d63e805944a04c99b10542f008853a74

Judicial Misinterpretation of Animal Welfare Law: Is the UK Legal System Failing Defendants?

Mon, 07 Apr 2025 11:55:35 GMT

Introduction

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was designed to set clear, enforceable standards for the care and protection of animals in England and Wales. However, over time, the interpretation of the law —particularly in cases brought by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) —has drifted beyond its original intent . Courts frequently rely on veterinary testimony and RSPCA guidance to shape their decisions, often elevating expectations beyond legal requirements . This raises serious concerns about due process, fairness, and the private prosecution system , which allows a charity to act as both investigator and prosecutor.

The Role of the RSPCA in Legal Prosecutions

Unlike police-led cases, the RSPCA investigates, gathers evidence, and prosecutes individuals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 . While the organisation claims to have expertise in animal welfare , its involvement as both investigator and prosecutor creates conflicts of interest .

Despite announcing in 2021 that it would step back from prosecutions, the RSPCA continues to lead cases , making legal arguments that go beyond statutory law . Courts frequently accept RSPCA recommendations as the standard for responsible ownership , even when the law itself does not mandate specific veterinary actions

The "Reasonable Person" Standard vs. Veterinary Expertise

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is supposed to be applied using the "reasonable person" standard —meaning courts should determine whether an ordinary, competent owner would have acted differently in the situation. However, in practice:

Veterinary opinions become the default benchmark, meaning the legal standard is raised beyond what non-professional owners would reasonably do, especially as the first course of treatment.


Failure to seek veterinary care is often treated as neglect , despite no legal requirement to consult a vet for every minor ailment.


RSPCA policies influence judicial interpretation , creating an unofficial legal standard beyond what Parliament explicitly legislated.



This approach creates a major legal contradiction —by insisting veterinary care for every incident on private owners, the RSPCA effectively makes thousands of reasonable animal owners "lawbreakers", even when they are acting within their rights and the boundaries of the law. Many responsible owners who provide adequate care but do not adhere to unofficial veterinary expectations find themselves wrongfully prosecuted under RSPCA-led cases.

Are Courts Misapplying the Law?

Many argue that UK courts are wrongly applying animal welfare law , effectively criminalising owners who follow legal treatment options , simply because veterinary care is assumed to be the only acceptable form of care.

This is akin to a police officer prosecuting someone for driving at the speed limit because they personally believe everyone should drive slower — it goes beyond the law and introduces subjective enforcement.
Concerns have been raised over cases where:

Owners were convicted despite legally treating their animals.


Courts accepted RSPCA veterinary evidence as the sole measure of neglect, even when the law allowed non-veterinary treatment.


Legal precedent reinforced flawed prosecutions, making it harder for future defendants to challenge cases.


Animals Taken as Suffering: The Legal Reality

One of the key issues in RSPCA-led prosecutions is the assumption that suffering or likely to suffer if circumstances do not change, at the time of seizure equates to an offence. However, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the fact that an animal is suffering is not an offence in itself —only causing unnecessary suffering is criminalised.

This raises an important contradiction: when an animal is seized by the RSPCA, i t remains in a state of suffering in their possession and even under veterinary care until it either recovers or is euthanised. If suffering alone were sufficient to constitute an offence, this would logically mean the RSPCA itself is responsible for continuing that suffering, since the condition persists after removal from the owner. This highlights the inconsistency in how courts interpret welfare cases.

Furthermore, the standards imposed on owners often surpass what the RSPCA itself can uphold. Despite prosecuting individuals for failing to meet their high demands of others . This raises serious questions about whether owners are being held to unrealistic and hypocritical standards.

One particularly disturbing example is the incident in which an RSPCA operation resulted in a pony mare and her unborn foal being crushed to death in a cattle crush. Instead of acknowledging the clear failure in animal handling and welfare, the RSPCA dismissed the event as an unfortunate incident —yet by their own prosecutorial standards, such an action would have been considered causing unnecessary suffering if it had been carried out by a private owner. This inconsistency raises deep concerns about whether prosecutions are truly based on legal principles or selective enforcement.

Legal Challenges and the Future of Reform

Criticism of RSPCA-led prosecutions has prompted calls for reform , including:

Transferring all animal welfare cases to independent legal bodies like the CPS, rather than allowing a charity with vested interests to handle prosecutions.


Reassessing the judicial reliance on veterinary expertise, ensuring that courts apply the "reasonable person" standard correctly , rather than defaulting to professional veterinary standards.



Allowing stronger legal defences for owners who can demonstrate competence in treatment, even if they did not seek a vet, as the law intended .

Government Consultation on Private Prosecutions

The UK government is currently holding a consultation on private prosecutions , considering new oversight measures for organisations that bring criminal cases, including the RSPCA. The consultation aims to:

Establish consistent standards for private prosecutors.


Ensure accountability in cases brought under the Single Justice Procedure.


Increase transparency in private prosecutions.

However, critics argue that introducing yet another oversight body is not the solution. Instead, the focus should be on reforming the courts themselves —ensuring they:

Apply laws as Parliament intended, rather than relying on subjective interpretations.


Uphold legal safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice .


Assess cases based on statutory law, rather than RSPCA-led standards.

Conclusion

The misapplication of animal welfare laws has led to convictions that may not align with Parliament's original intent. While protecting animals is essential, justice must be balanced —owners should not face unfair prosecution based on RSPCA interpretations rather than statutory law . Without reform, the boundaries of legal responsibility will continue to be blurred by subjective enforcement, undermining the core principles of fairness and due process in the UK legal system.

The government’s consultation on private prosecutions presents an opportunity to address these concerns. However, rather than introducing another oversight body, the priority should be ensuring courts apply the law correctly, uphold Parliament’s intent, and enforce legal safeguards as written.

Additionally, if the RSPCA itself cannot always uphold the standards they impose on owners , then courts must question whether their prosecutorial claims are legally justified or simply exceed the boundaries of what Parliament intended.

Balancing Enforcement and Compassion: Addressing the Challenges of Animal Welfare Legislation

Sun, 05 Jan 2025 17:05:04 GMT

Balancing Enforcement and Compassion: Addressing the Challenges of Animal Welfare Legislation

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has long been a prominent advocate for animal welfare in the United Kingdom. With a history spanning over 200 years, the organisation has played a crucial role in shaping animal welfare legislation and raising public awareness about the importance of responsible pet ownership. However, recent concerns have emerged regarding the effectiveness of these legislative changes and the RSPCA's approach to enforcement.

The Legislative Landscape

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was a landmark piece of legislation that placed a duty of care on pet owners to ensure the welfare needs of their animals are met. The Act was intended to reduce incidents of neglect and cruelty by setting clear standards for animal care. In 2021, the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty was increased to five years, with the aim of acting as a deterrent to potential offenders.

Despite these legislative changes, reports of animal cruelty and neglect have continued to rise. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the laws and the RSPCA's role in enforcing them.

Challenges and Concerns

One of the primary concerns is that the RSPCA's approach to enforcement may be more focused on punishment than support. Pet owners who are struggling financially or otherwise may be deterred from seeking help due to fear of prosecution. This can lead to a climate of fear and mistrust, where individuals are reluctant to reach out for assistance, even when they genuinely care for their animals.

Additionally, the RSPCA's practice of encouraging pet owners to relinquish their animals may not address the underlying issues faced by these individuals. Instead of providing support and resources to help pet owners care for their animals, the focus on prosecution and relinquishment can leave pet owners feeling abandoned and unsupported.

Ethical Concerns

The ethical implications of a charity like the RSPCA campaigning for laws that they themselves enforce are significant. Charities are generally expected to provide support, education and assistance to those in need, rather than acting as punitive bodies. The dual role of the RSPCA in both advocating for stricter laws and enforcing them can create a conflict of interest and undermine public trust.

Resting on Laurels

The RSPCA often cites its 200-year history as a testament to its expertise and authority in animal welfare. However, longevity alone does not guarantee effectiveness or ethical practices. An organisation is only as good as the people within it at any given time. Relying on historical reputation without continuously evaluating and improving current practices can lead to complacency and a disconnect from the needs of the community.

Modern Policing and Prosecution

In the modern world, the responsibility for law enforcement and prosecution typically lies with the police and judicial system. The RSPCA's involvement in prosecuting animal cruelty cases can blur the lines between charity work and law enforcement. This dual role can lead to concerns about fairness and impartiality, as well as the potential for overzealous prosecution. It is essential for the RSPCA to focus on its core mission of animal welfare and support, while leaving the enforcement of laws to the appropriate authorities.

A Call for Change

To address these concerns, a more balanced approach to animal welfare is needed. This includes:

Independent Review and Oversight : Establishing an independent body to monitor and review the RSPCA's practices and ensure they are fair, objective and balanced. This body could provide recommendations for improvement and hold the organisation accountable, where breaches and significant shortfalls are found.

Enhanced Community Engagement and Collaboration : Working closely with local communities, other animal welfare organisations, and other relevant services to provide a more holistic approach to animal welfare. This can help ensure that pet owners receive the support they need without fear of prosecution.

Focus on Education and Support : Shifting the focus from punishment to education and support. This could involve providing resources and assistance to pet owners, such as financial aid for veterinary care, pet food banks, and educational programs on responsible pet ownership.

Feedback Mechanisms : Implementing mechanisms for pet owners and the public to provide feedback on the RSPCA's practices. This can help the organization understand the impact of their actions and make necessary adjustments.

Conclusion

While the RSPCA's expertise and advocacy have led to important legislative changes, it is clear that additional measures are needed to create a more comprehensive and effective approach to improving animal welfare. Tougher legislation has obviously not brought about the desired effect. By adopting a more balanced approach that prioritises support and education, having compassion for both animals and their owners, the RSPCA can better serve animals, ensuring that the organization returns to being a trusted and compassionate advocate for animal welfare.

Old article but still as relevant today

Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:30:08 GMT

RSPCA targetting disabled people???

RSPCA
Katharine Quarmby

Disability Now magazine has assembled disturbing evidence that the animal charity, the RPSCA, routinely prosecutes disabled people for alleged animal cruelty offences. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which prosecutes for alleged offences investigated by the police, tends not to prosecute disabled people.

A number of high profile cases over the last three years, which Disability Now has examined, suggest that the RSPCA routinely prosecutes people experiencing mental distress. A number of older people and people with other impairments have also been prosecuted.

The CPS has a code for its prosecutors, called the Full Code Test, which must be applied before a prosecutors decide whether to charge someone with an offence. Firstly, there must be sufficient evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” against a defendant on each of the charges applied. The second stage is the public interest stage, where a number of factors are considered for and against prosecution. The code states: “a prosecution is less likely to be needed if…a prosecution is likely to have a bad effect on the victim’s physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence; the defendant is elderly, or is, or was at the time of the offence, suffering from mental or physical ill health, unless the offence is serious or there is a real possibility that it may be repeated…Crown prosecutors must balance the desirability of diverting a defendant who is suffering from significant mental or physical ill health with the need to safeguard the general public”.

By contrast, the RSPCA, although it states that it abides by the Code for Crown Prosecutors, does not have as its primary aim that of “safeguarding the general public” but, instead, of the suppression “of cruelty to animals”. Although the RSPCA states that it might not prosecute in the case of a “defendant suffering from significant mental or physical ill health”, Disability Now’s investigation demonstrates that many defendants with such conditions are prosecuted by the charity. A number of disabled people whose cases are examined below died shortly after the trial.

In 2005 the RSPCA prosecuted Rosaline Gregson, who was found guilty of animal cruelty after she was found to be keeping 271 pets in her cottage. The prosecutor for the RSPCA said: “It is not the prosecution’s case that this defendant maliciously caused cruelty to the animals in her home, simply that she allowed her obsession to collect animals, as it were, to overwhelm her.” Animal hoarding is seen as a mental health condition in other countries such as the United States. She was jailed for three months but the judge released her on appeal, giving her a three month rehabilitation order instead. Judge Andrew Gilbart said that a community rehabilitation order was more suitable as it would include counselling to help her deal with her grief (at the death of her son) and her mental health problems.

In another case Douglas Stamp, a pensioner with diabetes, was prosecuted by the RSPCA because his rescue dog had kidney disease, unbeknownst to Mr Stamp. He was given a conditional discharge and died soon afterwards.

Betty McDairmaid, a wheelchair user with diabetes, was raided twice by the RSPCA in reference to her job as a dog breeder. Mrs McDairmaid was prosecuted, but the trial was halted when she became too ill for it to proceeed. She died soon afterwards.

In 2005 the organisation prosecuted Mr and Mrs Drury for cruelty to one sheep. Mr Drury was a wheelchair user, who was giving up his farm at the time as he felt he could no longer care for his sheep due to his condition. Their conviction was overturned on appeal and the judge said: “Mr Drury is not be criticized for the level of care that was exercised by him..the adverse publicity suffered by the appellants consequent upon their conviction in the Magistrates Court… is to be regretted”.

