Post by Johnny on Jul 8, 2006 5:57:16 GMT
Now, to start with - just forget those heart-tugging adverts, depicting nice kind people rescuing little abandoned kittens dumped in a cardboard box. Let me ask you a question .......................................................
What do you really know, and think about the RSPCA?
I for one, am getting to a stage where I am seriously questioning their role, and their integrity.
I had already personally known of a case where a local lady (who I personally know is a true animal lover) had been prosecuted by by the RSPCA, and in the craziness that followed - the case collapsed through a complete bit of idiocy on behalf of the RSPCA. The defendant concerned, having been found not-guilty, was then ordered to pay the court costs - even though she was found not-guilty!
The reason? Well, as the RSPCA was a registered charity - they couldn't be expected to pay!
Now, to be honest, I (like you're thinking right now) found this situation to be so crazy - that to start with, I didn't believe it. Goodness knows I should have done - you've only got to follow the news to realise that we have one of the most unjust "justice" systems in the world!
BUT IT'S TRUE!
Did you know that if the RSPCA loses a case - the defendant is ordered to pay the bill?
If you don't believe me, I'll paste a link below to an official Government webpage, where the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA), made a report on the RSPCA, which puts that organisation in a completely different light. If you look down to point 37 - you will see the point relating to the payment of court costs by the innocent party.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvfru/52/4101313.htm
Absolutely unbelievable? Well, perhaps not, especially in today's system of justice - where court decisions are increasingly looking more like sketches from Monty Python!
I am seriously left questioning - how on earth can the RSPCA assume such authority? After all, it's a registered charity, not a law enforcement agency, or a law onto itself. It is not directly accountable to the Government, or the electrate, and it's record on prosecutions, and the way it runs itself, has been seriously questioned. A couple of examples of real-life stories are given in the links below. They make very interesting reading:
www.hillside.org.uk/documents/ducksindespairpagesoneandtwo_000.pdf
www.walk-wales.org.uk/rspcawarrenpeace.htm
www.walk-wales.org.uk/RSPCAnewhead.htm
Right, another thing which has left me very anti-RSPCA at the moment: The case of dog abuse in Norwich.
In the EEN last night was a truely appalling news story relating to a woman who had starved he three dogs so badly, that when the RSPCA eventually did take them away, they found that they were close to death, skin and bones - and eating their own excrement, simply to survive.
The woman concerned reckoned they were in this state, because she couldn't afford to feed them. When she had been given the option of having the dogs placed in a home, she had consistently refused.
The woman did not show up for court, but in her absence, got banned for keeping animals for 15 years, and fined £750, and £150 costs. The newspaper report went on to report that the RSPCA Inspector was "satisfied with the outcome" of the case.
I personally think that was a very naive and daft comment to make, especially by someone who is suposed to have experience in dealing with abuse cases like this, and I'll tell you why.................................
The guilty party has received NO punishment at all.
Think about it - The judge banned the woman from keeping dogs for 15 years? Is that a punishment? No - It's quite obvious by her actions, that she had no regard to animal life whatsoever. So that's hardly a "punishment". Surely she should have been banned for keeping animals for life!
The guilty party was ordered to pay a total of £900 in fines and costs - BUT - She had previously found it impossible to buy a single tin of dog food - so what on earth chance has she got of paying the fine!
And to think - the RSPCA thinks that is a satisfying result?
Under the 1911 Protection of Animals Act, deliberate cruelty to domestic animals carries a penalty of up to £5,000, and/or 6 months in prison.
I think it's disgusting that the pathetic justice system we have does not defend the weak and the helpless, and the organisation that most of us look to, to act on behalf of these animals, hasn't even got the sense to use cases like these - to press for custodial sentences to be applied to people who act so wickedly to those who have no defence against their abusers.
I also can't help thinking to myself - if people can be so cruel to animals, then what might their actions be towards children, or the weak and vulnerable (like the elderly or infirm).
I am personally appalled by the RSPCA.
Not by their mission of helping to save animals.
But by their ignorance, their arrogance, their position (which has become far too powerful, and above the law), and by the way they lose the opportunity to outline the law relating to animal cruelty, and to demand that in certain terrible cases - these guilty parties should be served with prison sentences for such wicked cruelty towards their pets.
Like you, I love my dogs, and as most of you know, if treated right - dogs have so much love and devotion to give back to us, and to enrich our lives.
