RSPCA - ONE OF THE RICHEST CHARITIES IN THE UK

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday 28 October 2009

Royal Shits with Pistols Cull Animals - STILL SLAUGHTERING COMPANION ANIMALS WITH A CAPTIVE BOLT GUN

The RSPCA failed to turn up for a live debate on Five Live to discuss their decision to slaughter 10 pet GSD's with a captive bolt gun. Perhaps they don't have the answers we want to hear.

So here is you chance to hear a pre recorded Tim (Pinnochio) Wass.

We say- Liar Liar Liar!!!


Mr Wass no doubt thought this was funny!!!!

A friend of mine was, until recently, involved with the local RSPCA and told me that when she was at a national AGM a couple of years ago the manager from a Liverpool branch stood up in floods of tears and said can somebody please help me I am running an abattoir.

Sunday 25 October 2009

RSPCA FAIL TO TURN UP FOR LIVE DEBATE ON FIVE LIVE


Well they missed a good opportunity to debate the issue of the 10 German Shepherds that they slaughtered in June this year. All was set for a live debate on the Stephen Nolan show on Five Live between Tim Wass from the RSPCA and Jayne Shenstone from German Shepherd Rescue. But it was a no show from the Stasi, who cried off at the last minute. Was that because they thought Mr Wass wouldn't be able to stem the flow of negative press and do a bit of damage limitation?
Maybe Mr Wass was a bit uncomfortable at having to explain why the Stasi still use captive bolts when the World Society for the Protection of Animals deems this to be an unacceptable method of euthanasia for dogs and cats.

The International Companion Animal Management Coalition (“ICAM”) deems the captive bolt to be an unacceptable method of “euthanasia” stating:

'The penetrative captive bolt pistol must be placed in contact with the animal’s skull and precise positioning is essential so that the bolt penetrates the correct area of the brain first time. Animals must be adequately restrained so that the head remains steady (Carding, 1977; Dennis et al., 1988; Beaver et al., 2001), which makes this method particularly difficult with fearful and aggressive dogs and cats (Carding, 1977). Furthermore, the conformational differences between the skulls of individuals and breeds of dogs increase the risk of a mis-stun. The principle skull types are dolichocephalic (long, narrow head), brachycephalic (short, wide heads) and mesaticephalic (medium proportions).

As there is a high risk of mis-stunning through inadequate use of the penetrating captive bolt, and hence causing pain and distress, WSPA considers this an unacceptable method for the euthanasia of dogs and cats.

Even in their own publication on Farm Animal Slaughter they state:

Captive bolt stunning is used on cattle, sheep and some pigs. With this method, a blank cartridge is used to force a metal bolt out of a gun and into the brain of the animal. The bolt does not kill the animal (stop the heart) but, if used correctly, causes the animal to lose consciousness immediately.


So a captive bolt doesn't kill it stuns and because of the shape of a dogs skull, the captive bolt is not an effective weapon!!!!!


How were these dogs finally killed after being stunned by the captive bolt? Were they left to recover consciousness in a pile and, then, die subsequently? When it became clear that this was not the right thing to do, why did the killing go on and on? How long did it take for the hearts to stop? Where were they taken after they had been stunned?


If no method of killing – as opposed to stunning – was used, did any recover consciousness beforehand? Did they recover consciousness when they were being transported? How were the bodies – alive or dead – disposed of? Did every dog have a severe skin condition? How old were these dogs (as it would have been easy for a professional to age them)?


Were any of them pups or youngsters, and therefore particularly healthy, vibrant and easy for a rescue organisation (perhaps even the RSPCA) to rehome? On what basis did the RSPCA “know” that every single dog was unsuitable for re-homing by our organisation? Why was not one of the German Shepherd rescues or other rescues based locally approached for help?


Are these the answers Mr Wass didn't want to give?


In an earlier recorded interview (no doubt read from a script) Tim Wass said ''It's far worse for the officers doing it'' when asked about the guns. How is it worse? The dogs are dead, the officers aren't!


Here is a thought to ponder, question asked on US website.


'I wondered if there is a study between people that kill animals for a living and criminal violence. Does working in an abattoir or killing moles for a living desensitize a person in the same way as killing animals for fun?Do people who want to commit acts of cruelty seek out these jobs or do the jobs change them? Is there any information available on the relationship between killing animals for a living and acts of violence and sexual assault?'

The Link: Cruelty to Animals and Violence Towards People

Friday 23 October 2009

Dog-lovers desert RSPCA over 'inhumane' killings

The truth is coming out now

Dozens of animal lovers have cancelled their regular donations to the RSPCA as part of a campaign against the use of an “inhumane” device used to put down unwanted dogs.