In April 2008 the RSPCA successfully prosecuted Victor Matevos, 60, for animal cruelty to a number of cats. His condition had gone downhill after his wife died, the court heard. His house was full of rubbish and the cats did not have proper access to drinking water. The judge sentenced him to 90 days in prison, but considered he had spent more than that in prison, so released him, saying: “Something must have gone drastically wrong following the death of his wife…This man has all sorts of problems…I do not often go home from work worrying about people I have dealt with, but I will worry about him.” Mr Matevos was unable to be in court as he could not walk from the cells to the court.

Edwin Hayes, 68, a pensioner and cattle farmer, was prosecuted three times by the RSPCA and Trading Standards in x?, for animal cruelty offences whilst trying to retire from farming. His wife was dying at the time from cancer. He was acquitted on one count, discharged on another and the last charge was struck out as an abuse of process (which means that the court judges that the case should not have been brought).

Chris Hicks, a farmer with a mental health condition at the time of the alleged offence, and whose wife had multiple sclerosis, was prosecuted by the RSPCA in x?. The case was dropped when the court termed it an abuse of process.

In another case, in 2007, the owner of an animal sanctuary in Sunderland, Clifford Spedding, who had been prosecuted by the RSPCA for cruelty offences, had his suspended jail sentence lifted and his banning order for keeping animals rescinded. Judge Peter Armstrong said: “The appellant began to suffer from depression and was simply unable to cope for a large number of animals and birds that had been dumped upon him” and praised the work he had done over many years to protect animals.

A nurse, Stephanie Greatorex, who had depression, was also prosecuted last year for causing unnecessary suffering to her dog. She is now receiving treatment for her depression but has been given a life-time ban on keeping animals.

A pensioner, Marilyn Read, experiencing mental distress after the sudden death of her partner and her mother developing Alzheimers, was sentenced to 12 months in jail (suspended) after admitting two counts of cruelty to two ponies.

This year a pub landlady convicted of cruelty to animals, Maureen Tote, won an appeal to overturn a life-time ban after the Judge said it was clear that she had a love of animals and was “suffering from depression” at the time of the incident.

A consequence of RSPCA prosecutions is that defendants are featured heavily, with photographs and addresses, in the local press and on the internet, whether or not they are guilty and irrespective of whether or not they have an impairment. Many are then subject to hate mail campaigns and intimidation – which can have an effect on people experiencing mental distress, in particular.

The RSPCA is one of a handful of charities that launches private prosecutions – and is the most prolific private prosecutor in England. It also campaigns against animal cruelty and investigates the cases as well. But this system – whereby it carries out three conflicting roles at the same time – is coming under increasing scrutiny. The police, for instance, used to have the power to launch prosecutions, but after increasing public concern about miscarriages of justice, lost its power to prosecute over twenty years ago, when the CPS was established instead. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) used to carry out private prosecutions on alleged offences involving birds – but again ceased to do so in 1992 after facing increasing criticism in some of its trials. The NSPCC although it could take cases of child cruelty, works instead with the police. The Scottish Society for the Protection of Animals (SSPCA), does not prosecute itself, but hands over the cases it investigates to the Procurator Fiscal’s Office, the Scottish equivalent of the CPS. Superintendent Mike Flynn, of the SSPCA, explained that decision to Newsnight in 2005, adding defendants with mental health problems were rarely prosecuted in Scotland, but referred to social workers instead and adding that he would rather be prosecuted in Scoland, where powers of prosecution and investigation were clearly separated, than in England.

CCRC In The Doghouse?

Fri, 06 May 2022 16:20:09 GMT

In this article, Bill Robertson explores allegations of CCRC failures in its review of the convictions to brother and sister, Paul and Rosemary Wiggin, under s.9 of the Animal Welfare Act (2006). It will not surprise readers of CCRC Watch that despite being offered evidence that undermined the prosecutions, the CCRC determined that it was not 'fresh' and should have been presented at trial or on appeal. Further, in response to the claim by the Wiggins that their evidence was not presented to the court, the CCRC determined that the non-presentation of this material would be seen by the Court as indicative of a legitimate tactical decision by the defence. Does this sound like the work of an independent miscarriages of justice 'Watchdog' or a criminal appeals lapdog?

The Runciman Commission almost certainly didn’t envisage the CCRC becoming involved in an alleged miscarriage of justice that emanates from a Magistrates Court involving a one-year conditional discharge levied against two dog owners. Nevertheless, this case raises serious issues about the working methods of the CCRC, and their failure to assist two siblings who alleged that they were wrongly convicted.

The CCRC are placed in the situation whereby they are considering prosecution evidence that is claimed to be based on fictional, i.e., perjured, accounts of events. As usual, in this type of case, the CCRC have not spoken directly with the complainants and have relied instead upon a desktop review of case papers. As ever, the CCRC have concluded that the prosecution was fair, the verdict was correct and there is no prospect of an appeal being successful. However, this is because the CCRC has sided with the prosecution and not taken the account of the complainants seriously.

This is a case where considerable evidence for the defence has, for whatever reasons, not been presented to the court and the defendants were advised to give ‘no comment’ interviews. As a result of poor legal advice and tactics, the defendants find that the CCRC takes the view that it is their fault that an inadequate defence was presented at trial, and it is now too late to do anything about it.

Rosemary and Paul Wiggin (sister and brother) have been trying to overturn a conviction dating from 2014 and may be victims of the now notorious RSCPA prosecution department which, following numerous complaints about overzealous prosecution, finally said that they would cease to prosecute cases directly in 2021, [i] although they continue to collect evidence and encourage the Crown Prosecution Service to bring cases to court and, it seems, continue to prosecute.

The Wiggin’s were convicted in a Magistrates Court of an offence that they say quite simply never took place; they claim there was no crime and no evidence of a crime. Following press releases by the RSPCA, the Wiggin’s were sent several death threats including one that threatened to burn their home down, making it unsafe for their elderly mother to remain at her home of over 30 years. As a result, her health deteriorated severely and eventually she passed away in hospital in February 2016 having never returned to her home.

The sentences were as follows:

1st July 2015 - Magistrates Court, Cannock & Burton on Trent

Rosemary Wiggin £1,000 costs,

+ 3-year conditional discharge,

+ disqualified keeping dogs 1 year

Paul Wiggin £7,000 costs,

+ 1 year condition discharge,

+ disqualified keeping dogs 1 year

On Appeal. Stafford Crown Court, 8th February 2016

Rosemary Wiggin - £1750.00 costs,

+ conditional discharge 3 years,

+ 3-year ban on keeping dogs

Paul Wiggin - £8,750 costs,

+ conditional discharge 3 years.,

+ 3-year ban on keeping dogs.

The Wiggin’s were charged with one offence contrary to S.9(1) the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 2006. The charge relates to the environment in which the dogs were kept and does not imply any cruelty to the animals. The allegations are in respect of 21 dogs and 8 puppies seized. Ms. Jayne Bashford, an RSPCA inspector, PC Simon Lawrence (5118) and Veterinary Surgeon Laura Hamilton MRCVS attended Rosemary’s house in Burntwood, Staffordshire. The RSPCA gained entry to the property without a warrant. The animals were seized under section 18(5) AWA 2006 on the basis of a written certificate signed by Laura Hamilton MRCVS. The dogs were then examined on the 31st of July 2014 by Laura Hamilton.

RSPCA investigators quite blatantly impersonate police officers, with a virtually identical uniform and ranks such as Inspector and Superintendent. The RSPCA have been particularly successful in getting the police to attend and facilitate illegal entry to properties; causing police officers to act illegally, including unlawful arrest. [ii]

The RSPCA had previously visited the premises and closed its investigation relating to Miss Wiggin only a few days before they Illegally seized the dogs. Just days after giving the premises a clean bill of health, Inspector Bashford claimed that the property was unsuitable. However, the case closure documentation from the RSPCA shows that there were NO concerns about the dogs or the property just a few weeks before the incident. This RSPCA document was not seen by the Court.

The Wiggins’ nightmare started on 31st July 2014 when the RSPCA visited Rosemary’s home. According to Rosemary, two RSPCA Inspectors were told that they could not come in she was busy arranging for a doctor to visit her mother who was suffering from dementia and was house ridden. Despite being told that they could not enter the house, Rosemary says that the two "officers" would not leave and gradually backed her into the house to gain entrance. Once they were inside, they refused to leave despite constant requests from Rosemary.

It is not known why the RSPCA arrived at the house. Neighbours on either side of Mr. and Miss Wiggin home wrote letters to the Court, which outline that there were no problems with smells etc. emanating from the premises; this is stark contradiction to the evidence of the RSPCA officers and indeed the vet Laura Hamilton who stated that they could smell the house from the footpath which is around 15 metres from the house. However, neither of the neighbours’ letters were submitted as evidence despite Mr. and Miss Wiggin asking for them to be.

According to the Wiggin’s a social worker then arrived and said she'd arranged to meet the RSPCA at the house and soon after the social worker arrived the RSPCA said they were taking the dogs away. A police officer, PC Lawrence, then arrived and entered the property without asking for permission and without a warrant, contrary to PACE requirements. [iii]

Rosemary says that PC Lawrence did not have a warrant nor seek permission to enter either the outside garden of the property nor the house itself. However, whilst on oath PC Lawrence stated he and the RSPCA were granted permission to enter by Rosemary Wiggin. However, this is demonstrably untrue as from her own video recording RSPCA officer Jayne Bashford is plainly seen entering the property without asking or seeking permission to do so.

The State of the House as alleged by the Prosecution.

The Prosecution alleged that:

On entry to the said premise, they were instantly aware of a powerful smell of ammonia which originated from urine. One witness, PC Lawrence, stated the smell was so strong that he had to leave the house temporarily because he felt nauseous.
Once inside they noticed both the evidence of past and present faeces in the downstairs rooms, hallway and the bedrooms upstairs including the stair carpet.
There were plates of dog food on the ground, which had white substance upon them which they took to be fly eggs.
In the main front room of the house was an elderly lady sitting in a chair.
There were many dogs crowded in the kitchen, which was in a very cluttered state.

The State of the Garden as alleged by the Prosecution.

They allege generally:

It was in a very cluttered state.
There was a strong smell of faeces and urine emanating from it.
The interior of one of the sheds smelt strongly of urine emanating from some carpeting placed there.
There were boxes stored there in such a way that they might cause a hazard to the dogs.
At the end of the garden there was a section fenced off that contained two female dogs and their puppies.
This area also contained a kennel-like construction whose interior was sopping wet.
They were few toys for the dogs to play with.
There was nowhere comfortable for the dogs to sit and rest.

State of the House as asserted by the Defendants

The kitchen was not unduly cluttered
The house either did not smell of urine/faeces or if there were any such smell, they have been greatly exaggerated by the prosecution witnesses. The source of any such might well be traced to their bedridden mother who suffered from incontinence and had to be attended to for that problem twice a day by a visiting carer. Rosemary Wiggin was left to dispose of the bags in the bin, which were emptied once a fortnight.
On that day Mrs Wiggin had only just returned from the shops buying fresh meat for the dogs which she showed to the RSPCA who confirmed they said that the dogs were being fed better than them.
She had not had time to do her usual tidy up before the RSPCA arrived.
There were no faeces anywhere in the house.
There was no residue urine anywhere in the house.

The state of the Garden as asserted by the defendants

The garden was cluttered, but entirely appropriate for the dogs to use for the limited purpose as their play/access area during the day (see below).
There were ample toys for them.
There were ample rest areas including their exclusive use of two loungers (one a double).
The garden was regularly cleaned of faeces and on the 31/7/14 there were only 3 discernible faeces in the garden on both the video and the stills taken which 21 adult dogs had regular access which shows the consistency of the cleaning operation usually done by Ms Wiggin.

There appears to be a fundamental and important misunderstanding by the RSPCA that the dogs were largely kept in the garden and spent the night there. The Wiggin’s say that this was completely untrue. None of the dogs ever spent a night in the garden but slept inside the house. The garden was used exclusively for as their play area. The dogs were regularly exercised on walks. This misapprehension was particularly important with regards to the puppies, which the RSPCA assumed were confined permanently to their fenced off section of the garden and lived in a small kennel-like structure, which was open to elements and the floor of which was damp when the RSPCA saw it that day due to the recent rain. This was completely refuted by the defendants who say the puppies were kept inside during the night.

After the dogs were seized an independent Vet, Colin J Vogel BVetMed, MRCVS, MCIArb with 30 years’ experience was asked to appraise the condition of the dogs. He reported:

On 31/7/2014 dogs were visually appraised by Ms. Hamilton MRCVS. She signed a S18 certificate. The dogs were seized by PC. Lawrence.
Later the same day the dogs were examined by Ms. Hamilton at her surgery.
A number of dogs may have had eye problems, although there is an unacceptable lack of detail in the clinical information so far disclosed to me. Such problems are not included in the wording of the single summons. They are common in the breed and related to the breed rather than the environment.
A number of dogs had umbilical hernias. Such defects are not in any way connected to the environment.
One dog, JEB 22, passed haemorrhagic faeces at the veterinary surgery. Again, at the time of writing no details of the clinical presentation have been disclosed. I have seen no suggestion that it required any investigation. There is certainly no evidence that this occurrence was in any way linked to the previous environment.
Although Ms. Hamilton suggests that 9 of the dogs were thin, in fact only four of them were below the normal weight range for the breed, and due to the poor identification, it is not clear whether these were mature adults (i.e., could have been puppies) and so would be expected to be within the normal range.

