RSPCA investigative powers to be reviewed

He's my local MP. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of support for the hunting lobby in this enquiry as well. ��
 
It's about time this "charity" was investigated, the SSPCA too.

The SSPCA took my wifes best friend to court for poisoning cats with Anti Freeze, the main witnesses were three sisters she had fallen out with... The head of the SSPCA was outside the court with the TV cameras, ready to give a piece to the camera, when the sheriff found that ALL the witnesses were lying through their teeth, and couldnt confirm each others stories....he told them they were lying, and threw the case out, one started shouting and swearing at him...LOL... and also berated the SSPCA for even thinking of bringing it to court.
Minutes later, after the news got out, the "SSPCA topman ", and his cohorts were gone....so were the TV cameras...not even reported in the local rag!!!
 
If the RSPCA are to keep investigative powers, (something I'm not really convinced is good) then they need properly regulated. It's an essential safety check to ensure that the investigating body then doesn't decide on whether a prosecution goes ahead. The police (in practice and for anything other than minor matters) had the power of deciding on prosecuting removed decades ago and this is now decided by the CPS.

Of course the CPS are by no means perfect, but there definitely needs to be this independent check in the system. Maybe then we won't get prosecutions where the evidence just isn't there and we won't get prosecutions for politically motivated reasons.
 
Usee to work with an organisation that had dealings with the RSPCA .When we called them to assist with animals they were not interested.When someone wanted to give them a donation you could not beat them off with a s*****y stick.
 
If the RSPCA are to keep investigative powers, (something I'm not really convinced is good) then they need properly regulated. It's an essential safety check to ensure that the investigating body then doesn't decide on whether a prosecution goes ahead. The police (in practice and for anything other than minor matters) had the power of deciding on prosecuting removed decades ago and this is now decided by the CPS.

Of course the CPS are by no means perfect, but there definitely needs to be this independent check in the system. Maybe then we won't get prosecutions where the evidence just isn't there and we won't get prosecutions for politically motivated reasons.

That would be a sound commonsense starting point IMHO?
 
Heard a spokesman on the radio from the RSPCA yesterday. He said that they don't abuse any powers to prosecute and any decision isn't influenced by their policies. Righto.

He also said that all they're doing is the same as anybody else can do if they take out a private prosecution, or indeed the BBC who prosecute people for not getting a TV licence.

Well it's not the same as a private prosecution because the RSPCA isn't a private individual. Yes, bodies such as the BBC do prosecute you for not having a licence, but it's hardly the same thing. You've either got a licence or you haven't. Not much leeway there to push political agendas.
 
Heard a spokesman on the radio from the RSPCA yesterday. He said that they don't abuse any powers to prosecute and any decision isn't influenced by their policies. Righto.

He also said that all they're doing is the same as anybody else can do if they take out a private prosecution, or indeed the BBC who prosecute people for not getting a TV licence.

Well it's not the same as a private prosecution because the RSPCA isn't a private individual. Yes, bodies such as the BBC do prosecute you for not having a licence, but it's hardly the same thing. You've either got a licence or you haven't. Not much leeway there to push political agendas.

bbc prosecutes because tvlicensing is a subsidiary company.The tv licence goes directly to a company.
 
RSPCA is being taken being investigated by an official government inquiry as it has lost track of its mandate and is now run by animal liberationists. The recent scandal of photo shopping arse shot hares and confusing them with rabbits implicating poor bullet placement is typical of their current modus operandii. They were jumping for joy about the proposal for public land hunting trial being knocked back. What does that have to do with the RSPCA? - Nothing.

As they are funded by the government, people are asking why is the government funding this organisation that is now run by AL extremists.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/government-inquiry-to-investigate-rspca-wa-20150816-gj07au.html


http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/rspca-bloodied-rabbit-photo-disgraceful-wa-shooters-association-20150506-ggvn7j.html


 
Is the whole tv licence fee not different, if is a criminal offence not to pay ur tv licence for some reason not a civil. Think they were talking about making it a civil pffemce which it should be

If they have no extra power which is probably the case (as no power of entry or arrest, a fishing baliff has more power) possibly its the police/courts PF/cps that need looked at the way they use and trust them
I know with the rspb they have had employees searching houses or even acting like there leading the search, yet there names are not mentioning on the search warrant
 
I used to support the RSPCA (and RSPB) until they went political. I would love to help save animals from genuine cruelty or preserve rare birds (including raptors) but sadly cannot any longer bring myself to give money that is going to be used for politically motivated prosecutions or anti gamekeeper publicity.

It's interesting that I believe that the membership of the RSPCA has fallen to less than six figures and they are actually a minority charity now and given far too much coverage and need to be sorted out.

i only now give money to the RNLI and Air Amulance on a regular basis, at least I know the money will be used in the way I intended.
 
Last edited:
Heard a spokesman on the radio from the RSPCA yesterday. He said that they don't abuse any powers to prosecute and any decision isn't influenced by their policies. Righto.

He also said that all they're doing is the same as anybody else can do if they take out a private prosecution, or indeed the BBC who prosecute people for not getting a TV licence.

Well it's not the same as a private prosecution because the RSPCA isn't a private individual. Yes, bodies such as the BBC do prosecute you for not having a licence, but it's hardly the same thing. You've either got a licence or you haven't. Not much leeway there to push political agendas.

As an alternative, I propose that we set up a new regulator that can fine or prosecute charities that overstep the mark. And appoint the Countryside Alliance as the regulator. On the proviso that they promise not to abuse any powers to prosecute and any decision isn't influenced by their policies. Presumably, by the same logic, the RSPCA would be happy with that.
 
As an alternative, I propose that we set up a new regulator that can fine or prosecute charities that overstep the mark. And appoint the Countryside Alliance as the regulator. On the proviso that they promise not to abuse any powers to prosecute and any decision isn't influenced by their policies. Presumably, by the same logic, the RSPCA would be happy with that.
Isn`t the Charities Commission their regulator?
 
Isn`t the Charities Commission their regulator?

Yeah. I like the sound of the "Countryside Alliance Charities Commission" though. It's also a good acronym.

"So, Gawain, shall we use funds donated to us in good faith to prosecute a hunt in a senior Tory's constituency again to promote our twisted leftist politics?"
"Can't do that Kerry, we'd be in the CACC in no time"
 
Back
Top