Arch bishop snubs RSPCA

Our passion is your passion... stalk with us!

CWMMAN3738

Well-Known Member
It appears our Arch Bishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has abandoned decades of church leadership of the RSPCA by rejecting a traditional post at the top of the organisation as vice-patron amid accusations it has lost its way! YAHOOOOOOOO.........
 

basil

Distinguished Member
For those interested, this came from the Cumbria force area and is what the RSPCA has access to ..

  • Vehicles connected to a suspect or prospective offender;
  • Information held on the National Firearms Licensing Management System;
  • Details of anyone convicted, charged or cautioned; or anyone fined for disorder or subject to ASBOs, curfews, banning or exclusion orders;
  • Terms of probation or bail conditions;
  • Details on methods an individual has used to commit offences against animals in the past;
  • Information which may indicate someone’s “willingness” to inflict harm on an animal;
  • Any past recorded behavioural or medical issues;
  • Intelligence concerning someone actively involved in, or intending to commit any animal-related offences.
 

CWMMAN3738

Well-Known Member
Not exactly what the ACPO are admitting to is it corruption is institionalised in the police force at all levels it would seem, making money, protecting members, and meeting targets are the real force objectives these days gone are the days of protect & serve.
Before anyone starts I'm not saying all are bad but that the system encourages aims other than the forces original mandate.
 

perdix

Well-Known Member
For those interested, this came from the Cumbria force area and is what the RSPCA has access to ..

  • Vehicles connected to a suspect or prospective offender;
  • Information held on the National Firearms Licensing Management System;
  • Details of anyone convicted, charged or cautioned; or anyone fined for disorder or subject to ASBOs, curfews, banning or exclusion orders;
  • Terms of probation or bail conditions;
  • Details on methods an individual has used to commit offences against animals in the past;
  • Information which may indicate someone’s “willingness” to inflict harm on an animal;
  • Any past recorded behavioural or medical issues;
  • Intelligence concerning someone actively involved in, or intending to commit any animal-related offences.
So as someone that is involved in the driven shooting side of things as well as the management of deer am I "someone who may be intending to commit animal-related offences" in the eyes of some copper that's an anti?
Bang out of order.
I would be interested to know if child welfare charities will be given similar details of anyone who may be a threat to the well being of children.
I am also slightly confused as recently I had a few problems with a neighbour and people at his address and when I asked if the chap I caught rifling my poccessions I has stored in the house loft space had been processed by the courts on a particular day I was told that the information I wanted was subject to the Data Protection Act and I was not allowed to be told!
Surely all the information that the RSPCA is being given by Cumbria police is subject to the same conditions?

I am also very concerned that anyone other than the correct authorities are privy to the fact that I am storing firearms and ammunition in my dwelling.Surely this passing of information regarding this is a major breach of my private security?I am sure that if I was in the local every night bragging about what I had locked away in my house it would not be looked upon i a favourable light.

Double standards seems to be an understatement here!
 

Dragunov

Well-Known Member
  • Information which may indicate someone’s “willingness” to inflict harm on an animal;
  • Any past recorded behavioural or medical issues;
  • Intelligence concerning someone actively involved in, or intending to commit any animal-related offences.

They could try and use these to set up and a stalker for a prosecution case. God knows they're stupid enough.
 

perdix

Well-Known Member
IMO it boils down to this and this alone.
They are a charity and not a recognised law enforcement agency.The police are there to investigate and prosecute in the event of cruelty to animals.The RSPCA are not as they would bill themselves the "animal police".
If they are going to continue on this path of mixing welfare issues with political gesturing they must have their charitable status revoked and declare themselves as a political party.
 

basil

Distinguished Member
IMO it boils down to this and this alone.
They are a charity and not a recognised law enforcement agency.The police are there to investigate and prosecute in the event of cruelty to animals.The RSPCA are not as they would bill themselves the "animal police".
If they are going to continue on this path of mixing welfare issues with political gesturing they must have their charitable status revoked and declare themselves as a political party.

The RSPCA are also civilians so how many of them are vetted before being given access to such information?
 

bobthedug

Well-Known Member
For those interested, this came from the Cumbria force area and is what the RSPCA has access to ..

