|
Post by mollichop on Jan 11, 2013 8:35:20 GMT 1
Have signed petition. Agree with all the above comments in varying degrees. I think Clwyd was coping he was happy doing what he was doing it wasn't stressing him out in any way shape or form, his animals were fed and watered. those horses accepted him as one of them, as a member of the herd. how many of us strive to achieve a oneness with our ponies that he showed with many of his? He realised he needed help to sort out the worming and the colts and he accepted Michelle's help and advice on how to go about it. I feel he would accepted the RSPCA's help also but there wasn't any offered. They rode in like bliddy cowboys, dressed up like active soldiers on manoeuvres (that really was ridiculous) and rode gung ho over everything and everybody. I would also like to hear an update on how he, Michelle and the ponies are faring now. One person who seems to have escaped some of all this loathing, is the bliddy 'do gooder-do nothing meddling know it all know nothing, self righteous' pillock that complained in the first place!! Probably the ponies spoilt the view for them from their perfect sterile world.
|
|
bicky
Grand Prix Poster
If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got!
Posts: 1,905
|
Post by bicky on Jan 11, 2013 8:45:06 GMT 1
Signed and happy to do it! x
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 9:01:34 GMT 1
I appreciate that many people feel the RSPCA doesn't do a good job, and I think many of the concerns are valid. However, do remember what you have seen is an edited film. Speaking to someone yesterday who knows the full story, the editing has firmly portrayed one slant on the story. I think we need to bear in mind that we only ever see what the documentary makers want us to.
|
|
handm
Elementary Poster
Posts: 75
|
Post by handm on Jan 11, 2013 9:22:00 GMT 1
I have issues with the RSPCA too and am appalled by some of the stories you hear about them but I am not signing the petition. According to a thread on the H&H forum the man who started it breeds dogs and has a personal interest in seeing the RSPCA reined in because of their stance on pedigree dog breeding and showing (and he's a BNP member). This could be hearsay but I don't think it is very well worded or balanced anyway. Also I wouldn't want only the CPS to be able to prosecute. I agree there is an issue if people don't want their donated funds to be used for pursuing private prosecutions, but if the RSPCA raised funds explicitly for a prosecution I might actually donate depending on the case.
|
|
|
Post by clara81 on Jan 11, 2013 9:40:30 GMT 1
I've signed a petition on Facebook, will this be the same one?
I agree that it's wrong of them to waste money people have donated but I can't help feeling the government will just say- well don't donate then!
|
|
|
Post by gwenoakes on Jan 11, 2013 9:48:14 GMT 1
I have signed the petition.
Handm - whether the person who started the petition has an axe to grind with the RSPCA or a member of the BNP to me is totally irrelevant. It is long past the time that the RSPCA were made to answer to the people of this country re their shoddy ways. As far as I can see and this is only my opinion they take money, i.e. donations under very false pretences and have done for years. Because they are such a huge body they get away with it too, which is absolutely appalling.
|
|
|
Post by BJMM on Jan 11, 2013 9:49:04 GMT 1
Signed xx
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 12:39:48 GMT 1
signed here as well, after several run-ins with the RSPCA about a horse that was neglected we resorted to phoning HAPPA who immediately sent someone out to assess the situation, tracked down the owner and had a word and WORKED WITH HIM to get the pony sorted out................RSPCA waded in three weeks after the event!
What kind of organisation accepts and begs for donations only to hand over £140,000 of those donations to the CEO as his salary for 'the stressful post he has to fill'...................they need sorting out asap, the charity commission have over the years had several calls for them to be investigated over the methods of donations, their activities etc, if this petition can go some way to reining them in then so be it
|
|
|
Post by lawyerbunny on Jan 11, 2013 14:38:45 GMT 1
Handm, the purpose of the petition is to require the matter to be debated in the House of Commons.
If it gets 100,000+ signatures, the issues raised will be considered for debate.
IMO this one stands a decent chance of getting debated, given the number of high-profile cases in which the charity has incurred enormous costs as well as the way in which it investigates and prosecutes. The Heythrop hunt prosecution cost £330k. A civil action in the Gill case in 2011 cost it £1.3m.
With that in mind, I've signed it and don't care whether it was started by the man in the moon. This is an issue that needs proper scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by specialsparkle3 on Jan 11, 2013 18:58:42 GMT 1
Well said Lawyerbunny. Just two of the several cases where I have had the misfortune to be involved with the RSPCA -------------- The first was a starving pony I found in a field with no food or water. When they finally came out a couple of weeks later, they said they could do nothing until it was literally DIEING. The second was a TB mare and new born foal turned onto a sloping bit of land by a road with no shelter at all, in the snow. They spoke to the owner and told them who had reported them ie ME ! The foal died . What ever you thought of hunting, before the ban, the police were given proof that the RSPCA PAID the "Rent a Mob " who pretented to be anti hunting, to disrupt hunts ( probably still do ) and they paid out for a huge Hot Air balloon saying "Ban Hunting" to be floated over the big Countryside Alliance March. I hate to think what that all cost, yet they couldn't pay for a few wormers to help a poor old horse lover. They make me sick
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 19:56:21 GMT 1
I'm going to wade into deep hot water here but this is making me feel a bit uncomfortable.
On the question of the programme, this chap may well have had problems but I think it's fairly clear he wasn't looking after the horses properly. If that is the case, and if the RSPCA had turned a blind eye they would have got slated, and rightly so.