The Vet then continued, effectively demolishing the RSPCA case:

I have considered whether the hall, stairs and landing were safe. I have seen no evidence of any physical hazard that posed a danger to the dogs. I note the alleged presence of fly eggs, surprisingly not recorded photographically, but neither their existence nor their ingestion posed any actual risk to the dogs.
I have considered whether the kitchen was safe. It was cluttered, but no hazards such as broken glass, exposed electrical wires etc. were recorded contemporaneously or photographically.
I have considered whether the garden was safe. Again, there was a lot of clutter, but again no specific proven hazards.
I have considered whether the sheds were hazardous, but no specific hazards were identified in the one shed photographed.
I have considered the fenced off area. No specific hazards were noted contemporaneously.
There was reference to the presence of bones. These are a natural food source/toy for dogs rather than a hazard. It might conceivably be suggested that bones could splinter and pose a risk of injury, but no such hazard was recorded contemporaneously.
The test of whether an environment is realistically hazardous is whether it has had any adverse effect in the past. In this case despite such a large number of dogs, i.e., a large number of potential 'victims' of any hazards, I have seen no evidence disclosed of any recent injury as a result.
It is significant that no pools of urine were recorded contemporaneously in the house or the sheds.
It is significant that although Ms. Hamilton gives the impression that there were dog faeces everywhere this is not borne out photographically. Only in the garden - where it might be expected anyway - are any faeces recorded photographically. Considering that 29 dogs would be expected to produce on average at least 60 piles of faeces a day, and that when excited, as these dogs were reported to be during the visit by strangers, they would produce even more faeces, the absence of piles of faeces is remarkable (emphasis added).
Ms. Bashford suggests that faeces and/or hair had been ground into carpets, but it is unclear how closely she investigated to prove this. Nor was this recorded contemporaneously in her notebook.

Independent Vet Summary

A large number of small dogs were kept in various environments at the defendant's property. No actual hazards were reported in the environment. The level of faecal contamination was low.

On 17 April 2017, the Wiggins’ applied to the CCRC for a review of their conviction. Eighteen months later, on 19 September 2018, the CCRC informed them that their submission was being rejected.

The CCRC said:

“On 2 July 2015 at Burton-Upon-Trent Magistrates' Court, you were convicted of Animal Cruelty under Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, after failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the needs of the animals (dogs) you were responsible for were met. Namely, a safe clean environment, adequate protection from hazards and a clean, dry rest area. You were disqualified from keeping a dog for 12 months, given a three-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay a victim surcharge and costs totaling £1,015. It was alleged at trial that, when inspected, your property was found to be unsuitable for the large number of dogs (29) kept at your home. You appealed against your conviction by way of a rehearing at the Crown Court. On 8 February 2016, the Crown Court reaffirmed your Magistrates' Court conviction and increased the length of disqualification to three years and increased costs to a total of £2,750”.

The crux of the matter is that the suitability of the house and garden for keeping 29 dogs is disputed and, indeed, the independent veterinary surgeon Mr. Vogel, expressed no concerns whatsoever about the conditions.

Therefore, the court has sided with the RSPCA on the issue. It should perhaps be noted that the house and garden were actually very clean given the number of dogs present and, in July, there was no issue with any rest areas being dry.

The entire case seems to be based on the RSPCA view that no domestic house and garden can possibly house 29 dogs in safety and comfort, but this seems unproven based upon what we know. Yes, 29 dogs is a lot of dogs, but the neighbours had not complained of either noise or smell and only three small pieces of dog excrement were found in the garden, an astonishingly small amount.

Evidence: The CCRC view:

The Wiggins’ feel that evidence for their defence was not presented to the court, while the CCRC says that an adequate defence was provided to the court. The CCRC said:

“You claim that various photographs, and multiple statements, were not put before the courts. These include letters from your mother's doctor, a carer, neighbours, social services, and dog groomers. Together, these present a vastly different portrayal of the condition of your home and of the dogs, than that presented by the prosecution.

The CCRC observes that the time to adduce such evidence was at trial and/or on appeal and that the failure to do so may be viewed negatively by the court in the event of a further rehearing.

Further, the CCRC observes your claim that the statements were written to the court, but not presented. In such circumstances, the CCRC considers that the non-presentation of this material would be seen by the Court as indicative of a legitimate tactical decision by the defence.

The CCRC has assessed the submitted photographs (showing three dogs) and does not consider that these raise a real possibility that a further rehearing of your case would result in a different outcome. This is because photographs of all the dogs, with close-up images of various concerns, were presented at trial and on appeal, where it was open to you to highlight those photographs that you considered assisted the defence or undermined the prosecution. It has never been suggested that the images presented at trial and appeal were fabricated.”

Thus, the CCRC fell back on what are very familiar arguments for rejecting the Wiggins’ request for their case to be reconsidered. The case is depressingly typical to anyone familiar to the approach of the CCRC and the appeal court. The Wiggins were punished by the appeal court with an increased sentence and increased fines. The CCRC has second-guessed the likelihood of any further consideration of the case by the appeal court and dismissed the possibility. The CCRC also said that they would strenuously defend themselves should the Wiggins seek a judicial review.

In the meantime, the Wiggins continue to suffer from what appears to be a vindictive RSPCA prosecution.

Rosemary commented:

“My dogs were/are my world, the hope of getting them home is keeping me going. Most were senior when taken/stolen illegally, my eldest shih tzu Chelsea was born on the 5th of Dec 2005 she was also grieving for my eldest tzu her best friend who died 6 months earlier. I told Bashford this, but she just shrugged her shoulders. It's killing me, I’m not the same person I once was, I was happy go lucky, but now I have break downs and cry most of the time, I have high blood pressure and PTSD because of it, I have flash backs and nightmares, where I wake up screaming, it’s horrid, I just want them home my arms have been aching and longing to hold them and cuddle them for so long. 3 small piles of poo in the garden by 21 adults and 8 puppies that’s all there was and none in the house, they said the hall carpet was grounded in dog mess but their own pictures proved it was laminate flooring with no poo in sight. My health is so bad now and Pauls too because what happened. That cop spoke to me like shit that day and he got away with all his illegal wrong doings, the IOPC covered it all up, there is not anything in police files to say that day ever happened, that day has been wiped off police records like it never happened we asked for extensive searches, but they still say there’s nothing of that day on police records. That cop was the main witness and the perjury he committed is unreal, they all committed perjury, but the judges just turned blind eyes, the corruption is very deep.”

References

[i] There are clear similarities with a case of a farmer, prosecuted by the RSPCA, found not guilty, but out of pocket by £70,000 to clear his name. See Unlawful arrests and the RSPCA – Iain Gould- Actions Against the Police Solicitor [ii] Unlawful arrests and the RSPCA – Iain Gould- Actions Against the Police Solicitor [iii] 1 Subject to paragraph 5.4, if it is proposed to search premises with the consent of a person entitled to grant entry the consent must, if practicable, be given in writing on the Notice of Powers and Rights before the search. The officer must make any necessary enquiries to be satisfied the person is in a position to give such consent. (See Notes 5A and 5B.) 5.2 Before seeking consent the officer in charge of the search shall state the purpose of the proposed search and its extent. This information must be as specific as possible, particularly regarding the articles or persons being sought and the parts of the premises to be searched. The person concerned must be clearly informed they are not obliged to consent, that any consent given can be withdrawn at any time, including before the search starts or while it is underway, and anything seized may be produced in evidence. If at the time the person is not suspected of an offence, the officer shall say this when stating the purpose of the search. 5.3 An officer cannot enter and search or continue to search premises under paragraph 5.1 if consent is given under duress or withdrawn before the search is completed. 5.4 It is unnecessary to seek consent under paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 if this would cause disproportionate inconvenience to the person concerned.

Bill Robertson has researched alleged miscarriages of justice for around 20 years and advised on several cases, including the most recent application to the CCRC by Jeremy Bamber. He serves as Deputy Editor of CCRC Watch.

Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.

We Stand With Keith Wilson

Wed, 30 Mar 2022 09:44:51 GMT

Virginia Animal Owners Alliance

Today is the day that Keith Wilson was scheduled to begin his trial in Winchester, Virginia. The media is alive with the fact that he accepted a no contest plea deal. It's easy to point the finger and jump on the bandwagon if you don't know the facts or history of the case. The public assumes that some justification MUST EXIST for the State prosecution of Keith Wilson and that all of this time and money would not have been spent if some crime had not been committed. Now that he accepted a deal, his enemies feel vindicated and his case is once more national news. Some of us, however, know there is more to the story. We have spent hours in the courtroom and have watched the drama unfold since 2019. We are also aware that the ACLU, the CATO Institute, and others have written extensively about the coercive nature of the plea bargain. In contrast, Michelle Welch (who directs the Animal Law Unit and was prosecuting Keith Wilson) has previously stated that the plea deal is "exactly" what justice looks like to her.

The Keith Wilson story matters to every animal owner in America whether they realize it yet or not. Keith's decision to plead no contest does NOT change the facts of what happened to him or cleanse the Animal Law Unit of their reckless and harmful behavior.

To those who say the raid and seizure was about saving the animals, we would remind them of the macaques that were recklessly euthanized (without being tested) on the recommendation of Dr. Ernesto Dominguez. Secondly, a raid is a highly traumatic situation for the animals involved as they are suddenly confronted by strangers and forcefully removed from their homes. A seizure should not be the first option of authorities. In addition, the fact that the most valuable animals were taken and those of lesser value were left behind should raise questions in the mind of every animal lover.

Virginia's animal care laws have been quietly changed over the years and the change has not been a positive one. Owners have lost the right to decide what is best for their animal. They can be charged if authorities believe they did not euthanize their pet soon enough. It is a crime if your dog's water bowl freezes overnight (even if your dog is in perfect health and you promptly change the water in the morning). You can be held responsible for the feral cat that hides under your porch if it is in less than perfect health--you are considered its owner! Taking an animal to the vet for help is another opportunity for someone to report you and authorities to arrest you. Virginia has the first Animal Law Unit in the country and it appears eager to make a name for itself.

Why isn't the average Virginian aware of this? The law is only used in a selective and arbitrary way. These situations are often kept quiet. If they are reported in the media, many facts are left out. The average citizen does not realize what is happening until it happens to them or someone they know.

The truth of the matter is that Keith should have NEVER been prosecuted. He was practicing common animal husbandry and any concerns authorities had could have been remedied without such heavy-handed actions. It is a common husbandry practice to fill a water trough and not fill it again until it gets low. It is a common husbandry practice to only have the vet look at the sick animal and not the others. It is a common husbandry practice to allow hay to run low in a dry lot, before it is replenished. But ALL of these things were used against Keith as though they were criminal acts. The raid team used water bowls and common maladies such as bumblefoot, obesity, and parasites as their excuse to seize the animals they wanted. Keith was charged with 46 counts over minor issues and was facing years in jail as though he was a murderer. This was excessive. It was malicious. This prosecution should have never happened in the United States of America.

Keith was denied due process and treated guilty until proven innocent. The investigation was initially started by PETA and the suspicions of Deputy Richard Samuels were later used to obtain the search warrant. Actual fact-finding was ignored. On the day of the raid, representatives from PETA and HSUS were present. Deputy Richard Samuels testified on the stand that they were not there, but the FOIA document from the game department proves otherwise! Keith's seizure hearing was held in traffic court, but his appeal bond was set at $300,000.00 in cash. He had passed a USDA inspection shortly before he was raided, but his USDA inspector was prevented from testifying and his USDA inspection reports were deemed irrelevant. The members of the raid team broke both State and Federal law in carrying out the raid of the property and the confiscation of the animals. They argue that it's about the "totality of the evidence", but why did the Commonwealth's witnesses testify about water bowls, obesity, and parasites if these details were irrelevant? The fact is that each of these elements were used to fabricate a case against Keith Wilson.

How have we learned these facts? By sitting in the courtroom.

At Keith's pre-trial hearing on March 14, 2022, we learned that the Commonwealth obtained a warrant for another address THAT THEY DID NOT SERVE. We learned that although the allegation was that the tiger had no water, the attached den which could provide both shade and water was not mentioned in the affidavit. In regards to the hoofstock's dry lot, Deputy Richard Samuels admitted on the stand that he can't always tell the difference between straw and hay. If there were concerns about the amount of food or the presence of water, why didn't Deputy Richard Samuel's talk to one of the zoo staff? He testified that he does not "break cover." Let's remember that we are not talking about drug dealing or human trafficking. We're talking about a family zoo where parents brought their children to have a fun day with the animals. There was no need for him to hide. He should have been required to learn the facts FIRST.

Certain statements that Michelle Welch makes in the courtroom shock animal owners whenever they are repeated. On March 14, 2022, we heard such a statement. Michelle told Judge Alexander Iden that it is TACTIC of animal abusers to only point the veterinarian to the animals they want them to see. Keith's attorney argued that this is a common tactic of ANYONE WHO OWNS AN ANIMAL.

For those who did not attend a courtroom hearing, there are still certain things you can pick up in the media that reveal the level of discrimination Keith has been dealing with since day one.