  • Vehicles connected to a suspect or prospective offender;
  • Information held on the National Firearms Licensing Management System;
  • Details of anyone convicted, charged or cautioned; or anyone fined for disorder or subject to ASBOs, curfews, banning or exclusion orders;
  • Terms of probation or bail conditions;
  • Details on methods an individual has used to commit offences against animals in the past;
  • Information which may indicate someone’s “willingness” to inflict harm on an animal;
  • Any past recorded behavioural or medical issues;
  • Intelligence concerning someone actively involved in, or intending to commit any animal-related offences.

Where is the above information coming from. I suspect that for whatever reason some are mischief making and mis quoting or simply making things up.

An ACPO spokesperson said:

“The RSPCA has no direct access to records held on the Police National Computer (PNC). In common with other prosecuting bodies, it may make a request for disclosure of records at the stage that a prosecution is brought. This indirect access does not include firearms licensing, vehicle registrations (which are held on other systems to the PNC) or any information that the RSPCA does not need in order to prosecute a case at court. This process ensures that the PNC is kept up to date with records of prosecutions conducted by the RSPCA.”

There is a link to the full ACPO statement on the BASC thread in the legal section which should hopefully put folks minds at rest that the RSPCA have access to what is listed above
 
Last edited:

Eyefor

Well-Known Member
Where is the above information coming from. I suspect that for whatever reason some are mischief making and mis quoting or simply making things up.

An ACPO spokesperson said:

“The RSPCA has no direct access to records held on the Police National Computer (PNC). In common with other prosecuting bodies, it may make a request for disclosure of records at the stage that a prosecution is brought. This indirect access does not include firearms licensing, vehicle registrations (which are held on other systems to the PNC) or any information that the RSPCA does not need in order to prosecute a case at court. This process ensures that the PNC is kept up to date with records of prosecutions conducted by the RSPCA.”

There is a link to the full ACPO statement on the BASC thread in the legal section which should hopefully put folks minds at rest that the RSPCA have access to what is listed above

Contradicted by

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...infomration-by-one-in-four-police-forces.html

Quote

The 10 forces which have signed information sharing agreements with the RSPCA are: Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Kent, Hertfordshire, Nottinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire, Cumbria, North Wales and South Wales.

The Telegraph has seen the 12-page agreements with Cumbria and Hertfordshire.

They show that the type of information that can be shared includes names and addresses; dates of birth; addresses going back five years; parents’ details; professional qualifications; work experience and employment circumstances.
They can also request information about people’s vehicles, any information about them held on the National Firearms Licensing Management System and information about whether a person has been convicted, charged or cautioned, medical history.

Unquote

?
 

kuwinda

Well-Known Member
IF this document is genuine (signatory - Detective Superintendent Thundercloud?) it does nothing to set my mind at rest:-

"Types of information which can be shared......include:-

- Vehicles associated with a suspect or prospective offender (italics supplied - what is a 'prospective offender'?)
- Information held on the National Firearms Licensing System....
- Information about persons convicted, charged or cautioned......" and a very great deal else.

So what Cumbria Constabulary is telling us here is that its comfortable with sharing basically all privileged information that it holds on its records with the RSPCA - a non-privileged third party in respect of any prosecution/issue between the police/CPS and an offender - or any prospective offender.

I am not sufficiently well up on the legislation or criminal law here to make a judgement but it strikes me that the police sharing information (and entering into an agreement to do so!!) with third parties at the very least borders on illegal?

Its certainly chilling.

Contradicted by http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...infomration-by-one-in-four-police-forces.html Quote The 10 forces which have signed information sharing agreements with the RSPCA are: Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Kent, Hertfordshire, Nottinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire, Cumbria, North Wales and South Wales. The Telegraph has seen the 12-page agreements with Cumbria and Hertfordshire. They show that the type of information that can be shared includes names and addresses; dates of birth; addresses going back five years; parents’ details; professional qualifications; work experience and employment circumstances. They can also request information about people’s vehicles, any information about them held on the National Firearms Licensing Management System and information about whether a person has been convicted, charged or cautioned, medical history. Unquote ?
 