The backlash began after the society, which relies on millions of pounds of public-donated money each year, ordered the destruction of ten German shepherd dogs whose owner had recently died.

The dogs, which had been kept indoors for several weeks and were said to be aggressive and in poor condition, were killed with a captive bolt gun of the kind used in abattoirs to stun livestock before slaughter. The use of captive bolt guns is deemed “inhumane” and “unacceptable” for the destruction of dogs by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA).

Since news of the killings in June began circulating on the internet, nearly 5,000 people have signed a petition calling for use of the bolt guns to be banned. Animal shelters and dog rescue charities have condemned the RSPCA and accused it of failing to try to find new homes for the dogs.

The charity says that it would have been impossible to rehome the dogs and there was no alternative to having them destroyed.But instead of being put down with a pain-free injection, they were caught with a “grab” pole — a noose at the end of a stick — before being dragged outside and shot in the head with the bolt gun, which fires a metal bar about three inches long into the animal’s brain. In an abattoir, stunning is followed either by bleeding or use of a “pithing” stick to destroy the brain, causing instant death.

According to the WSPA, use of the captive bolt gun to put down domestic animals is “unacceptable” because of the difficulty of ensuring a clean kill. It states that it is “not recommended for euthanasia, as other methods are more practicable and humane”.

The RSPCA admits that it did not approach animal rescue shelters for help in finding homes for the dogs.

Jayne Shenstone, founder of German Shepherd Rescue, which rehouses between 200 and 300 alsatians every year, said: “The RSPCA never approached us or any other dog rescue centre. There was no reason for the dogs to be destroyed, and certainly not in the way they were. If anyone else had killed ten dogs in such a cruel way the RSPCA would have been the first to prosecute.”

Dozens of people have said they are cancelling standing orders or reconsidering legacies, which earn the RSPCA tens of millions of pounds a year.

Cathy Watson, a retired nurse from North Yorkshire, has cancelled her standing order. Mrs Watson, who has had three rescued alsatians, said: “The reason is because the RSPCA should have offered these dogs to a reputable, respected German shepherd rescue centre, yet they did not.” Clare Dodson, from Wimborne, Dorset, another signatory to the petition, wrote: “I am a supporter of the work of the RSPCA but am shocked and saddened by this cruel practice.” Julie Higam, from Milton Keynes, said: “I will no longer support you until this disgusting method is banned.”

An RSPCA spokesman said: “It was an absolutely extreme case. I have never heard of this method being used before but apparently eight inspectors, including some very senior and experienced, decided it was the best course of action.”

But an email from the WSPA states:

'The RSPCA inspector involved was left with the difficult task of euthanasing dogs that were extremely difficult to handle and chose to use a captive bolt, after carefully considering the consequences of our methods. Although captive bolts are not currently used for euthanasing dogs in WSPA projects, when properly applied by a trained professional this method does ensure a swift and humane death. '

If this was not normal practice, how could they be so experienced? Once again - IT DOES NOT ADD UP!!!!!


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6888243.ece


Wild Golden Eagle Dead Thanks to the RSPCA

Of course the RSPCA always consider themselves the experts don't they!!


Thanks to their experts, this beautiful rare bird is now dead - confiscated from the real expert

Thursday 22 October 2009

DONATIONS TO DIE FOR- RSPCA SHOCKER



RIP Bruno - failed by the RSPCA!
The RSPCA wouldn't help these poor dogs. They wouldn't use a single penny of their multi million pound fortune. But then they would rather slaughter German Shepherds not help them!!

Saturday 17 October 2009

More Bully Boy Tactics from the RSPCA 'OFFICERS'

NAZI SS OFFICERS

RSPCA INSPECTORS - hmmmmm

Uniformed and is she wearing jack boots? Remember, they have no powers!!!!!



Before you read this, please note it was written while I was still emotionally distraught. I will not change a word. I still mean what I say. But, when you have finished reading, please go to
SHG - self help group
You will be amazed at what you find there.I have learned an awful lot, and I am extremely grateful to Anne and Earnest for contacting me.


