PO Box 211
Cats Protection Reg’d. Charity 203644 (England and Wales) and SC037711 (Scotland)
On 26 May 2016 on its website Cats Protection posted a news release “New Campaign Launched Against Fatal Airgun Attacks”. Within that news release two paragraphs can be found:
"A campaign has been launched by Cats Protection to prompt a call on governments in England and Wales to make it a criminal offence to own an air gun without a licence."
“The sheer volume of instances where cats are injured and killed by air gun attacks is very concerning. We are calling for much stricter regulation on the ownership of air guns, as we strongly believe this will help to protect cats and other animals.”
Can the Charity Commission investigate, and get back in contact with me, as to whether this lobbying to change the law is permitted?
And if the associated video is allowed in the manner it currently is?
I know of no facts that demonstrate that licensing of airguns would or would not benefit the aims of “protecting cats” and that, surely, unless such can be demonstrated such lobbying is elsewise not allowed?
The power of airguns that may be held since without a licence since or before 1996 has not been changed.
If the Cats Protection website is examined the sample size of “vets” from LM Research for Cats Protection produced their percentage figures appears to have been 1,000 “vets”.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons lists somewhat 19,682 veterinary surgeons and 11,661 veterinary nurses in October 2014 this being the last date for which I could obtain figures.
Yet on the video they attach to the news item they claim “In the last twelve months 44% of vets have treated cats that were shot by an air gun”.
Note that this was a percentage of vets surveyed by them, so the numbers is 440 “vets”, and not, as myself when viewing the video was also misled, 44% of 19.682 veterinary surgeons and/or 11,661 veterinary nurses.
Is this misleading advertising?
I look forward to hearing from you with your comments as to the action mentioned by Cats Protection in the news release and to the likelihood of a casual viewer of the video being misled….as I was indeed misled.