Waiting for the RSPCA to act

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


RSPCA have been notified seven times by one person alone but not heard back from them...(that's seven times that are known about - might have been 27 or 47 in total.)

And Katya Mira (R$PCA) says she can confirm that they are aware of these sad animals and THEY ARE TAKING IT SERIOUSLY. Whew...what a relief! I am glad to hear that as I rather thought they were doing  nothing. But here's the sting in the tail. They (RSPCA) are looking into whether an offence has been committed...so basically they are spending their time looking for someone to prosecute rather than spending time (and resources) getting these horses to safety. (Sighs.)  I think this sums them up and will save it for Mr Wooler to read. It backs up a lot of what I have to say. If your horse has lice (which have been treated several times) they have a gang of five to 'seize' it and take it to a secret 'place of safety'. There was a gang of 13 to 'seize' John Spicer's old dog (well, they seized John as well from what I could see). Meanwhile the cases in genuine need are ignored. Because getting a few horses from boggy land, maybe hard to catch (except the dead ones of course) is clearly more difficult than going into a nice clean paddock in a well-kept livery yard and making off with a gentle, well-handled and well-mannered elderly TB mare from a yard where she had lived a happy and healthy life for the past 17 years.    

This article should explain to SW exactly how they operate...let's catch someone and pin this on them! Drag them to court! Name and shame them! Think of the publicity!! God how I detest them. 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I find this one really hard to stomach too - 3 of mine were taken from a field which was water meadows and starting to flood in autumn of 2012, there were patches of higher ground and they were attended and feed daily both hay and hard feeds. Alternative livery had been found, but transport was difficult to find cos there were 4 and most local firms only have 2 horse lorries.

Found guilty..........still awaiting the appeal - think I will send this to solicitor too.

None of mine were lying in the water, none were ill let alone dying.........

You have to think if the carcasses are in such a state of decomposition that the owner has not been around for quite a while? I mean, on  two occasions in my yard (in 18 years) that an old horse died of natural causes (both aged 30+) they were covered with a rug and removed the same day. Simply because I knew who the owners were and Iknew they would not want them lying there rotting.  And come to think of it, the RSPCA can't have been too concerned if they saw carcasses and did nothing.  What gets me is the way, when they are accused of  NOT acting, they say how they cannot be expected to break the law and 'seize' an animal which has a legal owner? Someone please tell me if I have IDIOT written on my forehead? That's what they do for a living isn't it...steal other people's horses?

SW should take the time to read this sort of stuff ... it's grist for the mill. Do it millie, send this one off to sw  and I'll do the other one and explain that I'm sending it before my submission as it is topical right now. And it sums up what RSPCA spend their time and money on.

My understanding is that Mr Wooler is looking into the Prosecutions Policy of the RSPCA, my belief is that this revolves primarily about the policy shown on the RSPCA website in respect of Evidence and Public Interest only. Whilst cases like these can support arguments where you believe cases are brought unreasonably, I am not so sure that it carries so much weight if no case is brought at all. You could perhaps say that it passes both tests and why are they not prosecuting these, when other cases perhaps are not so clear and they do pursue them.......#

In addition I believe the Policy was designed for the CPS not the RSPCA, and in addtion to the 2 tests they should perhaps also consider: -

Gaining their evidence BEFORE they seize - as most Police have to have sufficient evidence before they arrest, surely the same should apply to our friends? Also, charges should be made against a defendant BEFORE he/she is interviewed - it is my belief that the charges often brought bear little on the reason for the seizure by a vet in the first place and are drawn up based on what a defendant says in interview.
With regards to Public Interest, the RSPCA should also consider the following? Is it in the animal's best interest, the owners, the charity's????? I would have thought that in many cases (especially where healthy animals are destroyed!) it is hardly in the animals best interest????

Your thoughts please????

Millie I so agree with what you say.
The piece of filth that interviewed me made his statement up to contradict everything I told him in my interrogation.  If only the people they persecute could see their statements before they gave theirs, what an advantage they would have??
From not only my own experience but what I've heard from others I think there is more than enough evidence to prosecute those bastards for causing unnecessary suffering.

I agree with Millie1 about obtaining all the evidence first.

One pony was taken who had been under the care of a Vet. At my interview the RSPCA asked me if I had any invoices from the Vet to which I replied 'Yes'. They then asked if I would be willing to provide them and I replied 'Yes'. I was never asked to supply them by anyone except my own Solicitor before the trial and then the Judge went tits and shouted at me because I hadn't supplied them to the RSPCA. I told him that apart from being asked at the interview if I had proof of a vet visit and would I supply the invoices, I had not been asked to produce them. He shook his head and tutted (good at his drama).

There was a lot of paperwork etc that the RSPCA could have requested, but didn't. I also noted that the RSPCA wouldn't send my Solicitor certain paperwork and it only showed up at the last minute!!!!

Yes, candcane, that's the way they work. I recently assisted Stephen Wooler in is RSPCA review and one of the points I made was regarding their dishonesty. I pointed out that:

a) they tell lies...time and time again.

b) even when they are not actually lying, they will lie by omission.; which is to say that they will deliberately omit information they have which would show you in a favourable light. Like your vet bill. In my case, one obvious omission was a receipt too. She (Gestapo) on her 'sworn statement' wrote 'she showed me an empty wormer syringe which she said the horse had been given the previous week'. So it was made to look as tho' I had possibly found the empty syringe in a waste bin. She did NOT mention that as I had bought it online and it was posted to me I had the receipt with my name and home address. I showed it to her but she didn't even look at it. Lying by omission you see? Nor did she mention that a subsequent faecal egg count for worms after they stole her came back negative; of course it did, I had wormed her and had the proof in b/w.

c) misquoting the victim. During the interrogation, Gestapo asked me if I had called a vet. I replied politely: ''Why would I have done that?''  This was changed in her statement to: ''No! Why should I?''  As you can see, there is a massive difference in tone.