Well, at least he has now publicly confirmed that they DO, in fact, have a political agenda (paragraph three).
The man should be sectioned for the good of the community.
I think this comment hits the nail on the head!
I don't think there are many in here in favour of animal cruelty, any more
than this site will be disproportionately littered with child abusers. For your
analogy to work it needs a little adjustment. Let's try this.
Imagine the RSPCA was responsible for policing child abuse, and imagine they
spent huge sums of money prosecuting a few high profile cases for their
publicity value rather than spending that money which people had donated
on preventing more widespread systemic abuse. If you were truly against child
abuse, wouldn't you argue against this waste of resources? Wouldn't you argue
for a more effective spend?
The fact is, many people, and not just Telegraph readers, suspect the RSPCA
is motivated to spend a good deal too much donated money on prosecutions for
publicity's sake, and especially those where there is a political agenda against
the sort of monied types who can afford to keep a horse or two.
How many inspectors (and cases of animal cruelty) does it cost to
fund £300,000 to prosecute one hunt over one animal? And how many animals could
have been saved for that money? How many healthy animals could have been kept
alive in RSCPCA shelters a little longer rather than being 'put down'?
Pointing this out is not tantamount to excusing paedophilia.
After reading some of his comments in that article, I think Mr May is heading down the same path as David Icke
He's definitely not wired up right that's for sure, the only good thing is people will associate him with the RSPCA further tarnishing its name.
Just when you think he can't make a bigger bell end of himself, he manages to. Nice one Brian.
Now that child abuse has been mentioned I would have thought that some elderly pop stars and showbiz luvvies might be more than a little concerned about the ongoing operation YewTree.