Today I had the shock of my life. A very very dear friend of mine, whom I have know for many years, and whose judgement and knowledge i trust implicitly, became another victim of over-jealousness on behalf of an RSPCA inspector. My friend was visited by an RSPCA inspector at her previous address, who told her that her dogs were fine. Well cared for, well fed, Groomed and as there were quite a few dogs, they were happy playing together. However, in temporary accomodation, while they find a bigger place to live, a different RSPCA inspector has insisted that she remove her dogs or he would take them all. When asked why, she was told "because they cant express themselves" What total and utter rubbish. This inspector agreed that my friends dogs were in perfect health, well fed, well cared for, well trained, happy boisterous dogs. just as they should be. But because they cant EXPRESS themselves he wanted to take all her dogs. When asked what cruelty or neglect he saw, he said none, apart for this expressing themsleves business. Now answer me this. If they can take a dog before there are any signs of cruelty, what is there to stop them taking a dog because they like the dog, and want it for themselves? Dont get me wrong. The RSPCA do some wonderful work. but I believe, along with many others, that this new system is open to abuse and individual interpretation.

Now this friend of mine, has been breeding for over 20 years. has wonderful, happy dogs. Know more then most people I know, and loves her dogs to death. She knows her dogs extremely well. Each individual. She knew that it would cause unnecessary stress on her old dogs. Dogs she bred herself, who have never known another owner. The two oldest dogs were near the end of their time anyway, but thanks to this inspector, she has had to have four more of her dogs put to sleep. And these four were not old dogs. they were not puppies, not even juveniles, but they were not old. My friend has broken her heart, and it would not surprise me one little bit to find out my friend has become very ill. In 2 weeks she has lost 13 dogs because of the RSPCA. Or rather, because of this one inspector. I believe that, like the dangerous dog act, this act will have to be modified, and soon. The RSPCA said that cruelty cases have gone up. What they MEAN is that their inspectors are taking more animals then they used to. even fit, healthy happy one, but because the dogs were seized, they count it as a cruelty case.

So, to anyone with any dogs, cats, whatever, please e aware. The RSPCA can now take your dog because you MIGHT neglect them sometime. there doesn't have to be any evidence of cruelty, neglect etc. They can take them for any reason.


As an addendum to this message. Six of my friends dogs have been humanly euthanised. They would not have been able to be-rehomed, so my friend did the very best she could for them. She took them to the veterinarian, She held them and talked to them and comforted them as they were given a lethal injection. She was the first person those dogs saw when they came into this world, and now she was the last person they saw as they left this world. She stayed with each dog as they passed away. Then she held each dog and cried for lives wasted by an over-zealous inspector.She has taken the dogs to be cremated, and their ashes will be returned to her. She has done this with every dog she has owned. All her dogs are with her always. Although I fear this incident may well hasten the reunion of dogs and their beloved mistress. Sleep well beauties. Go and wait at the rainbow bridge.

Thursday 15 October 2009

Is Shooting Dogs Ever Humane

I know that many of you were very shocked when I blogged about the ten German Shepherds that had been shot by the RSPCA using a captive bolt method.
Hats off to Many Tears rescue for a really comprehensive covering of this issue on their
website. More than 4,000 people have now signed their petition and I'd urge you to have a read.

Here's the wording...

I believe the practice of the RSPCA shooting dogs with a captive bolt gun to be banned. We feel that this an inhumane way to kill an animal and should not be recognized as an acceptable means of euthanasia painless death designed to cause minimal pain and distress)for companion animals.

My own unscientific research made me question if captive bolt could be a reliable way to kill dogs humanely. A friendly vet retold an anecdote that made me very worried about it. While working in the Middle East he came across a relevant case. A large dog had growled at his owner and that owner decided to shoot his dog in the head with an AK47. Half the dog's brain appeared to have been blown away and the dog's body was left in the desert. The next morning the dog woke up and ran away. An ex-pat brought this poor dog to the vet's surgery and my vet friend patched him up and the dog lived on successfully for many years despite his enormous injury. The vet explained that dogs have such large frontal sinuses it is quite possible to miss the cranium completely and that without sedation it would be very hard to accurately shoot a large dog fatally in the head with a captive bolt.

It was hell, but I chased the RSPCA off my land.

It is like a Victorian potboiler. Devoted only child relinquishes ambition and career to help on her parents’ farm, knowing that in time the land will be hers. Except that — when both her parents are dead and the will is read — she discovers her entire inheritance has been bequeathed to the RSPCA.

On Friday, after a £1.3m court case, Christine Gill, 59, had the will overturned. The 287-acre farm in Northallerton, North Yorkshire, that she had worked on and loved, “my land” as she describes it, would be hers after all.

She told me after the judgment that she felt very emotional. “The last three years have been a tremendous strain. When they reviewed the history of the case this morning, I sat in the back of the court crying quietly. It brought it all back, how desperate it had been,” she said.

The judge, James Allen QC, found that Christine’s father John, a stern farmer who exerted a powerful influence over his meek wife Joyce, had “coerced” Joyce into signing away Potto Carr farm and its land, worth about £2m, to the animal charity. He died in 1999, his wife in 2006.