I think it's heartbreaking to see how cruelty is not taken more seriously in our society, and saddened by how these animals do not seem to have a creditable organisation to act on their behalf.
What do you really know, and think about the RSPCA?
I for one, am getting to a stage where I am seriously questioning their role, and their integrity.
I had already personally known of a case where a local lady (who I personally know is a true animal lover) had been prosecuted by by the RSPCA, and in the craziness that followed - the case collapsed through a complete bit of idiocy on behalf of the RSPCA. The defendant concerned, having been found not-guilty, was then ordered to pay the court costs - even though she was found not-guilty!
The reason? Well, as the RSPCA was a registered charity - they couldn't be expected to pay!
Now, to be honest, I (like you're thinking right now) found this situation to be so crazy - that to start with, I didn't believe it. Goodness knows I should have done - you've only got to follow the news to realise that we have one of the most unjust "justice" systems in the world!
BUT IT'S TRUE!
Did you know that if the RSPCA loses a case - the defendant is ordered to pay the bill?
If you don't believe me, I'll paste a link below to an official Government webpage, where the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA), made a report on the RSPCA, which puts that organisation in a completely different light. If you look down to point 37 - you will see the point relating to the payment of court costs by the innocent party.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvfru/52/4101313.htm
Absolutely unbelievable? Well, perhaps not, especially in today's system of justice - where court decisions are increasingly looking more like sketches from Monty Python!
I am seriously left questioning - how on earth can the RSPCA assume such authority? After all, it's a registered charity, not a law enforcement agency, or a law onto itself. It is not directly accountable to the Government, or the electrate, and it's record on prosecutions, and the way it runs itself, has been seriously questioned. A couple of examples of real-life stories are given in the links below. They make very interesting reading:
www.hillside.org.uk/documents/ducksindespairpagesoneandtwo_000.pdf
www.walk-wales.org.uk/rspcawarrenpeace.htm
www.walk-wales.org.uk/RSPCAnewhead.htm
Right, another thing which has left me very anti-RSPCA at the moment: The case of dog abuse in Norwich.
In the EEN last night was a truely appalling news story relating to a woman who had starved he three dogs so badly, that when the RSPCA eventually did take them away, they found that they were close to death, skin and bones - and eating their own excrement, simply to survive.
The woman concerned reckoned they were in this state, because she couldn't afford to feed them. When she had been given the option of having the dogs placed in a home, she had consistently refused.
The woman did not show up for court, but in her absence, got banned for keeping animals for 15 years, and fined £750, and £150 costs. The newspaper report went on to report that the RSPCA Inspector was "satisfied with the outcome" of the case.
I personally think that was a very naive and daft comment to make, especially by someone who is suposed to have experience in dealing with abuse cases like this, and I'll tell you why.................................
The guilty party has received NO punishment at all.
Think about it - The judge banned the woman from keeping dogs for 15 years? Is that a punishment? No - It's quite obvious by her actions, that she had no regard to animal life whatsoever. So that's hardly a "punishment". Surely she should have been banned for keeping animals for life!
The guilty party was ordered to pay a total of £900 in fines and costs - BUT - She had previously found it impossible to buy a single tin of dog food - so what on earth chance has she got of paying the fine!
And to think - the RSPCA thinks that is a satisfying result?
Under the 1911 Protection of Animals Act, deliberate cruelty to domestic animals carries a penalty of up to £5,000, and/or 6 months in prison.
I think it's disgusting that the pathetic justice system we have does not defend the weak and the helpless, and the organisation that most of us look to, to act on behalf of these animals, hasn't even got the sense to use cases like these - to press for custodial sentences to be applied to people who act so wickedly to those who have no defence against their abusers.
I also can't help thinking to myself - if people can be so cruel to animals, then what might their actions be towards children, or the weak and vulnerable (like the elderly or infirm).
I am personally appalled by the RSPCA.
Not by their mission of helping to save animals.
But by their ignorance, their arrogance, their position (which has become far too powerful, and above the law), and by the way they lose the opportunity to outline the law relating to animal cruelty, and to demand that in certain terrible cases - these guilty parties should be served with prison sentences for such wicked cruelty towards their pets.
Like you, I love my dogs, and as most of you know, if treated right - dogs have so much love and devotion to give back to us, and to enrich our lives.
I think it's heartbreaking to see how cruelty is not taken more seriously in our society, and saddened by how these animals do not seem to have a creditable organisation to act on their behalf.