For example, the Winchester Star is broadcasting the fact that Keith's camels had parasites, because their grain was fed to them by putting piles on the ground. Since Keith is not going to trial, the general public may never know how he would respond to this allegation. However, let's say that this is true. Is it a crime to feed livestock on the bare ground by putting grain into piles? If it is, should every farmer be reported and arrested if he chooses to feed his cattle this way? What about livestock that graze in a field? Can they not pick up worm eggs off the ground while they graze?

As for the presence of parasites, we would like to see an animal owner who has NEVER had to contend with these common freeloaders. Keith's vet testified at the seizure hearing in regards to the care he was providing to the animals at the zoo. Most members of the public do not own camels and do not know that camelids are highly susceptible to certain drugs. This can make them more difficult to treat compared to other livestock. Also, there are only so many dewormers on the market and the parasites will become resistant to the drugs if they are used too frequently. Parasites are a constant challenge for many livestock owners. Is the presence of parasites in an animal a crime in Virginia? Are we going to start investigating everyone who brings a fecal sample to the Virginia Department of Agriculture? Are we going to question local veterinarians about their clients? If not, why not? Laws are only laws if they apply to everyone.

Keith had some parrots who pulled their feathers. The mud hole for the pigs was deemed too small. The bears were "pear bears" and lacked muscle tone. The diets weren't right. The enrichment wasn't rotated frequently enough.

Michelle Welch has previously stated that she likens animals to children, but can you imagine if parents were suddenly labeled as abusive over their child's behavioral issue, obesity, diet, or rotation of toys? There would be public outrage! Animal owners are being micromanaged by the Animal Law Unit. These individuals are holding themselves up as the sole authority on animal care. This is wrong and must be stopped if animal ownership is to survive in Virginia.

No doubt, Keith will always have critics who believe that everything that was done to him was justified. Unless they become the victim of the Animal Law Unit, they may never open their eyes. But legitimate questions remain. Under the plea deal, Keith will have increased inspections. Why couldn't this have been the first option of the State? Compare the Envigo facility to Wilson's Wild Animal Park. The first was given an ability to cure. The second was instantly put out of business. What made the difference? Does the big guy matter more than the little guy?

The next time your animal flips its water bowl or makes a mess of its food, think of Keith Wilson. The next time you wonder if your pet is gaining weight, think of Keith Wilson. The next time you take your SICK animal to the vet and leave the healthy pets at home, think of Keith Wilson. If it makes you angry that the government wants to micromanage your every decision, turn your anger into action. Help us bring reform to Virginia.

And in case anyone was wondering... we STILL stand with Keith Wilson!

Jilly Cooper alerted RSPCA over pensioner's sanctuary.

Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:09:23 GMT

An elderly woman who devoted her life to animals was charged with cruelty after an RSPCA raid on her sanctuary instigated by novelist Jilly Cooper.

Norma Clutterbuck, who is believed to be in her 80s, was arrested in July last year after a team of RSPCA officers and police - accompanied by Cooper, her son and a vet - went to the Tethers End sanctuary, in Leeds.

She pleaded guilty at Leeds Magistrates' Court to four charges of causing unnecessary suffering to two foxes and two marmoset monkeys.

The court heard that the raid came after novelist Cooper, the sanctuary's patron, received complaints at a book signing in the city about the state of the animals. She contacted the RSPCA.

Mr Tony Kelbrick, prosecuting for the RSPCA, said most of the animals, including horses, donkeys and numerous dogs, were in a reasonable condition.

But when the team went into a box room in the house they found four foxes, four marmosets, two African grey parrots and a cockatoo in what an RSPCA inspector described as "a disgusting condition".

Mr Kelbrick said there was no ventilation, and the floor was littered with excreta and stale food. Vets concluded that several of the animals were unwell and most were unhappy, he said.

But he added: "The findings of these vets shows that the animals had suffered unnecessarily, but what they do not show and what is not put forward or suggested is that there was any deliberate act of cruelty."

Mr Gerald Lumley, defending, said Clutterbuck had devoted her life to animals and took creatures in when no-one else would.

He read letters from welishers criticising Cooper and other "do-gooders" who had never visited the sanctuary.

He said Clutterbuck fed the animals in the room well and tried her best. He added: "She is the last person in the world to be deliberately cruel to an animal."

Stipendiary magistrate Mr Graham Manchester conditionally discharged Clutterbuck for two years.

She was ordered to pay pounds 1,000 costs and disqualified for life from owning wild mammals and birds, reptiles and all exotic mammals and birds. She will still be able to run the sanctuary.

Article from the times

Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:52:26 GMT

Dogs may be man’s best friend, but the British are also a nation of cat lovers — so there was widespread shock at images of the footballer Kurt Zouma kicking and slapping one of his cats.

The 27-year-old West Ham and France defender issued an apology, saying that he was “deeply sorry”, and insisting that the cats at his home in Essex were “loved and cherished”. Though his manager still selected him to play, the club fined Zouma £250,000 — two weeks’ wages — and donated the money to an animal charity.

The RSPCA confiscated his cats and more than 300,000 people signed a petition calling for the footballer to be prosecuted. Essex police confirmed that “urgent inquiries” were under way in conjunction with the RSPCA.

The case has put a spotlight on the charity, which has since its foundation in 1824 been the body that prosecutes most people charged with animal welfare offences. It came into existence before the modern police force or Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

It now undertakes private prosecutions in 85 per cent of cases brought in relation to cruelty to animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Its success rate is high, but figures from the charity suggest that the number of prosecutions it undertakes is falling. In 2019 its prosecutions resulted in 1,432 convictions in the magistrates’ and crown courts — a success rate of nearly 94 per cent. While in 2020 it secured 633 convictions, with a success rate of slightly more than 90 per cent.

The RSPCA justifies its prosecutorial activity on the basis that it fills a gap in the provision of public service, meets its charitable objectives and is an experienced prosecutor.

Criticisms prompted the charity to commission an independent review of its prosecution role in 2014, conducted by Stephen Wooler. In response to the review’s 33 recommendations, the RSPCA committed to make changes within 18 months.

However, in 2016 MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs committee criticised its slow progress in implementing the reforms. The committee also concluded that the combination of its investigative, campaigning and fundraising activities gave rise to “a conflict of interest” and recommended that it should withdraw from acting as a prosecutor of first resort where there are statutory bodies with a duty to carry out the role.

In 2020 the justice committee’s inquiry into private prosecutions received submissions that were critical of the RSPCA’s prosecutorial activities. The Countryside Alliance suggested that it was inappropriate for the RSPCA to remain the principal prosecutor of animal welfare offences, and John Goodwin, a defence solicitor at Cohen Cramer Solicitors, highlighted concerns over the way it carried out its role.

Defending itself, the RSPCA says that it follows the guidance set out in the CPS code for Crown prosecutors and applies the same two tests — sufficient evidence and public interest. It has also put in place additional safeguards to ensure transparency, review and redress. The RSPCA also joined the Private Prosecution Alliance, which states that it is committed to uphold high standards of investigations and disclosure, and follows the code of private prosecutors.

A year ago, the charity announced that it planned to stop prosecuting, continuing only with investigations. A spokeswoman explains that its new strategy was the result of “a number of changes to society and legislation and the wider world in which we operate”. Changes included the increasing complexity of cases, with many involving organised criminal gangs and fraud.

Passing the prosecutor role to the CPS, says the charity, frees up its resources to focus on its rescue, investigation and care work where it can make the most difference to animals.

Last summer the law changed to increase the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years — a move that increased the charity’s desire to hand over the role.

However, a year later the RSPCA is still prosecuting and says that the transfer is unlikely to happen quickly because of the government’s focus on the pandemic and Brexit. An RSPCA spokeswoman says that discussions about the handover are continuing with the CPS, the attorney-general’s office and other relevant officials.

She says there are “no agreed timelines” and that the charity has made a commitment “not to step back from our prosecution work until the resources and expertise are in place elsewhere”.

A CPS spokesman said: “We are aware the RSPCA is reviewing its prosecution function,” adding, “any proposed change to legislation in terms of which investigative bodies are able to refer cases to us is a matter for the government.” Transferring the responsibility for prosecuting to the CPS, he said, would require an amendment to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 or an assignment from the attorney-general.

Private prosecutions have come in for wider criticism in the wake of the Post Office scandal. A public inquiry into the prosecutions brought by the Post Office, which led to the wrongful convictions of hundreds of sub-postmasters and mistresses, began this week.

Elsewhere, a judge criticised a law firm and an animal rights charity for unfairly bringing unmeritorious private prosecutions against individuals regarding alleged offences around the sale of puppies.

Stuart Nolan, the managing director of DPP Law, a national criminal defence firm, says transferring the responsibility would put an “additional burden” on the “overstretched” CPS.

He suggests that compared with prosecuting murder, rape and terrorism cases, “animals would be low in the pecking order”, which would lead to a reduction in prosecutions and undermine justice.

Another section 9 only prosecution

Thu, 13 Jan 2022 17:16:09 GMT

Today we see another prosecution brought by the RSPCA for section 9 offence only again, namely failing to provide a suitable environment, following a kitten accidentally falling into a bath of hot water.

What good is this going to do for animal welfare in the long run, vets reporting clients following accidents.

Or will it be detrimental to the welfare of animals as people become afraid to take animals to vets following accidents.

Hull man in court after kitten suffers serious burns in scalding hot bath

'It was heartbreaking to see her in such a state'

By Gregory Ford Reporter

05:00, 13 JAN 2022

A Hull man has been banned from keeping animals after his eight-week-old kitten suffered serious burns when she fell into a scalding hot bath.

Aiden John Reece Malone, 28, of Owbridge Court, took his kitten Morgana to the PDSA vets after she suffered burns to her paws and abdomen.

RSPCA Inspector Jilly Dickinson attended the vets following a call about the condition of Morgana. She described how the tiny kitten had suffered extensive burn wounds to her legs, paws and underside.

Inspector Dickinson said: “Morgana was in great discomfort, despite being on pain relief. She could not sit or lie down properly and was crouching in a very uncomfortable, unnatural position.

"Her eyes kept drooping shut as if almost falling asleep but then she was nodding back awake. When being moved or touched, she would squirm and vocalise until she was no longer being touched.

"She was wrapped in a blanket to stabilise her position and, whilst resting her head on the blanket, she seemed to fall asleep.

"However, she appeared to be very tired but unable to find a position which made the pain and discomfort more bearable, despite the medication she was on. It was heartbreaking to see her in such a state."

Malone told the court that the kitten had got underneath a gap in the bathroom door and had subsequently fallen into the bath which he had left unattended.

The court heard how the vet report stated that: “In my opinion, the needs of Morgana have not been met to the extent required by good practice due to the person responsible for the welfare of this animal failing to provide a suitable environment.”

Malone said he was an inexperienced cat owner and he had taken the cat to the vet on three separate occasions as he was concerned about her condition.

He accepted that he did not take such reasonable steps to provide a suitable environment for Morgana to live by failing to ensure the door to the bathroom was secured enough to avoid Morgana ever entering the bathroom without his knowledge.

He also explained that he had since changed the bathroom door to ensure a similar incident would not happen again.

Malone pleaded guilty to failing to provide a suitable environment for the pet, when he appeared at Beverley Magsitrates' Court on December 20.

He was sentenced to a two year conditional discharge and ordered to pay £350 in costs as well as a victim surcharge of £21.

He was also banned from keeping all animals for two years and he cannot appeal this disqualification.

Morgana was signed over into the care of the RSPCA where she has been receiving treatment. She will now be re-homed.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/hull-man-court-after-kitten-6483368?fbclid=IwAR3lqPlI20NixQxJ4gJS9m0_vnOE7ZKe13KOPLNrwiO_cJss92FMHD0rxY8

Is this the first case brought by the RSPCA after increase in sentences came into force.

Mon, 27 Dec 2021 20:12:42 GMT

Below is the first case we have seen where the 5 year sentencing would be applicable if there had been an offence under section 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, however it appears that in this case the RSPCA have opted to prosecute section 9 offences only, despite there being reference to one bird having an injured leg.

Instead of the usual prosecution of unnecessary suffering under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for the duck with the injured leg (or health issue as referred to in the article), the RSPCA claim their early intervention has resulted in just one bird having health issues.

Had there been any charge under section 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the sentence could have been upto 5 years in jail and an option to be heard at crown court instead of the magistrates court.

Offences under section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 were not increased to 5 years, they remain at 6 months, so are summary only, which means they can only be heard in the magistrates court.

We will be monitoring closely.

The horrific conditions cruel

Northumberland couple kept

23 ducks and chickens in

Douglas Oliphant and Michelle Wilkinson had the birds, as well as two cats and a dog, in plastic crates and rabbit hutches.

Cramped in tiny, faeces-covered cages inside a small Northumberland home, these were the conditions a couple forced their 23 ducks and chickens to live in.

Douglas Oliphant and Michelle Wilkinson kept the birds in plastic recycling crates covered with netting and rabbit hutches in their two-bedroom, mid-terraced house in Lynemouth .

In one overcrowded crate alone, six cockerels were being forced to live, North Tyneside Magistrates' Court was told.