It was only then that his daughter, who had always been led by her parents to believe the farm would one day be hers, discovered what he had done.

Did she feel bitter, discovering that she had been disinherited?

“At first I didn’t believe my mother had actually signed the will,” she says.

“But no, I didn’t feel bitter. It’s not in my nature. I felt bereaved, but then I knew I had to get on with the job in hand and decided to challenge it straight away. Bitterness was irrelevant, really.”

The irony is that Christine had been so devoted to Potto Carr that she had played a key role in its success. She ploughed the fields with a tractor and tended to the livestock. She even bought the adjoining property so she could be fully committed to it.

“I was tied to the farm. It was my roots, my land,” she says simply. And she knew she had to get it back, although “the thought of taking on a wealthy adversary such as the RSPCA was terrifying”, she says.

“But there was such a sense of injustice that it was felt we should see it through. I lived in fear lest we lost. But I pushed the fear out of my mind.”

Yet there was one big question. Why had John Gill disinherited his only child, a devoted and loyal daughter, a child who lived alongside them into her own adulthood, a woman who had shopped, cooked and cared for him and his wife until their dying days?

“Both my parents relied totally on me,” she says. “My father would ring me in the middle of the night if he didn’t feel well and expect me to look after him.” Indeed, she was as devoted to her parents as she was to her small son Christopher, born when she was in her mid-forties. She even went part-time from her job as a statistics lecturer at Leeds University so she could still care for her parents after her son was born.

One reason she won the case was because the court accepted that she had had “due cause” to believe her parents’ will would be made out in her favour. No other outcome had been discussed with her while her parents were alive.

“I have no idea why my father did what he did, or why he wanted to do it,” she says. “If we had had an argument, if he had been depressed, if there had been a rift, then I might have understood it. But there was nothing.”

First, though, she had to distance herself from her beloved parents. “When I found out about the will it was as though a veil came down between me and the past. I felt a sense of detachment. I still feel it. And I think that’s because I have been in what amounts to a war zone for the past three years.”

The judge accepted expert advice that Joyce, an agoraphobic, suffered from severe anxiety. “She would get up early, she would worry, plan and fidget. She would take all morning to get ready,” the court heard. The judge said: “She would sit down and she would just be an empty cloth doll with all the stuffing knocked out of her.” The support she relied on utterly was that of her husband. She had phobias about travelling, remaining at home alone and attending public functions; essentially, she worried about upsetting her husband and his control of her.

“[Mr Gill] directed his domineering and bombastic personality to Mrs Gill,” the court heard, “utilising her anxiety and fear of his explosive character.” There was no way, the judge said, in summary, that Joyce would have been able to thwart her husband’s wishes while signing her will in a solicitor’s office. “She would have experienced anxiety of such severity that her thoughts would have been dominated by an impulse to escape back to the safety of her house and she could not have followed or understood what she was doing,” said the judge, quoting the opinion of Professor Robert Howard, a psychiatrist.

Yet although the court heard that John was a domineering, bullying man, her daughter loved him and still does. “When my father was alive, I admired him more than any man for what he achieved in his life,” she says. “I was very proud of him. He started with nothing and had to work his way through. He didn’t have a father who gave him a start in life. In order to raise the capital to buy the farm he had a taxi business in Guisborough.”

Was he an animal lover? They can do strange things when it comes to wills. “Not in that sense,” says Christine. “He was a good stockman. Animals were a commercial enterprise to him.” Nobody in the family had been a staunch supporter of the RSPCA.

Christine’s sentiments about one of the country’s richest charities, which receives half its income from bequests, are now somewhat less than charitable. Spending three years in a legal fight was a misery.

“At my age, three years is a long time,” she says. “My husband and I had our son late and three years is a precious time for us. Three years have just gone by in limbo.”

Then there is the problem of costs, which have not yet been awarded. Mark Keenan, partner at Mishcon de Reya, believes his client suffered an injustice: “I am surprised the RSPCA should ask Christine to contribute to their costs.”

The RSPCA said it was “legally obliged to seek the funds [of the bequest] under charitable law”, and said the case showed it was vital for people to discuss their will with family and other beneficiaries.

Rather belying its cosy image as saviour to bunny rabbits and coming out somewhat like a fighting dog, the RSPCA has indicated it will appeal.

“I am completely bewildered by this,” says Christine. “I don’t know why they keep on pursuing me. I wish they would just leave me alone.” Will she be donating pennies to their boxes on the high street? “I’m afraid I won’t be. But I have no axe to grind.” The RSPCA at one point made her an offer of £650,000 plus costs, and claimed it “tried to settle the matter amicably before it even came to court”.