CWMMAN3738

Well-Known Member
Comes down to who you believe I suppose the police force & the press or the ACPO, I wonder who has the best track record for the truth & the most to gain/hide??
Where is the above information coming from. I suspect that for whatever reason some are mischief making and mis quoting or simply making things up.

An ACPO spokesperson said:

“The RSPCA has no direct access to records held on the Police National Computer (PNC). In common with other prosecuting bodies, it may make a request for disclosure of records at the stage that a prosecution is brought. This indirect access does not include firearms licensing, vehicle registrations (which are held on other systems to the PNC) or any information that the RSPCA does not need in order to prosecute a case at court. This process ensures that the PNC is kept up to date with records of prosecutions conducted by the RSPCA.”

There is a link to the full ACPO statement on the BASC thread in the legal section which should hopefully put folks minds at rest that the RSPCA have access to what is listed above
 

bobthedug

Well-Known Member
are rspca inspctors precluded from joining the special constabulary .

Bruce, if your question relates to where you live it is the SSPCA which covers Scotland and is a different orginisation.
Either way, its is not a job which would automatically prevent being appointed a Special Constable such as a fire fighter or squaddie or any of a number of jobs which could have a conflict of interests.
The decision of course would lie with the appropriate recruiting dept.
 

Greymaster

Well-Known Member
IF this document is genuine (signatory - Detective Superintendent Thundercloud?) it does nothing to set my mind at rest:-

"Types of information which can be shared......include:-

- Vehicles associated with a suspect or prospective offender (italics supplied - what is a 'prospective offender'?)
- Information held on the National Firearms Licensing System....
- Information about persons convicted, charged or cautioned......" and a very great deal else.

So what Cumbria Constabulary is telling us here is that its comfortable with sharing basically all privileged information that it holds on its records with the RSPCA - a non-privileged third party in respect of any prosecution/issue between the police/CPS and an offender - or any prospective offender.

I am not sufficiently well up on the legislation or criminal law here to make a judgement but it strikes me that the police sharing information (and entering into an agreement to do so!!) with third parties at the very least borders on illegal?

Its certainly chilling.

Thundercloud is a genuine name and person: Biography - Detective Superintendent Cath Thundercloud

68ad049d-5482-4d84-86d0-84bf8bb52e51.JPG

http://www.cumbria.police.uk/about-us/headquarters-directors/director-of-professional-standards
 

IanF

Well-Known Member
Let us be specific here.

The 'Police' have not shared information, individuals have taken the decision, authorised access to the data and instructed their subordinates to comply.

Providing personal, damaging data to a non statutory organisation is illegal and the individuals concerned should be punished by law.

In effect, it is the same offence as a member of the Police providing information to a newspaper or a criminal organisation.

They should NOT have the option of retiring to full pension on 'ill health grounds' as soon as a sniff of an investigation heads their way.

They should be punished as you or I would be - irrespective of their motivation (for the 'greater good'), rank, or subsequent results of such a leak of information.

The law is the law, and applies equally to all.
 

CWMMAN3738

Well-Known Member
I agree 110% but unfortunately it will never happen although this is one BASC could get their teeth into if they were willing it about time more of them were brought down for what hey are oing as said the law applies to all & "Thundercloud" is fro professional standards dept what a joke, we should expect more but somehow we expect nothing less, about time something was done to clean up the police forces in this country & not just by themselves but outsiders with no interests.
Let us be specific here.

The 'Police' have not shared information, individuals have taken the decision, authorised access to the data and instructed their subordinates to comply.

Providing personal, damaging data to a non statutory organisation is illegal and the individuals concerned should be punished by law.

In effect, it is the same offence as a member of the Police providing information to a newspaper or a criminal organisation.

They should NOT have the option of retiring to full pension on 'ill health grounds' as soon as a sniff of an investigation heads their way.

They should be punished as you or I would be - irrespective of their motivation (for the 'greater good'), rank, or subsequent results of such a leak of information.

The law is the law, and applies equally to all.
 

charadam

Well-Known Member
Quoting bobtehdug,

"The RSPCA has no direct access to records held on the Police National Computer (PNC). In common with other prosecuting bodies" etc. etc.

What in the name of ****** is a "prosecuting body"?.

I believe that I am one, as I hold exactly the same powers as any RSPCA "inspector"
 
Leica Amplus 6
Top