The pair also kept a dog and two cats in "inadequately small" cages, which didn't have a clean supply of fresh drinking water nor suitable bedding, prosecutors said.

All the animals were seized after an inspection by the RSPCA and Oliphant, 57, and Wilkinson, 54, were each charged with three counts of failing to ensure animal welfare.

The couple, of Dalton Avenue, in Lynemouth, have now been banned from keeping fowl after they pleaded guilty to all three offences.

Alex Bousfield, prosecuting on behalf of the RSPCA, said the animals were seized on July 27 this year.

"This is a case that involves quite a large number of animals, 26 in total, all housed in quite a small dwelling - a mid-terraced, two-bedroom house, which was entirely unsuitable for the occupation of these animals", Mr Bousfield continued.

"It was so crowded and it was not suitable and not healthy for the defendants either.

"It was not suitable for the animals or the defendants to live in. RSPCA inspectors intervened at an early stage so, thankfully, only one duck had any health issues and that was something to do with a leg and not related to its housing conditions.

"Six cockerels were being kept in a recycling tub with netting on the top and other birds were being kept in rabbit hutches.

"Clearly, they were being fed and watered as there were no problems with the animals' weight."

The court heard that the chickens and ducks were covered in their own faeces, as were the cages they were being kept in.

Mr Bousfield said Oliphant and Wilkinson had not been deliberately cruel but rather didn't have the knowledge or capability to look after the animals.

Mr Harrison, defending, said the retired couple, who already owned the cats and dog, had bought the birds in a bid to make a "better and more simple" life for themselves.

He told the court that Oliphant was intending to keep them in his allotment but hadn't got it ready in time.

"With a mixture of naivety and poor planning, the birds grew and their needs grew much quicker than anticipated," Mr Harrison added.

The court heard that the pair, who had been living in "hoarding conditions", had now cleaned out their home.

They were each given a 12-month conditional discharge and were banned from keeping fowl for 12 months.

The couple will, however, be allowed to keep the two cats and the dog.

Sentencing them, District Judge Gary Garland said he was satisfied Oliphant and Wilkinson had been reckless rather than deliberate.

He added: "The real uncomfortableness and lack of care was to the birds because you had them crowded in cages that were far too small and were not kept very clean, so they were rolling in their own mess and pecking at each other and not having an easy time of it."

Oilphant and Wilkinson were also ordered to pay £300 in costs.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/horrific-conditions-cruel-northumberland-couple-22482646?fbclid=IwAR0UG3tAe6iCc6_pbVgFd61Akg3zxjH-nde2FxbTlnN02RBUlMEHgQAslBw

Charity’s private prosecution ‘perverting the course of public justice’

Thu, 09 Dec 2021 23:34:51 GMT

By Catherine Baksi 4 November 2021

specialist law firm and animal rights charity may have been engaged in 'systemic fraud' and 'perverting the course of justice', by bringing abusive and unfounded private prosecutions, a judge has said.

The honorary recorder of Manchester, Judge Nicholas Dean QC, this week stayed proceedings against Alex-Kaye Carrigan and Elisha Brown, who were separately charged with unlawfully selling pets, stating that the prosecutions were an abuse of the court’s process.

In a damning ruling, the judge said the prosecutions brought by the charity Animal Protection Services (APS) and Liverpool law firm Parry & Welch, had been brought and pursued 'with no evidential basis' and 'for wholly improper reasons and purposes'. The charity and law firm had used a 'perverse interpretation' of the law to bring charges in cases where 'no one could properly conclude that there were realistic prospects for conviction'.

The decisions to charge Carrigan and Brown, said the judge, 'were profoundly flawed, so flawed that it requires me to consider why the decisions were taken'.

Sitting at Manchester Crown Court, Judge Dean concluded that the prosecutions had been brought to punish the defendants 'regardless' of whether they had committed any offence, and to recover 'grossly exaggerated' fees.

The judge said that the evidence in both cases consisted of 'near identical' two-page witness statements made by an employee of APS, which he said 'must have been copied and pasted from other statements', and short documentary exhibits downloaded from the internet.

Parry & Welch claimed £12,769 costs for the two cases from central funds. Their costs schedule included £502.50 for a two-hour review of one case, and £290 for a one-hour conference between the solicitor and witness. Judge Dean branded the costs schedules 'works of almost pure fiction'.

The court heard that the charity has brought between 80 and 100 private prosecutions this year alleging similar offences, and that many of the cases had been conducted by Parry & Welch. Most had remained in the magistrate’s court where the judge said defendants, some without legal representation, may have pleaded guilty.

Where defendants elected trial in the Crown court, Parry & Welch were instructed to withdraw proceedings.

In the cases of Carrigan and Brown, Judge Dean declined to allow the prosecutions to be withdrawn. He said the withdrawal of proceedings in the Crown court 'provides clear evidence' that the proceedings were brought for 'improper motives'.

The judge said the charity and firm sought to withdraw the prosecutions 'to try to achieve swift recovery of fees' and to 'avoid judicial scrutiny of their decisions and actions'.

He accused APS and Parry & Welch of 'serious misconduct', which he said was an 'affront to the conscience of the criminal justice system'.

The judge referred an earlier ruling in which a judge at Preston Crown Court had stayed a prosecution brought by APS, using a different law firm, due to the 'improper financial motive' for bring the case. 'The concern I have is that APS, sometimes in conjunction with Messrs. Parry and Welch, may have been involved in systematic fraud and in perverting the course of public justice.'

He said individuals may have pleaded guilty to offences as a consequence of being misled by APS and Parry & Welch, or due a lack of scrutiny of their actions.

Issues raised in the cases required 'a full and holistic investigation'. The judge said he would be sending his ruling to the attorney general, Greater Manchester Police, the Charities Commission and to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

James Parry, a partner at Parry & Welch declined to comment.

Jacob Lloyd, director of APS, told the Gazette that the charity 'strongly denies any allegation that it has been involved in a fraud' and is considering an appeal. Lloyd said the charity is also considering a civil claim against Parry & Welch.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/charitys-private-prosecution-perverting-the-course-of-public-justice/5110429.article

Criminal past of shamed charity boss.

Catherine Baksi | Jonathan Ames , Legal Editor

Wednesday November 10 2021, 12.01am, The Times

Lawyers involved in a case brought in September claimed that the charity and its lawyers have made hundreds of thousands of pounds from public funds by bringing private prosecutions against animal breede

The head of an animal charity that was lambasted by a judge for bringing unfair private prosecutions changed his name after being convicted of a criminal offence, The Times can reveal.

Lawyers involved in a case brought in September by Animal Protection Services , which is run by Jacob Lloyd, claimed that the charity and its lawyers, Parry & Welch, have made hundreds of thousands of pounds from public funds by bringing private prosecutions against animal breeders.

That case collapsed after lawyers for the defendant convinced the judge that the private prosecution was “an affront to the criminal justice system”.

It preceded a ruling last week at Manchester crown court, where Judge Nicholas Dean QC accused the charity and Parry & Welch, known as Paws, of pursuing a private prosecution that had “no evidential basis” and for “wholly improper reasons”.

Lloyd and James Parry, a partner at Paws, have denied any wrongdoing.

Lloyd has acknowledged that he changed his name from Jake Knight after being convicted. He said that he did not do so as a result of the conviction, but “for my own reasons”.

Lloyd said the conviction related to “rescuing animals years ago”.

This article was amended on November 11, 2021

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/criminal-past-shamed-charity-boss-t7ctk97xf

Judge attacks animal charity for pursuing pet cruelty charges

Scores of pet owners may have suffered miscarriages of justice after being unfairly prosecuted by an animal charity and its lawyers, a judge has...

November 08 2021, 12.01am

Jonathan Ames, Legal Editor | Catherine Baksi

Claws out for private prosecutions The ‘misconduct’ of Animal Protection Services has led to calls for protection

Catherine Baksi

Thursday November 25 2021, 12.01am, The Times

Last year the RSPCA secured 633 convictions involving 320 people, with a conviction rate of 90 per cent

Last year a Commons committee told government ministers that more effective safeguards were needed to ensure the fairness of private prosecutions.

Experts now say that a failure to heed that warning has allowed individuals and organisations — driven by private interests — to continue misusing the right to bring private prosecutions, wasting taxpayers’ money and causing distress to those charged in the process.

This month, a judge at Manchester crown court ruled that scores of dog owners and breeders may have after being unfairly prosecuted by the charity Animal Protection Services (APS) and its law firm Parry & Welch Solicitors.

Judge Nicholas Dean QC said that the firm and charity may have fraudulently received taxpayers’ money to bring private prosecutions in up to 100 cases over the past year. The judge concluded that the prosecutions had been brought to punish the defendants “regardless” of whether they had committed any offence and to recover “grossly exaggerated” fees.

He suggested that Jacob Lloyd, the “prominent animal rights activist” and the director of APS, was on a “personal crusade” and that the law firm “closely identify in their outlook” with the charity’s objectives.

Referring the case to the attorney-general, police, Charity Commission and Solicitors Regulation Authority for further investigation of the “egregious misconduct”, Dean said that the two “may have been involved in systematic fraud and in perverting the course of public justice”.

APS and Parry & Welch denied any wrongdoing. APS told The Times that it was considering an appeal, while the law firm declined to comment further.

In the wake of the Post Office’s wrongful prosecution for fraud of hundreds of sub-postmasters, MPs on the justice committee said that private prosecutions should be subject to the same standards as public prosecutions.

Accepting that private prosecutions play an important role, particularly given the funding constraints on the police and prosecution agencies, the committee said that concerns over prosecutions brought by the Post Office and the RSPCA suggest that “it is not sufficient to rely on the courts alone to identify and remedy problematic prosecutorial practices”.

To avoid the development of a parallel system where the public interest, accountability and transparency are secondary to private interests, the committee’s report called for a binding code of standards, enforced by a regulator. It recommended that all defendants against whom private prosecutions are brought should be notified by the court of their right to have cases reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The report also recommended that organisations that conduct frequent private prosecutions should be subject to inspections. Where one is found to be misusing the power, the right ought to be removed, or consent from the attorney-general or the director of public prosecutions must be granted before initiating cases.

In March the government agreed to review the funding arrangements for private prosecutions and to establish a central register to keep track of all those brought in England and Wales. But so far no changes have been implemented and, although there is evidence that the number of private prosecutions is growing, there is no reliable data recording the volume of cases.

Sir Bob Neill, the chairman of the justice committee, says that the APS cases “reinforce the need for stronger safeguards to prevent the abuse of private prosecutions” and that the government must implement the recommendations suggested last year.

Carrie Gilgun, a partner at Forbes Solicitors in Preston who acted for defendants prosecuted by APS, says that private prosecutors should have to satisfy the same evidential and public interest tests as the CPS to prevent cases without merit going to court. She blames magistrates for not sufficiently scrutinising applications before allowing cases to proceed and says that in a single day one magistrates’ court issued summonses for nearly 30 cases.

Christopher Howitt, a barrister at Three Stone, agrees that more protections are needed. “One problem with private prosecutions is that judicial scrutiny doesn’t kick in until the crown court, so you could technically have someone trying to take a punt in the magistrates’ court.”

Howitt says that, in principle, the high cost of bringing private prosecutions guards against “cowboys and opportunists”. Gilgun, however, argues that the fact that a private prosecutor can benefit financially by bringing a case to court, regardless of its merits, increases the risk of fraud.

The RSPCA has brought prosecutions since 1824, and criticism of its conduct was raised in 2014 in the Wooler report and two years later by the environment, food and rural affairs committee for its failure fully to implement the earlier recommendations.

Last year the RSPCA secured 633 convictions involving 320 people, with a conviction rate of 90 per cent. John Goodwin of Cohen Cramer Solicitors says that there should be greater regulation of the charity’s prosecutions, which he argues result in too many animal owners being criminalised.

At its own request, the RSPCA is discussing a transfer of its role as a prosecutor with the attorney-general’s office and the CPS. Although the charity continues to prosecute cases based on animal welfare legislation.

In 2019 the Private Prosecutors’ Association produced a voluntary code of practice. Its chairwoman, Annabel Kerley, a chartered accountant and a partner at StoneTurn, says that curtailing the right to bring private prosecutions would reduce the “ability of victims to access justice and potentially send the wrong message to would-be criminals”.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: “We will consider this judgment and have already accepted recommendations to limit the costs private prosecutors can recover.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/claws-out-for-private-prosecutions-smdnnwh3l?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter_121&utm_medium=email&utm_content=121_16350819&CMP=TNLEmail_6186412_16350819_121

Asked by Lord Elton To ask Her Majesty's Government

Thu, 09 Dec 2021 21:29:39 GMT

Asked by Lord Elton

To ask Her Majesty's Government under what authority, controls and supervision and in what circumstances officers of a charity are empowered to

(a) remove a pet from its owner's care,

(b) keep it in their own care,

(d) refuse to inform the owner of the place in which it is kept. [HL2038]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham):

Charities have no power under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to seize pet animals. The power of seizure can be exercised only by a police officer, an officer of a local authority or Animal Health. If the person who was responsible for the animal has concerns regarding its welfare following seizure then it is open to him to apply to the court for an order which could, among other things, grant him custody over the animal. Anyone aggrieved by the removal of an animal under the Animal Welfare Act may appeal to a magistrates' court for its return. The location of a seized animal may be withheld if it is considered that there is a danger that the animal may be stolen back.

https://jamesmarchington.blogspot.com/2010/03/rspca-has-no-power-to-seize-pets.html

RSPCA Induced Hell

Thu, 08 Jul 2021 16:34:21 GMT

RSPCA Induced Hell

WRITTEN BY LYNN STOKER

New laws make it imperative that your animals are contained when anyone comes to your door or your house. If your dog nips a visitor it is now as much a crime as if they nip someone in the street.