To Christine that is laughable: “If I’d been interested in money, I would have agreed upon a settlement. But what I wanted was land. And I wanted that land. My land.

“Every morning I would wake up and, from my house, look over those fields. The fields that were ours. And they are my fields now. Nothing would have compensated me for the loss of my land.”


Kathleen Moodie wrote:
I have read elswhere that Christine Gill offered to settle with the RSPCA early on in the proceedings and that they turned down a very generous percentage of the estate. I have also read that the RSPCA put the farm on the market before this case was settled. Sadly, the RSPCA has lost its way and seems less concerned with animal welfare issues than adding further funds to its multi-million pound coffers. The current furore now spreading across the internet over the RSPCA's shooting of ten German Shepherd dogs with captive bolts in June of this year has irreparably damaged the reputation of this once respected organisation. This damage is being further compounded by the RSPCA's determination to go to appeal after losing their case to Christine Gill. The current costs are £1.3m. How much more publicly donated money are they going to spend on this? How many animals could have been rehabilitated with £1.3m? And how many of the healthy or treatable animals currently being euthanised by the RSPCA every year could have been saved? IT IS TIME FOR THE RSPCA TO RETURN TO ITS ROOTS.

RSPCA to decide on action over logo use by dog campaigners

Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 16:00

THE RSPCA will decide today whether to take legal action against animal protesters angry about the charity's decision to destroy 10 dogs in Swansea. Nice to know how they spend your donated money.

The charity says the German Shepherd Rescue (GSR) Network (who are they?) breached copyright when it altered the RSPCA logo. Didn't they make their own logo?

The RSPCA has also moved to have campaign-related material it regards as offensive taken off the social networking site Facebook. There was nothing offensive, just the truth. The RSPCA don't want the public to know the truth!!

A solicitor's letter sent to Jayne Shenstone of GSR states that the RSPCA owns the trademark of the acronym RSPCA "in upper and lower case". What are they supposed to call them?

There has been bitter controversy in animal welfare circles across the UK since the incident at Pontardawe in June, when the German shepherds were put down after their owner died. That's an understatement!!

The RSPCA says inspectors decided to kill the dogs with captive bolt pistols of a kind used in abattoirs to minimise suffering because no other rescue centre would take them. Absolutely barbaric.

But campaigners using internet websites have used emotive tactics like producing a blood-soaked version of the RSPCA's logo to protest against the dogs' destruction, which they claim was inhumane. Of course it was bloody inhumane.

A spokeswoman for the national RSPCA group, not the one running the city's Llys Nini Animal Centre, said: "It is important to protect the RSPCA's logo, which had been altered in an offensive way. We also took action to remove offensive material from websites that are seen by children." The only offensive/abusive posts were written by RSPCA fans and they weren't removed.

Anne Kasica, of an organisation called the Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA (SHG), said: "If the state of our law is now, as the RSPCA's highly-paid lawyers claim, that one needs permission from the RSPCA to use the acronym RSPCA, then no criticism of this political and highly-secretive charity will ever see the light of day." That's exactly what they want - to completely suppress any critcism.

An RSPCA spokeswoman said the dogs had been deemed unsuitable for rehoming due to their aggressive behaviour. Where was the expert witness, where was the vet?

She said: "A decision was made following a discussion between eight RSPCA officers that the most humane form of euthanasia would be to use a captive bolt. Euthanasia means peaceful death. A bolt through the head is not a peaceful death!

"This would minimise distress to the dogs, while also being the safest method for those people responsible for dealing with the animals. Restraining the dogs and then shaving a limb to prepare for a lethal injection would have caused these animals unnecessary suffering. So they dragged each dog out fighting and struggling on the end of a grasper. Somehow they would have had to force the dogs head to the ground then hold the head still enough and get close enough to fire the captive bolt. A captive bolt is a stunning device, it does not stop the heart. It is an inappropriate device for use on a dog because of the shape of the skull!

