 59 dogs were found at the kennels however three were put down by vets on site.

The other 56 were taken into RSPCA care as officers remained on site until around 9.00pm.

Judith Haw, RSPCA spokeswoman said: “56 dogs were removed from the premises by the RSPCA due to the conditions at the kennels. Three dogs were euthanised at the scene on veterinary advice. All of the dogs, which have been signed over by the RSPCA, are now in animal centres for re-homing.”

She added an investigation had been launched into the state of the kennels which took in stray dogs from Walsall, Dudley and Sandwell to be re-homed.

A spokesman from West Midlands Police said the operation had been conducted on a warrant under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

He said the organisations had acted after information from the community raised concerns about animal welfare.

One witness, who asked not to be named, said there had been problems with conditions on the site for years but said volunteers had done their best to take care of the dogs there.

She said: “Staff were not allowed on the premises, they shut it down and all the dogs have gone. Three were put down there.”

She named three put down by vets as Diesel, Stocking and Clarke before adding: “The people there do a lot to save those dogs lives.”

Edith Palmer, 61, who also lives nearby and owns two dogs, said she thought the kennels had been open for around 20 years. She added: “I’m really shocked. I always thought it was good up there. I’ve only ever been up there once. Some people walk dogs from the centre up here, but that’s all I know.”

Links to the kennel’s website were down yesterday and the telephone had been disconnected when the Birmingham Mail tried to get in touch.

Walsall boarding kennels shut down after RSPCA raid

These are the 3 dogs they murdered during the raid

Failed by Britain's largest animal welfare organisation!!

Stocking, Clarke and Diesel R.I.P

ANIMAL 24/7 - FRAUD

2010-01-14T02:43:00.000-08:00

Shh, they'll never notice!!

Some eagle eyed viewers watching the animal 24/7 series in December, noticed that all was not right. In several of the RSPCA cases, the before and after animals were not the same. This is one of the complaint responses.

Our Complaint:

10th Dec, Animals 24/7 episode 9. Used two different cats and told viewers it was the same cat. One had white on face and legs, other was blackfaced and white only on feet. Fraud"

Their Reply:

Subject: Animal 24:7

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:46:06 +0000

Thank you for contacting the BBC about Animal 24:7 broadcast on 10 December 2009 and please accept our apologies for the delay in replying.

I contacted True North Productions who make this programme for BBC Daytime. They contacted RSPCA Inspector, Stuart Wainwright who confirmed the following:

The female cat rescued from the house was taken to the vet, had kittens which died but she survived (following your complaint we asked the independent vet surgery's responsible for looking after this cat and their computerised records confirmed this).

As per the film the rescued cat was then neutered and sent to the cattery.

Two months later Stuart Wainwright contacted the cattery to check on the rescued cat and to ask if True North could film an update.

The cattery agreed to this and in September 2008 we visited and the staff directed us to what they believed was the rescued cat.

As you're probably aware the rescued cat was in a very bad state when Inspector Wainwright rescued her eight weeks earlier and he is involved in so many different cases. Therefore he didn't stop to question if it was the same cat, and it was on this basis that True North shot the sequence.

Following your complaint True North immediately contacted the cattery's owners. After we explained the feedback we had received regarding this staff then realised that on the day of filming they had more than one black and white cat and had got them mixed up.

The RSPCA Inspector checked his log number and confirmed the rescued cat was alive and went to that cattery.

I would like to thank you for drawing this matter to our attention as this error should have been picked up at the production stages and for that we sincerely apologise. True North will re-edit the sequence but still make it clear to viewers that the rescued cat was alive and well and was

successfully re-housed following a period in the cattery.

In all the years of filming for this series this kind of mix up has never happened, to the best of our knowledge. Going forward we will all be clearly be more mindful of the potential for such things to happen in the future.

Yours sincerely

Carla-Maria

BBC Executive Producer

Do you think they think we are stupid?

WRONG. The public are now beginning to doubt

everything the RSPCA says and does.

RSPCA WHAT THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

2009-12-09T14:17:00.000-08:00

This information was requested in August - the answer received in December!

Remember now that they stated:

"It was an absolutely extreme case. The bolt gun is certainly not used routinely by our officers."

Liar Liar Liar

Thank you for your enquiry.

Please accept our apologies for the delay in response; this is due to an exceptionally high number of enquiries received over recent months and it is taking some time to reply to them all.

Not all the figures you have requested are available and we would normally require greater background and context so that we can understand the purposes for which the statistics will be used. However, we hope you find the following information helpful.

On average the Society rehomes over 60,000 animals every year. It has been necessary for our inspectorate to euthanase 576 dogs so far this year, 65 by captive bolt. The use of the captive bolt is the quickest and kindest approach under certain circumstances, but the Society recognises that it may be perceived as a controversial method of euthanasia for companion animals.

Sadly, the RSPCA is often seen as the charity of last resort and so that an animal's welfare is not compromised further, euthanasia is often the kindest option. No one working for the Society finds this aspect of their role at all easy. Until there is greater recognition of the issues surrounding indiscriminate breeding and irresponsible pet ownership it is likely to remain an aspect of our work.

We have new campaigns and education programmes planned for 2010 that will highlight and address these fundamental concerns.

Other animal welfare charities claim they do not put animals to sleep but say they are unable to assist owners in many more challenging circumstances. The RSPCA does not believe this is an acceptable response as further animal suffering is often the result.

Thank you again for contacting the Society, and we hope the above information has been of interest.

Kind regards
RSPCA HQ Advice Team

SO RSPCA, HAVE THESE OTHER 55 BEEN EXTREME CASES AS WELL?????