Sensible to crate them then? Not if that visitor is the RSPCA or police.

Take a look at one of the photos presented by the RSPCA to the media. Could these dogs have lived in this crate as the RSPCA claimed? Notice the white material on the floor of the crate. How long do you think that could have stayed so white?

Do the dogs look starved? Dirty? Abused?

Read on for the side of the story of one woman’s trip to an RSPCA induced Hell that gave the RSPCA an influx of very saleable dogs and the sort of publicity they crave.

It all started at the end of November 2018 when a rspca card was left at my gate. I replied to the card immediately and spoke to a Hiedi Cleavor rspca officer.

She told me that my neighbour had phoned in saying one of my cats had a runny eye. Not knowing what the rspca were like i invited her up for a afternoon visit. During the conversation I said that I had bred chihuahuas and Hiedi had said chihuahuas were the most popular breed in the charity and would I be kind enough to donate some to them.

I told her my dogs were precious to me and no way would i ever place them into a sanctuary.

However we arranged a date to suit us both and when she arrived she sat in her van for sometime as if she was placing a microphone under her clothing.

We met and I showed her around my property and when she saw my chihuahua she remarked

“This is exactly what we are needing,they will be in and straight back out.“

Again i said to her you couldnt put the likes of these into a charity, tThey are all quarantined here.

She made a agreement If i was to help them she would help with veterinary fees, wormers, vaccines ect.

Again i refused until she sat down and said she had come with a empty van and expected to take at least 10 dogs away with her.

She said she wouldnt leave until she got what she wanted.

At random and my head all over the place I picked up 9 chihuahuas, 1 british bulldog and a x-breed.

She said she would ask when she got back to base if rspca would pay for a health check for my elderly pony ,Amy. She left saying to her colleague Cath Maddison:

“That was a very rewarding afternoon”

as she closed the van door.

She said she would like to get intouch sometime in the following year to see how my chihuahuas were getting rehomed .

It was the following day she rang me to say she was delighted with the dogs and permission had been granted to send a vet out to see Amy. However we found her to be totaly dishonest as i will enclose a writen statement that repca had said its up to the owner of the animal to pay for her a

Amy died due to old age just before the xmas and i phoned Hiedi up and questioned her as to why a vet never arrived.

I questioned and questioned her regarding the dogs she had gotten from me and she lied and lied until we had a complete breakdown and she told me my britishbulldog had ended up at a santuary in Hexham.

We traced this up by phoning an RSPCA charity shop in Hexham and found out she was in kennels outside Hexham.

I rang Cleavor and asked why she had been lying again. At this point she said the dog no longer belonged to me and therefore I could ask no further questions.

Things went quiet for a few week when again she rang me saying she was going to get a private vet out for me.

She wss going to microchip, worm, vaccinate and neuter all of my dogs which tnumbered 100. I told her I didnt believe her and wanted something in writing before she would ever be allowed in my property again.

She told me she couldnt do that and rspca wouldnt put anything in writing.

She called again a few days later and left a message on my answering machine saying she would be calling on a certain date with a vet to do the work she had spoken about.

I phoned her back saying the date wasnt convenient and i didnt trust her. We at this time had a complete breakdown. However on the date she stated when i arrived home from shopping, here she was parked outside my home with an rspca vet.

Again i told them until i recieved something in writing they would not be getting into my property.

YOUR PROPERTY SHOULD BE YOUE SAFE HAVEN AND YOU SHOULDNT ALLOW ANYONE INTO IT IF YOU DONT FEEL SAFE.

They had to go empty handed.

I started to get friendly calls from Chief insoector Michele Charlton, begging me to help them by handing over my chihuahuas.I believe it was on the 3rd or 4th phonecall she threatened me saying if i didnt give them what they wanted SHE was going to make my life hell. This was on the Thursday before May bank holiday On the Tuesday morning after the holiday RSPCA vans arrived with P.C BAKER. P.C BAKER had placed an unlawful warrent.

On the 8th of May 2019 the rspca arrived at my door with P.C.Baker.

For all Chief inspector Charlton had told me she was delighted with the dogs i had handed over and she wanted more, she had never been to my property or seen the rest of my dogs.

YET SHE HAD PHONED P.C. BAKER AND ASKED TO PLACE A WARRANT.

THIS WARRANT HAD BEEN UNLAWFULLY PLACED BY P.C.BAKER AS NEITHER HE NOR SHE HAD BEEN TO MY PROPERTY NOR HAD P.C.BAKER EVER SPOKEN TO ME.

THE WARRANT HAD BEEN PLACED A MONTH BEFORE SEIZURE AND YET P.C.BAKER DIDNT THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO CALL AND SEE ME AND MY DOGS.

Because I knew the rspca incentive was to steal my dogs I put up a fight to protect them.I had agreed to bring 10 dogs into the house at a time for Jaqui PATERSON to health check them.

It didnt suprise me but 4 police officers brought me to the ground and arrested me so i was unable to witness her health checking my dogs.

When i arrived back home they had ransacked my home taking everyone of my dogs, 2 cats, my tortoises, they had even stolen my vivarium and all electric equipment that went with it.

Shortly within rspca care my dogs started to go down with SUSPECTED Parvo.

My quarantined healthy happy little dogs were fighting for there lives.

Photographs enclosed.

In court JACQUI PATTERSON Perverted the cause of justice, saying on the 8th May, day of seizer she hadn’t taken any photographs.

AGAIN I HOLD ALL EVIDENCE OF HER AND HER COLLEAGUE. THEY HAD TAKEN 100 PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE 8TH MAY. .JUST BECAUSE JACQUI PATTERSON INSTRUCTS HER COLLEAGUE TO HOLD THE CAMERA DOESNT COUNT FOR NOT TAKEN PHOTOS.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWN IN COURT BY HER WERE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AFTER MY DOGS HAD TURNED POORLY AND IN HER CARE. EVIDENCE AGAIN OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY HER CAMERA.

HOWEVER FORALL OUR EVIDENCE WAS SUPPORTED BY AN UNLAWFUL PLACED WARRENT AND JACQUI PATTERSON’S DISHONESTY, THE JUDGE, STEVEN EARL, SWEPT ALL UNDER THE CARPET.

IN THE LOWER COURT I WASNT ALLOWED TO DEFEND MYSEL, ONLY ALLOWED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ,,, NO MORE.MY BOW LEGGED BULLDOG ,,,NADIA WAS PUT TO SLEEP BY JACQUI PATTERSON ON THE 19TH OF MAY,,,, ELEVEN DAYS AFTER THEY HAD TAKEN HER.

Chief Inspector Michele Charlton had phoned me that day saying she had went down with an infection and she had a chest infection.

AGAIN SHE HAD WENT DOWN WITH SUSPECTED PARVO ,,,regrettably i gave permission to put her to sleep.

THEY COVERED THIS UP IN COURT AND ONCE MORE WE PROVED EVIDENCE AND JUDGE STEVEN EARL SWEPT IT UNDER THE CARPET..

JACQUI Patterson was questioned in court by solicitor PAUL BLANCHFORD. Had she fractured my elderly chihuahuas jaws by extracting teeth,

SHE ADMITTED SHE HAD!!! AND YET JUDGE STEVEN EARL PLACED ALL CHARGES ON ME.

Phonographic evidence was shown of freshly filled water bowls around my property and a running hose pipe. Again with judge Earls report he said the dogs had no drinking water.

Again I hold all footage.AlthoughI held 100 dogs on my property not one flea nor one dog dropping could be found.

Judge Steven Earl made me out to be a liar, to hate all people and an Animal Abuser.

Shame on him I hope he can sleep at night.

WRITTEN BY LYNN STOKER

Below is the RSPCA's version of the same story.

Which can also be read on the RSPCA website.

Woman found guilty of neglecting more than 110 animals loses her appeal against conviction and sentence

01.07.21

Ms. Stoker was jailed for keeping 107 dogs, six puppies, two cats and three tortoises in unsuitable conditions and has now been ordered to pay a further £38,000 in costs.

A dog breeder who was originally jailed for 21 weeks and ordered to pay £50,000 costs after RSPCA officers found more than 110 animals living in poor conditions at her home in Northumberland - has lost her appeal against her conviction and sentence.

Ms. Stoker was jailed in September 2019 when she was found guilty of 15 animal welfare offences at Bedlington Magistrates's Court.

But she lodged an appeal against her conviction and sentence - held over two weeks at Newcastle Crown Court from 19 April (2021) - and the original decision was upheld.

The court returned on Friday, June 11 (2021) to sentence her and she was ordered to pay a further £38,000 in costs.

The hearing was told how the animal welfare charity was called to visit the property where she lived in Byrness Village following reports of a cat with a weepy eye.

Over 110 neglected animals found on site

RSPCA inspectors found more than 110 animals - including dogs, puppies, cats and tortoises - neglected at the site.

The court heard how Stoker was first visited by the RSPCA in November 2017 and was offered help - including free vaccinations, neutering, health checks and treatment as well as assistance rehoming some of the dogs to bring the numbers down to a more manageable level.

Eleven dogs were signed over to the charity's care for rehoming and officers arranged for vouchers for neutering and help for medical care for Stoker's animals too.

But after five months of offers of help from the RSPCA the situation had not improved and officers from the animal welfare charity joined police to execute a warrant at the Byrness Village property on 8 May 2018.

One-hundred-and-seven dogs - many suffering from severe ear infections, numerous dislocated hips and dental disease which were so serious they had pathological fractures of the jaw.

Six puppies, three tortoises and two cats were also found living in unsuitable conditions and were seized by police and placed into RSPCA care.

When officers arrived they found the dogs in rooms and out-buildings across the property with a number of them kept in training cages and dirty, dark kennels.

Those that were housed in crates were crammed in together and the animals that were roaming free moved in a pack. There was dog faeces and urine around the property and in the cages.

The court heard how the majority of dogs did not have any access to water or food and many were living in dark and dirty conditions - unable to escape from other animals.

Others were housed in seven crates in a conservatory where the temperature was 28C - and one crate measuring 70cm by 103 cm contained 11 dogs - one poodle, one lhasa apso, seven chihuahuas and one King Charles Spaniel.

Dogs together in cramped spaces

Inspector Heidi Cleaver, who led the investigation, described the property as 'chaotic' with dogs swarming around.

She said in her statement: "The conditions in the house were noisy, crowded and chaotic. The dogs live as a pack. There was no space for them to escape each other.

"There were no measures in place to control the temperature within the property. The majority of the dogs were housed in the conservatory, which would be cold in the winter months and potentially incredibly hot in the summer months. There was a door from the conservatory into the yard, which could be opened and small windows which could also be raised, but ventilation was limited.

"Many dogs in the conservatory were confined in training cages in direct sunlight on the day we attended. Outbuilding B was cold and smelly, there were no windows allowing light into the area also meaning ventilation was stilited.

"The dogs in Outbuilding B were kennelled and therefore unable to control their environment in terms of moving away from or towards a heat source or moving somewhere more comfortable."

Inbreeding dogs

There were a number of different breeds of dogs at the property - including chihuahuas, shih-tzu crosses, cockapoos, King Charles Spaniels, terrier crosses, poodles and bulldogs.

There were so many of them that only a handful of them had names and some had health problems due to inbreeding.

The dogs were breeding out of control and there was no preventative measures carried out such as separating the dogs according to sex or neutering. There were also no records kept in regards to feeding and cleaning.

In one case in particular a heavily pregnant white British bulldog was found lame due to leg deformities, she also had severe breathing difficulties due to a large lung tumour.

Officers also found a Ragdoll cat with untreated cat flu and a tortoise with an untreated illness.

As well as the original £50,000 fine and 21 weeks prison sentence she received originally, Stoker was disqualified from keeping animals for life - which cannot be appealed for 15 years.

She now has to pay a further £38,000.

Inspector Cleaver added:

Due to this appeal we still had a number of dogs in our care but now the case has concluded I am delighted we can now rehome them.

Iain Gould- Actions Against the Police Solicitor

Sat, 06 Feb 2021 19:11:14 GMT

Unlawful arrests and the RSPCA

The RSPCA announced last week that it has decided to abandon its policy of bringing private criminal prosecutions for alleged animal abuse in order to avoid “further reputational damage”, arising from a string of high-profile failures at Court and criticism of how its over-zealous approach was leading to the persecution of innocent and vulnerable individuals.

I myself have experience of misguided attempts by the RSPCA to interfere in the Criminal Justice process, resulting in emotional distress and economic loss for all concerned; after all, if so many Police Officers don’t properly understand the law when it comes to necessity of arrest, can we really expect an animal welfare charity to do better when its staff starts ‘directing’ Police operations?