"It is the RSPCA's raison d'être to prevent cruelty to animals, and it was decided this sad, but ultimately necessary, outcome for the dogs was the best way to prevent the animals any further suffering." Who deemed the animals to be suffering? Where was the expert witness?


http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/southwalesnews/RSPCA-decide-action-logo-use-dog-campaigners/article-1420213-detail/article.html

RSPCA GLORY IN CRUELTY PROSECUTION RESULTING IN 18 WEEKS JAIL



BUT IT'S OK FOR THEIR INSPECTORS TO MERCILESSLY SLAUGHTER 10 PET GERMAN SHEPHERDS WITH A CAPTIVE BOLT
Don't forget now, in 2008 the RSPCA killed 60,203 animals in total of which 8313 were dogs and 12,329 were cats. Thats 22 dogs, 33 cats and a staggering 171 animals that die each day by their hands.
A RHONDDA woman was jailed for 18 weeks for what a magistrate described as “the worst animal cruelty case in his 25 years”.
Bridget Louise Davidson, 36, pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to Franklin – a white and black bull terrier.
The seven-year-old dog was found dead by the RSPCA in the kitchen of her rubbish-strewn house on Railway Terrace, Cwmparc.
Davidson had locked Franklin in without food and water.
Prosecuting solicitor Geraint Richards told Rhondda Magistrates’ Court that Davidson “could not look after herself, let alone Franklin”.
The prosecutor said RSPCA officer Nicola Johnson found the bull terrier after looking through a window of the empty house on May 13.
“When she looked through the window she could see the body of a white dog but couldn’t tell whether he was dead or alive,” said Mr Richards.
“So the police were called and they forced entry. The dog was then taken to the veterinary surgeon for expert examination.
“The vet notes that he had very little in the way of fat reserves or muscle and estimates the dog had been dead for between 24 hours and five days.

“It’s difficult to say how long the dog would have suffered. In interview Davidson accepted that no-one else was responsible for the dog and she couldn’t look after him.”
Mr Richards, of Martyn Prowel Solicitors Cardiff, prosecuted on behalf of the charity on a pro bono basis.
Richard Williams, defending, said Davidson was herself neglected as a child and placed in care from the age of 11.
“She appreciates that she has no business looking after animals anymore,” he said. “She’s in no state to be looking after a budgie, cat or dog.
“The only saving grace is she wasn’t looking after a child as the outcome could have been tragic.”
Summing-up, presiding magistrate Dewi Hughes said: “I have to say that in over 25 years sitting on the bench this is the worst case of animal cruelty I have seen.
“The case is so serious that only a custodial sentence is appropriate.
“It was the ill-treatment of the dog which resulted its horrific death.
“We have taken into account your early guilty plea.
“The custodial sentence will be 18 weeks; we also disqualify you from keeping or owning animals indefinitely.”
Speaking outside the court in Llwynypia, RSPCA inspector Simon Evans said: “This poor animal died a wretched and painful death. So did the 10 GSD's your inspector mercilessly slaughtered with a captive bolt gun!! Grossly underweight, this dog suffered appalling neglect at the hands of his owner.
“The magistrate summed it up when he said it was the worst case he’d seen in 25 years.
“In 10 years I have seen maybe half a dozen people end up in prison – so it’s right up there with the worst.
“She had a number of options open to her if she couldn’t look after him. All she had to do was pick up the phone.” And the good old RSPCA would have gone round and shot it through the head for her!!
In addition to the 18-week custodial sentence, the defendant was also disqualified from keeping or owning any animal until further notice

Wednesday 14 October 2009

RSPCA TRYING TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC ONCE AGAIN

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

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

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

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

Gill: RSPCA rejected my offers

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

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

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

'Repeated assurances' from parents about inheritance

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

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

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

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

Vibeka Mair
14 October 2009

Saturday 10 October 2009

WOULD YOU WANT YOUR PET SLAUGHTERED THE RSPCA WAY - IF NOT THEN MAKE A WILL AND MAKE SURE THEY DON'T GET THEIR HANDS ON YOUR MONEY OR YOUR PETS

In June 2009, 10 pet German Shepherds were slaughtered after their owner died in Pontardawe South Wales. They were slaughtered by the RSPCA with a captive bolt gun.

For those of you that think this is a malicious slur on what they claim is 'the nations best loved and most respected animal welfare charity' - BELIEVE IT. We use the word SLAUGHTER because The RSPCA inspectors used a captive bolt gun which is a weapon used in slaughter houses to stun animals prior to bleeding!! This story originally surfaced thanks to Many Tears - appropriately. There have been many tears shed by animal lovers since the discovery of this atrocity. We believe that they thought nobody would ever know about this!

It's worrying knowing what will happen to your pets when you die, but a family in Pontardawe South Wales found just the help they needed when in June 2009 this year, a relative died leaving 10 Pet German Shepherds in a house all alone.

stop donating, you are killing me

So just to reassure you pet owners, lets go through this in stages now and show you how the RSPCAhelped the family in Pontardawe.

'The owner’s next-of-kin later contacted The RSPCA again and said they had been turned down by other charities, including the Dogs Trust (FALSE), who were unwilling to take on the animals and they signed over the dogs, fully aware of what would happen.'