People on here are disgusted at the way they handled trying to catch then sedate the black colt. They could indeed have done it better. But why is the blame all on them? If the owner found it so easy to catch his horses, whey did he not save the colt the stress? What would you have had the RSPCA do otherwise, walk away?
I'm afraid the bit that made the most uncomfortable watching for me was seeing Michelle and her friend "breaking" a feral pony by hauling him by both neck and tail - the poor lad was terrified. Oh, it's ok, they usually give in after a couple of days. Isn't that worse than the RSPCA darting a pony they believe to need help?
As for spending money on prosecutions, yes it does stick in the throat a bit that it costs so much but again, do you want them to walk away because it's expensive?
And as for prosecuting a hunt that openly flouts the law - maybe we should walk away from that too?
|
|
|
Post by Ally S on Jan 11, 2013 20:17:26 GMT 1
Have to say I agree with LizP on this. Yes the guy needs help, but how far can the RSPCA go with that? I've no doubt they had intervened before this program. I'm not a fan of them at all, but what choice did they have but to remove the sick horses? The horses were skinny, riddled with worms, covered in ring worm and were not being properly cared for. That black pony was ill, and while I found the darting uncomfortable, don't forget the guy sat mocking, when if he did love the horse, he could easily have helped. Maybe the RSPCA need some help in learning better handling techniques? And I am very uncomfortable re the almost hero worship of Michelle, when the handling of that colt was horrible. That said, I agree she did a good job in getting the horses wormed and their condition improved. It was a difficult program to watch, and while I do have sympathy with Clwyd and agree he needs help, I don't think we're being fair to the RSPCA. Remember the foal that died because despite Michelle's help in reducing his numbers he just took on another 10 including colts. I suspect there is far more history to this story than we were showed during the program.
Like others I have my own RSPCA horror stories I could share. But they're all concerning when they DIDN'T act!!
|
|
|
Post by lawyerbunny on Jan 12, 2013 12:23:16 GMT 1
I hear what you say, Liz and Ally. The programme didn't cast anyone in a brilliant light, did it? But when it comes to the RSPCA, I do feel strongly that it's a charity about which a LOT of questions need to be asked and answered. With stories like these in the press: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261129/Why-did-RSPCA-shoot-dead-40-sheep-grisly-dockside-massacre.htmlwww.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9796043/RSPCA-accused-of-double-standards-over-hunt-prosecutions.htmlwww.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9796582/RSPCA-summoned-to-meet-head-of-charity-watchdog-after-controversial-David-Cameron-hunt-prosecution.html#no wonder people are angry and demanding action. I deal with them on a professional basis, as I do with a lot of charities, national and local, large and small. The important thing to remember about charities is that they are NOT free to act as they wish. They MUST deal with the money they hold in accordance with their duties as charity trustees, they MUST further the objects of their charity and absolutely cannot act in a way that conflicts with them. When people accuse them of 'pursuing a political agenda', that's what they mean: they CANNOT do this, they must act in accordance with the purpose of their charity. When I advise charities on civil actions, all of that has to be factored in: put simply if proportionality, cost/benefit or adverse publicity is such that they will suffer or even risk suffering loss, it's a no-go. Damage to a charity's reputation is a significant factor that often determines the way forward. When I say the RSPCA have lost their way, I'm looking at it from that point of view. IMO in no world can it be right, in accordance with their charitable purpose or in line with their duties as trustees to pour away the funds they've been spending on these prosecutions. And that's leaving aside my personal views on their stance on hunting/racing, etc. The above is a pretty black and white issue for me: the law is there to prevent charities from abusing their position, and they're in grave danger of doing just that. Rant over
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 12, 2013 12:37:05 GMT 1
I wonder how much they spend on prosecutions? I must say some of the stuff I've read leads me to think they would be better spending the/most of the money on actually helping, educating and monitoring... Why don't CPS prosecute if there is a case? Probably a numpty question. lol ps. I am reminded of the FRC prosecutions of trimmers who haven't the funds to defend themselves. I mean in the sense that most people wont have the funds to mount a defense.
|
|
|
Post by lawyerbunny on Jan 12, 2013 13:04:37 GMT 1
Re. the CPS, that's a very good question mandal! The CPS has to examine the evidence and be satisfied there is a good chance of a conviction but also satisfy themselves that a prosecution is in the public interest. As for what the RSPCA spends on prosecutions, registered charities have to publish details of their income and expenditure, which information has to be sent to the Charity Commission and is handily published here: www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=219099&SubsidiaryNumber=0You can follow a link from there to their accounts, which show that the cost of prosecutions in 2010 and 2011 was c. £7.5 to £10m, plus a legal spend of around £500k elsewhere. That had fallen in 2011, from 2010. The 2012 figure will be interesting to see (next accounts due to be published in the Autumn). I think we have to remember that there's a difference between what local branches do, and the actions of the main body of the RSPCA and its CEO and governors. At a local level, we all have our experiences of action/inaction. At national level, these are really serious issues about governance and the direction they're taking. Sadly, these issues are going seriously to affect membership and income and therefore local/front-line action. Whatever you think of the efficiency or otherwise of that action (and google 'Ramsgate "RSPCA sheep"' if you feel brave enough), I think we can all agree that inflicting such damage on this charity is bad, bad news.
|
|