Take for example my client Courton Green, a Lincolnshire farmer who was subject to arrest in January 2018 on allegations of animal cruelty.

Mr Green ran a farm with approximately 3,000 sheep and 400 cattle. He was shocked to receive an early morning visit by two Officers of Lincolnshire Police who informed him he was under arrest; handcuffed him despite the fact that he was entirely compliant with their instructions, and whisked him away to Grantham Police Station without even allowing him the time to collect his glasses from a nearby truck.

At the Police Station my client was processed, searched and detained in a cell for several hours. During detention, he was obliged to provide his fingerprints, DNA sample and be photographed – all part of the degrading ‘prisoner’ process which can make even innocent people feel as though they are guilty in some way, or being labelled as criminals.

Mr Green had never previously been arrested and found it all to be a devastating experience.

In fact, his state of mental distress was such that the Police became concerned about his well-being, had him assessed by a doctor and he was then taken to Lincoln Hospital for a full mental health assessment.

Following the mental health assessment Mr Green was then allowed to return to his farm – primarily because of his responsibility for his livestock – in a state of ‘shell shock’; indeed Mr Green’s distress continued at such an intense level that over the next few days he experienced stark suicidal thoughts. Fortunately, he was able to overcome these feelings, but the experience of his arrest and detention (first in a Police Station, and then in a mental health ward) had left him in a very dark place.

Approximately 5 months later, Mr Green received a summons to attend court. He filed a plea of not guilty to the charges of animal cruelty against him, and his case proceeded to trial in January 2020, where he was indeed found not guilty.

At the trial, Judge Peter Veits ruled that my client’s arrest was unlawful, in the following terms –

“… the arrest had been unlawful as there had been no attempt … to invite [Mr Green] for interview, he had merely been arrested. Had he been so invited and refused then the necessity of arrest would have been established…”

Following his vindication at trial, Courton Green instructed me to pursue a claim for false imprisonment on his behalf against Lincolnshire Police.

Mr Green’s arrest and detention had taken place at the behest of the RSPCA, who suspected my client of mistreating an animal, and Police facilities were put fully at the disposal of the RSPCA to allow their inspector to conduct the interview of Mr Green, and then to detain him further whilst the RSPCA inspector consulted with her prosecution unit for a “charging decision.”

The evidence against my client centered around the testimony of an inexperienced farmhand who in January 2018 had witnessed what he believed to be Mr Green using a tractor to ‘behead’ a sick sheep; in fact the sheep was already dead, and Mr Green was carrying out a method of breaking its neck prior to skinning the animal (as the carcass was intended for use as dog food).

Judge Peter Veits at the criminal trial was scathing about the standard of evidence presented by the RSPCA against my client; they were entirely unable to offer evidence to establish “beyond reasonable doubt” that the sheep was not already dead when Mr Green used the tractor as described, and the charges against him were dismissed.

Not only was this a prosecution which should not have been pursued (costing Mr Green £70,000 in legal fees to defend himself), my client should never have been arrested in the first place . Sadly, Lincolnshire Police allowed themselves to be used in furtherance of the RSPCA’s agenda, in dereliction of their own duty to make an independent assessment of the evidence and circumstances, in order to decide whether there was sufficient reasonable suspicion and the requisite necessity to arrest (rather than, for example, arranging a voluntary interview for Mr Green to respond to the charges – which is what should have occured).

Whilst the CPS correctly declined to become involved in the misguided and ill-founded RSPCA prosecution of Mr Green, the Police regrettably allowed themselves to be used as unthinking pawns by an animal welfare charity seeking to operate in the style of a law enforcement agency, causing considerable hardship and suffering to my client as a result.

There have long been concerns that the RSPCA regards itself as ‘the Constabulary of animal welfare’, and projects a misleading image to the public through its use of quasi- Police uniforms, the ‘right to remain silent’ caution for ‘suspects’, and a policy of bestowing upon its staff titles of rank such as ‘Inspector’ and ‘Superintendent’ – despite the fact that it is entirely a private charitable organization with no special law enforcement powers at all. However, this approach may have historically contributed towards our actual Police Forces adopting a ‘collegiate’ relationship with the prestigious charity; a relationship which is often far too cosy and deferential on the part of the Police.

In 2016 the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee highlighted the “conflict of interest” between the RSPCA’s adopted role of prosecuting animal welfare cases, and its role of campaigning for animal welfare, fundraising and investigating these issues.

The MPs on the Select Committee called for the charity to cease pursuing private prosecution s in cases of animal cruelty, after a report into its activities, but unfortunately this recommendation, and numerous criticisms by members of the judiciary deeply unimpressed by the standard of RSPCA-led prosecutions, fell on deaf ears, and was not enough to save Mr Green from being put through the ordeal of wrongful arrest, detention and prosecution.

As Mr Green’s Defence barrister, Sara-Lise Howe, said after his Trial “ the RSPCA cannot be trusted to fairly and proportionately interpret farming legislation .”

Of greater concern to me however , is the fact that our Police Forces can often not be trusted to fairly and proportionately interpret policing legislation . On ‘necessity’ grounds alone, Lincolnshire Police should have refused to arrest and detain Courton Green, and then a great deal of the pain of this sorry saga would have been avoided.

Having brought a claim on behalf of Mr Green, I have secured an admission of liability from the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police, and settlement negotiations are ongoing.

Perhaps this process, combined with the RSPCA’s declared change of policy, will finally get the message through to the Police that they would be well advised to treat RSPCA requests to facilitate a person’s arrest with the same level of detachment and skepticism with which they would approach that of any other group of private campaigners.

RSPCA and BBC about programme Pooch Perfect

Sat, 06 Feb 2021 15:32:49 GMT

BBC defends Sheridan Smith's Pooch Perfect after animal welfare complaints

The show which features dogs in costume and with dyed fur has attracted criticism.

The BBC has jumped to the defence of Sheridan Smith's dog grooming show Pooch Perfect after a raft of complaints from viewers concerned about animal welfare.

The show, presented by Scunthorpe's own Sheridan Smith, started last month and sees 16 professional dog groomers compete over eight weeks to be crowned the best in their field in the UK.

The show was criticised by the RSPCA before it even aired when a trailer showed one canine with bright blue ears after their fur was dyed by a groomer, viewer complaints have also pointed out concerns about the outfits some dogs have been made to wear.

Dr Samantha Gaines, of the RSPCA, told Mirror Online : “We do not believe animals should be painted or dyed for cosmetic reasons.

“Our pets are intelligent and sentient; treating them in this way sends out a worrying message that they are ours to objectify and treat as fashion accessories or toys.”

The show has come under further fire since the first episode aired at the end of January and the BBC has been forced to respond to a number of viewer complaints.

The BBC issued a protracted 3000 word response to the complaints on their website which said: "Grooming is a healthy and necessary part of responsible dog ownership particularly with certain breeds.

"During the production process, the producers consulted with both the RSPCA and British Veterinary Association (BVA) to ensure best practise as regards animal welfare.

"All the challenges were designed to highlight the skills and knowledge of the professional groomers taking part in the show.

"At no point did the animal welfare team feel there was any risk to the dogs' welfare and all the dogs were monitored throughout to ensure they were happy, did not show signs of stress, that they had sufficient food and water and had adequate rest away from the studio environment.

"Of the twenty challenges across the series, four made use of some form of limited temporary colour.

"Any use of colour was strictly controlled and only used to highlight the groom and any use of colour was explained and contextualised for each groom. All colour was temporary, animal safe and washed out almost immediately depending on the dog’s coat."

Dog lover Sheridan, 39, revealed that she had been stunned by the work done by the groomers on the show saying that, with their professional reputations on the line, it was actually a really serious competition.

She is a pet owner herself and was warned before taking on the presenting role that she wasn't to come home with more animals to add to the six dogs and two donkeys she currently has.

The BBC has also defend the use of doggy costumes on the show saying that all of the outfits were checked to make sure they wouldn't impact on the animals' welfare.

The BBC statement continued: "In one groom, the dogs were dressed in an outfit. These outfits were all ‘dog friendly’ and checked by the animal welfare team to ensure that they did not restrict the dog’s movements, that the dogs did not get too hot or caused them any discomfort.

"In challenges in which contestants used some small accessories to accentuate their grooms, every item was checked by the animal welfare team and only permitted if it passed their strict criteria and did not pose any risk to the dog.

"Throughout Pooch Perfect, it is made clear that the contestants are professional groomers and that dog owners should not try these creative grooms at home.

"Every precaution was taken throughout filming to ensure each individual dog’s welfare and the production team firmly believes every dog was well treated and that no dog was harmed physically or mentally by the process."

The next episode of Pooch Perfect airs on BBC One on Thursday, February 18 at 8pm. Previous episodes are available to stream on the BBC iplayer.

Pooch Perfect, BBC One 3000 word response , January 2021

03 February 2021

Summary of complaint

We received some complaints from viewers who felt the premise of the programme sets a bad example to pet owners.

Our response

Grooming is a healthy and necessary part of responsible dog ownership particularly with certain breeds. Some breeds require more regular grooming than others to ensure that they can see properly, move easily, keep cool and breathe freely. For example, Brachycephalic dogs (like the Shih Tzus seen in episode one) need more regular grooming to prevent them from over-heating due to their shorter snouts.

During the production process, the producers consulted with both the RSPCA and British Veterinary Association (BVA) to ensure best practise as regards animal welfare. Both organisations were given details of the proposed grooming challenges and both were happy to recommend individuals who then became part of the production team. The Animal Welfare Consultant is himself an ex-RSPCA Officer, and was recommended by Dr Samantha Gaines of the RSPCA and our on-screen vet was suggested by Daniella Dos Santos, Senior Vice President, of the BVA.

All the challenges were designed to highlight the skills and knowledge of the professional groomers taking part in the show. At no point did the animal welfare team feel there was any risk to the dogs' welfare and all the dogs were monitored throughout to ensure they were happy, did not show signs of stress, that they had sufficient food and water and had adequate rest away from the studio environment.

Of the twenty challenges across the series, four made use of some form of limited temporary colour. Any use of colour was strictly controlled and only used to highlight the groom and any use of colour was explained and contextualised for each groom. All colour was temporary, animal safe and washed out almost immediately depending on the dog’s coat.

In one groom, the dogs were dressed in an outfit. These outfits were all ‘dog friendly’ and checked by the animal welfare team to ensure that they did not restrict the dog’s movements, that the dogs did not get too hot or caused them any discomfort. In challenges in which contestants used some small accessories to accentuate their grooms, every item was checked by the animal welfare team and only permitted if it passed their strict criteria and did not pose any risk to the dog.

Whilst every owner had a very positive reaction to their dog’s groom, the production team gave them the option to have their dogs regroomed the following day. In challenges that used colour, the dogs are shown having been re-washed to highlight the temporary nature of the colour. After the series had completed filming every owner was contacted and reported that their dogs were happy and healthy, had enjoyed the process and had not suffered any ill effects.

Throughout Pooch Perfect, it is made clear that the contestants are professional groomers and that dog owners should not try these creative grooms at home. Every precaution was taken throughout filming to ensure each individual dog’s welfare and the production team firmly believes every dog was well treated and that no dog was harmed physically or mentally by the process.

RSPCA to stop prosecuting

Thu, 28 Jan 2021 19:06:06 GMT

RSPCA plans to stop taking animal abusers to court privately

Charity says it will still investigate cases but responsibility for serious offences should sit with CPS

For nearly two centuries, the RSPCA has pursued private prosecutions against people it suspects of cruelty to animals. Now, under pressure from MPs, it has said it plans to end that practice and turn over its files to the Crown Prosecution Service instead.

According to plans released on Thursday as part of a new 10-year plan, the charity is seeking an agreement to cede control of the prosecution process, though it would carry on investigating cases in England and Wales.

“We are proud of our history bringing animal abusers to justice and for many years we have been the right people to do this vital work. However, the world has changed and we have to change with it,” its chief executive, Chris Sherwood, said.

One of the principal motivations, the RSPCA said, was the increasing complexity of the cases it is seeing, with many now involving organised criminal enterprises.

“We are seeing trends with cases with hardened criminal gangs involved in puppy farming, dog fighting, cock fighting or hare coursing, sometimes with millions of pounds changing hands,” Sherwood said.

“We are an animal charity and our concern is welfare but these complex cases can involve serious offences such as fraud or weapons.”

He added: “We are pleased that this year could see one of our hard-fought campaigns to raise the maximum penalty for animal abuse from six months to five years become reality, but this also means a big change in the way cases are prosecuted and sentenced.

“Some of these cases will now move to crown courts and those carrying out the worst abuse could face lengthy jail terms. This places a huge responsibility on a charity’s shoulders. We believe this responsibility should sit with the Crown Prosecution Service, which is a statutory public body with regulatory oversight.”

In recent years , the RSPCA has come under pressure to hand over files to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) from MPs who feel it has been too eager to take people to court itself.

But an RSPCA spokesperson played down any suggestion that, without a change in the law, the move was likely to result in fewer prosecutions. She explained that the RSPCA planned to focus more keenly on its initial investigations and that the only change would be the authority carrying out the prosecution.