We wonder if the RSPCA told them they would stun them with a captive bolt gun or did they say that they would be humanely destroyed? Never mind who will ever know!

OK so The RSPCA inspectors arrive at dead relatives house with grasper and captive bolt gun. Remember now that these poor dogs had been left in the house alone after owner had died and they were probably hungry and frightened. Never mind who will ever know!

A grasper - this was used to grab each dog one by one and drag them out of the house

dog on grasper

Never mind who will ever know!

'The dogs were taken outside into the garden of the house on a grasper, given a few moments of exercise (it is unlikely they had been outside in weeks, if not months) and then the inspector used a captive bolt.'

Bear in mind that your average GSD will weigh 30-40Kgs and The RSPCA claimed that the dogs were aggressive. So how do you take them out for a few moments of exercise on the end of a grasper? I think we might have the answer .............

Maybe this is how it was done!!!

Grab the son of a bitch by the neck and pull

dog on a grasper

Never mind who will ever know!

Sorry we couldn't find an aggressive dog!

Just as well this isn't an aggressive or terrified dog struggling to get free!!! Who knows how you would hold an aggressive dog still long enough to get a captive bolt through it's skull. Hang on though I think we have it.........

Put the boot in hard on the grasper force dogs head to the ground

Poor lamb, he looks so worried but it will soon all be over. Never mind who will ever know!

Keep the boot in and shove fist hard down on the back of pooches head.

BANG. 1 down 9 to go - it's all over for the worthless beast. Well not quite!!

Never mind who will ever know!

The International Companion Animal Management Coalition (“ICAM”) deems the captive bolt to be an unacceptable method of “euthanasia” stating:

'The penetrative captive bolt pistol must be placed in contact with the animal’s skull and precise positioning is essential so that the bolt penetrates the correct area of the brain first time. Animals must be adequately restrained so that the head remains steady (Carding, 1977; Dennis et al., 1988; Beaver et al., 2001), which makes this method particularly difficult with fearful and aggressive dogs and cats (Carding, 1977). Furthermore, the conformational differences between the skulls of individuals and breeds of dogs increase the risk of a mis-stun. The principle skull types are dolichocephalic (long, narrow head), brachycephalic (short, wide heads) and mesaticephalic (medium proportions).

As there is a high risk of mis-stunning through inadequate use of the penetrating captive bolt, and hence causing pain and distress, WSPA considers this an unacceptable method for the euthanasia of dogs and cats.

The RSPCA is itself a high-profile member of ICAM.

In The RSPCA ‘s own documentation “Farm Animals”, it clearly states:

Captive bolt stunning is used on cattle, sheep and some pigs. With this method, a blank cartridge is used to force a metal bolt out of a gun and into the brain of the animal. The bolt does not kill the animal (stop the heart) but, if used correctly, causes the animal to lose consciousness immediately.

OK so it's an unacceptable method for killing pets and it might not work first time but it's cheap and who is to know? If at first you don't suceed, try and try again. How many shots did it take to kill those 10 GSD's or were they just left to die an agonising and awful death? Never mind who will ever know!

So no need to worry what happens to your much loved pets after your death. The relatives in Pontardawe, South Wales found the good old RSPCA enormously helpful.

please don't leave me to die

Never mind who will ever know! Well we all know now thanks to Inspector Richard Abbot!!

Make sure your dog really does have a home for life when you are gone

The Dogs Trust strongly believes that euthanasia should always be the last resort in situations such as these and only when all other avenues have been extensively researched and then exhausted.

In terms of the actual method of euthanasia, Dogs Trust has never used a captive bolt to stun prior to putting a dog to sleep, nor will it ever. There are pharmaceuticals that can be easily injected under the skin or into the muscle of a dog that will sedate them effectively to allow a competent person to give a lethal dose of barbiturate intravenously.

Animal lovers will be appalled at the thought of a captive bolt gun being used as a means towards euthanasia of a dog but, in very extreme cases, Dogs Trust understands that a captive bolt gun might be used as long as it is carried out humanely by a competent person. However given there are more ethically acceptable methods of euthanasia Dogs Trust believes the use of captive bolt guns should only be used as a last resort when no other solution is possible.

I hope this helps clarify our position regarding this matter.

Charlotte Speedy
Head of Communications
Dogs Trust


If you really care about your pets, can we suggest that you make a will and make sure that your pets are provided for. When you are dead and gone, make sure your pets are not disposed of in this barbaric way. We would strongly recommend that you make sure that your money and your much loved pets are in the capable hands of a no destruct animal welfare organisation.

Friday 9 October 2009

RSPCA Loses Christine Gill Case. Costs estimated at £1.3m and they plan to appeal!!! Nice to know how your donations are being spent!!!!





A woman disinherited by her mother’s decision to leave the family’s £2.3 million farm to the RSPCA celebrated victory today when a court declared the will invalid.

Christine Gill, an only child, wept as a judge ruled that she was entitled to inherit the 287-acre North Yorkshire farm to which she had devoted years of labour to support and care for her ageing parents. The RSPCA said that it would appeal against the ruling.

Dr Gill’s widowed mother Joyce, who died at 82, did not even support the charity. She was pro-hunting and, according to her daughter and other witnesses, thought the RSPCA “were just a bunch of townies who knew nothing about the countryside”. The High Court in Leeds ruled that the shy, reclusive mother had been bullied into the will by her ill-tempered husband, John, before his death.

The animal charity, which two years ago rejected an offer of three quarters of the estate, may have to pay both sides’ legal costs, totalling £1.3 million. The court will rule on costs later. SHEER UTTER GREED DROVE THEM ON FOR MORE. THEY WANTED ALL OF IT!!!!!!

Dr Gill, 58, a part-time university lecturer whose 12-year-old son can now fulfil his ambition to become a farmer, said she was “shaking with relief” at the court’s decision.She felt that her heart and soul had been “ripped out” when she first learnt that the will said she would get no money or land.

As the RSPCA had made plans to sell the farm, the Gills wrote to its patrons, including the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It refused to negotiate, and the Gills sought an injunction to prevent the sale of Potto Carr Farm, near Northallerton.

Dr Gill had worked on the family farm since the age of 13, and came home from university to help at weekends and in the holidays. The court heard that even her choice of career — she lectured part-time in statistics at the University of Leeds — was influenced by the need to work flexible hours.

As her parents grew older, Dr Gill and her husband, Andrew Baczkowski, bought and renovated a nearby property to be close to them. She was unaware that in 1993 her father, John, and her mother had signed wills by which the farm was left initially to the surviving spouse and then to the RSPCA.

Mr Gill died in 1999. By then Dr Gill’s son, Christopher, had been born. He was “mad about farming” and his grandmother bought him toy tractors. The court was told that Mrs Gill made repeated assurances that the farm would stay in the family when she died. Dr Gill, represented by Mishcon de Reya solicitors, argued that her mother must have been coerced into making a will that was contrary to her own wishes. She died in 2006.

Ruling in Dr Gill’s favour today, Judge James Allen, QC, accepted that Mrs Gill was a shy, reclusive and anxious woman who did not like mixing with people and suffered from agoraphobia and irrational fears. Her husband, the judge said, was a “stubborn, self-opinionated, domineering man” prone to outbursts of fury. His wife always deferred to him.

As the wills were signed, Mrs Gill “would have experienced anxiety of such severity that her thoughts would have been dominated by an impulse to escape back to the safety of her house”. She “could not have followed or understood what she was doing”.

The judge was satisfied that Mrs Gill had “an avowed dislike” of the RSPCA and wanted her daughter to inherit the farm, but that she had been unduly influenced by her husband.

An RSPCA spokesman said it was surprised and disappointed. “Throughout this, the RSPCA has been in an extremely difficult position. The will left by Dr Gill’s parents was very clear — in one sentence they left their entire estate to the RSPCA and in the next they said their daughter should receive nothing. In that situation the RSPCA cannot just walk away. In fact, we are legally obliged to seek the funds under charitable law.”

He said that the charity had “tried to settle the matter amicably before it even came to court”, offering to pay Dr Gill £650,000 plus all her costs.

Mark Keenan, of Mishcon de Reya, said this belated offer was made “shortly before trial” and followed the RSPCA’s rejection of Dr Gill’s earlier offer and requests for mediation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6868765.ece

The BBC received many complaints last night over bias towards the RSPCA in reporting this case. The BBC always like to show the RSPCA in a good light!!

However, they allowed an interview with Christine Gill to appear on the news this morning and Christine confirmed that the RSPCA had refused mediation and turned down her very generous offer of 3/4 of the estate.

The RSPCA tried to mislead the media by trying to pretend that she had made no offer and had made no attempt to settle. They refused mediation and refused her incredibly generous offier. When it became clear that their main witness had struck a deal to buy the farm for a knock-down price and had been given access to documents by the RSPCA's lawyers in order to improve his evidence, the RSPCA made a derisory offer.

THEY WILL NOW BE ASKING YOU FOR YOUR MONEY TO HELP PAY FOR THEIR ARROGANCE!!!!!!!!