Since the charity already applies the same standards as the CPS when deciding whether or not to bring a prosecution, she said, it was likely that charging decisions would broadly mirror their own prosecution rates.

She added that the plans announced on Thursday were conditional on the CPS and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) agreeing to take up the mantle, while the RSPCA also reserved the right to bring private prosecutions if it felt the authorities were failing to act.

The charity is also seeking the granting of statutory powers that would give its improvement notices legal weight, similar to those given to its Scottish sister, which routinely hands cases to the public prosecutor. The spokesperson said that would probably decrease the number of cases it brought to court, if not the number of cases it dealt with overall.

The CPS and Defra have not responded to requests for comment.

Animal Welfare Speech by Sir David Amess to House of Commons

Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:29:38 GMT

Sir David Amess begging for the charities, should the government really be donating to charities on the peoples behalf?, your taxes and other monies could be given to charities you do not wish to support. It seems voting for charities with your donations or lack of donations can be over ridden by the government.

Animal Charities: Covid-19

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 8:31 pm on 19th January 2021 .

Sir David Amess Conservative, Southend West 8:31 pm, 19th January 2021

I absolutely do. The wonderful Dogs Trust provided us with two rescued pugs. While I think of those good old days in Basildon, we also have the horse rescue centre there. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend Chris Loder in his place . I am sure he has interests in animal welfare in his constituency as well.

The main problems for the animal charities as a result of coronavirus can be broken down into two main categories: they have less income and they have fewer employees. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates the financial loss across the animal welfare sector last year to be £101.4 million. Those charities have seen significantly reduced income due to Government restrictions to curb the spread of coronavirus resulting in shops being forced to close and face-to-face fundraising events not being allowed. While individual givers remain eager to provide whatever support they can, personal finance worries have affected how much they can afford to donate. While this problem has affected all animal charities, the smaller ones—that is what I am really speaking about—are particularly worried as, more often than not, they do not have access to reserve funds or a big organisation behind them.

Despite the charities’ reduction in income, the number of animals needing care and attention has not decreased and, as they experience a reduction in income, they are forced to make difficult, heart-breaking cost-saving decisions. I have spoken to many animal charities, all of which have been appreciative of the coronavirus job retention scheme and have tried to furlough their employees instead of letting them go permanently. However, I say to my hon. Friend the excellent Minister responding to the debate that, unfortunately, they have lost much of the voluntary force they rely on so heavily for support.

That, however, is just the negative effects of coronavirus on the charities’ business side. The coronavirus pandemic has also introduced massive problems for animals as a result of the charities’ loss in income and staff, but unfortunately the virus’s effect on animals has been largely forgotten. It is important to remember that animals are dying as a result of a lack of care caused by the pandemic. Because of a lack of income, charities that care for sick or injured animals with the aim of rehoming them or supplying subsidised veterinary care have not been able to purchase as much food or medicine as normal or house as many animals. More animals are therefore left to fend for themselves without access to the essential care they would have had before the pandemic.

As a result of having fewer staff, charities have had to limit the help they can give to animals and alter the way in which they care for them. The RSPCA , which is a wonderful organisation, and Lady Stockton is a wonderful trustee, had to switch to emergency calls only, and it stopped its 24-hour inspectorate cover. That again meant that charities had less range and scope to deal with new cases, and many animals were left unattended without help. With the sudden rise in demand for pets, and unfortunately the increase in the number of households unable to properly care for their pets, there is extra pressure on animal charities. These charities have had to do a lot of damage limitation that they had not previously needed to do on such a large scale and in such a short time. That has meant that these charities have had to reduce the amount of work they can do on new cases of animal abuse.

The development of behaviour problems in pets and animals as a result of the pandemic is not as widely reported, but can have long-lasting health impacts on animals’ lives. According to the RSPCA, owners who reported that their quality of life was poorer also had dogs with a lower quality of life. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford mentioned the Dogs Trust; it similarly reported that many owners found increased incidents of clinginess and attention-seeking behaviours, as well as behaviour associated with fear or frustration.

With many dog trainers unable to operate because of the coronavirus restrictions and facing many financial hardships, the behavioural issues that dogs have begun to exhibit cannot be quickly dealt with. One in five respondents to the Kennel Club survey are worried about the lack of training for their puppies, which they have not received due to lockdown restrictions, and a quarter are concerned about future behavioural problems, such as aggression with other dogs once we return to normal. That could potentially result in an increase in the number of dogs surrendered to animal rescue charities following the pandemic, due to behavioural issues, and increase the strain on animal charities further in the long run.

The voluntary sector and animal charities are in a constant state of financial uncertainty. I am very grateful for the Government support that has relieved some of the financial pressure and enabled charities to continue to carry out essential work. However, as always, more needs to be done. The pandemic has financially ruined those charities for close to a year now, and it will have a long-lasting negative effect on animal welfare issues in the future. Too many animal welfare organisations were not eligible for support by the frontline charities relief fund in April 2019, and have therefore received no direct support other than that available through a wider scheme. One consequence of that was that a parliamentary petition, e-petition No. 314968—“Include animal charities in emergency funding due to the coronavirus pandemic”—was launched. The Government responded in July, acknowledging that the animal welfare sector had faced serious challenges, and stated that they were exploring how those challenges could be alleviated.

I say this to my hon. Friend the Minister: I do hope that the Government act on their statement and are ready to quickly implement support packages to alleviate animal charities’ financial worries and enable them to continue to carefully care for animals. There should be support packages targeted at specific charities within the animal charity sector. That is particularly important for equine charities because, as the RSPCA revealed, 79% of equine organisations only had funds for six months or did not know how long those funds would last. Battersea plans to publish a second report in 2021, which will look at the longer-term financial and social impact of the pandemic on animal welfare and the organisations that exist to protect animals. I truly hope that the Government co-operate with those charities and implement their suggestions.

As a patron of the wonderful Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, I believe that Ministers and the Department need to work with the animal welfare sector to help prevent a significant increase in demand for rescue services this year. Part of the work should cover issues such as puppy farming, puppy smuggling and the unscrupulous selling of puppies and kittens by third parties, which are increasingly relevant given the sudden increase in demand for pets.

Zoos are also a crucial part of animal welfare in this country. I was privileged to visit Chester zoo not so long ago and see the wonderful work that they are doing there; of course, we see their wonderful programmes on TV . Zoos undertake charitable work and have extensive welfare and treatment programmes for sicker injured animals. Throughout last year, zoos and animal sanctuaries were closed and then told that they could reopen and then forced to close again. That is a terrible challenge for them. Opening a zoo on such a large scale, only to have to close again, uses a lot of money, time and resources that could be better targeted at directly caring for animals. I also think of our zoo in Colchester. In an already suffering industry, zoos need governmental support to make up for lost ticket revenue. The charity Four Paws was hit especially hard when it had to close its animal sanctuaries worldwide. Without the ability to fundraise on a large scale, essential welfare services will inevitably decrease and so will the level of care that the animals receive. Many zoos and animal sanctuaries are outside, and with proper coronavirus safety measures put in place, such as mandatory face coverings, one-way systems and time slots, they can reopen safely. Keeping our zoos shut is reducing the amount of charitable work that zoos can undertake and reducing the quality of care that they can give animals. Whether or not zoos are able to reopen soon, they need financial support to purchase essential medical supplies and to feed the animals.

The zoo support fund was warmly welcomed by the zoos and animal sanctuaries that matched the eligibility criteria, but, according to the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums , only 26 out of 300 zoos in England have been successful with the fund. That is ridiculous. Unspent funds must be redeveloped into a more accessible support mechanism for the sector, so that all zoos can benefit. A parliamentary petition, e-petition No. 308733, on providing financial help to zoos, aquariums and rescue centres during the pandemic, which received more than 135,000 signatures, was debated in June last year. The Government said that they were keeping the situation under close review. Now that the situation has changed due to the added restrictions, I hope that the Government are intending to increase the support for zoos.

In conclusion, while coronavirus has undoubtedly created unprecedented problems for multiple industries, including the animal welfare sector, it has provided an opportunity to address key animal welfare issues concerning the link between wild animals and the spread of zoonotic diseases. This should prompt a much-needed reconsideration of our relationship with animals. This pandemic may be all about our relationship with animals. Incarcerating animals in cage systems on factory farms provides the ideal breeding ground for dangerous new strains of the virus. We have all been appalled by the huge culling of 17 million mink on industrial fur farms in Denmark over fears of a mutated form of coronavirus. Without extensive support measures directed at animal charities, the problem will continue to occur and animals will continue to suffer long after the coronavirus pandemic is over and we return to normality. We rely on our wonderful voluntary industry to selflessly help those more vulnerable than us. We must not forget about the animals. We need to ensure that animal charities have the resources and the finances to look after animals’ welfare. Now is the time to set out a new vision and a compassionate way forward.

A Post from facebook

Sat, 09 Jan 2021 02:48:02 GMT

This is a post taken from facebook, by a Susan Maunder who obviously supports the RSPCA, her post has been taken and her points answered, what a pity the media never give victims of the RSPCA the right to reply like this when they print their stories in their newspapers. Susan Maunders comments are in black with responses in red and bracketed.

Susan Maunder

to all you RSPCA haters read and weep

( Why would haters weep, laugh maybe …)

I feel this needs to be said, and shared, so please copy and paste and share...

The rspca is a charity and it's time we stopped treating them like a government service…

(Time they stopped acting like a government service)

People say the rspca are useless that they're only interested when the cameras are there or when the animals dead or dying, these are simply not true.

( Where is your proof to substantiate that claim? Plenty of proof out there to prove otherwise)

A)look at how many animals the rspca rescue every year,

(Rescue or steal, take from loving homes under false pretences?)

now go and find all those news stories, I challenge you...

(Challenge accepted and I cannot find one which has actually been rescued, taken as above yes but not rescued, because the ones which do need rescuing do not get rescued they get left to die )

And b) the rspca can only have an animal removed with veterinary support of suffering or potential suffering, if the rspca don't remove an animal then it's not because they're useless, or don't care, it's because there's no legal grounds to do so. Just because you think an animal is suffering, unless you are a vet, your opinion stands for nothing in the eyes of the law…

( Suffering or may suffer, that is a big difference to the actual offence of UNNECESSARRY SUFFERING, yet they abuse this law to get their hands on animals so they can then create offences which SIMPLY AREN’T TRUE! When have legal grounds ever stopped the RSPCA? More like no owner to prosecute)

I see the daily mail story of 53000 animals a year put to sleep by them... Tabloids print headlines that sell, not the truth...

( Great we agree on something, especially when they are printing RSPCA stories, not the truth)

What they conveniently didn't say was how many of those were wildlife casualties. Such as rtc deer, foxes, badgers, myxy rabbits, birds attacked by cats etc etc..... Because when you say that, it's not such a dramatic headline and doesn't sell papers.…

(Wildlife obviously don’t matter in the RSPCA’s eyes if they kill so many)

I see the story of 11 Arabs put to sleep... This was a very sad outcome, however. If you have more animals than you have space for and a limited financial budget it simply isn't possible to keep taking animals in....

( So why do RSPCA continue to do this)

And if there were homes for them, why didn't those homes take in some of the hundreds of horses already in the care of the rspca and waiting for homes…

( Because these were specific breed people and had a specific interest in that breed of horse)

The rspca hasn't put a rehomeable animal to sleep since 2017, costing them millions more, yet do they get extra support to do this? No…

(I think you will find they claim not have PTS a rehomeable (sic) animal at any of their centres, a carefully worded cop out!)

People talk about the charity being corrupt, next time you see this please ask for the evidence..…

(There is plenty, please do ask as hundreds of people out there are wanting to show it to people)

People say the rspca is too political… This is the hunting lobby, who think chasing a fox across the country, and letting a pack of dogs tear it apart is humane....

( Do your homework, it is not only the hunting fraternity who say RSPCA are too political!)

I hope those people have never heard a fox torn apart, if they have and they still think it's humane then they have no empathy at all...

( WOW where was RSPCA’s empathy when they shot those GSD’s with a bolt gun? Or electrocute dogs in water? Have you heard those animals screams? Because plenty have!)

Then you have stag hunting, please go and look up the affects of stress on deer, and then tell me it's humane…

(Then you have ripping animals from what they know, thrown in strange places where no one loves them as they are just a means to a prosecution for the RSPCA, is that humane?, I think not)

And next time you see an rspca post, if someone comments with clear anger. The saying, he doth protest too much is so true…

( Are you not protesting too much, right here right now?!)

Try googling the name, yes people who the rspca have prosecuted are on social media..

(When you have done that contact them and ask them for the evidence as mentioned above about corruption )

And they want vengeance for being held to account for what they did or didn't do....

(Incorrect they want JUSTICE )

They want to see the rspca fold…

( That could be correct, because they want something that is FAIR and works for both animals and humans alike)

I see people say the rspca are rich, they can afford it..... Please go and look up their accounts at the charity commission website.... Go see for yourself... It costs the rspca £150 MILLION a year to do what they do.

(£150 million a year to neglect other peoples animals and prosecute people for crimes that did not take place, suppose training to lie and misuse laws is expensive)

Are they prefect, of course not. It's an organisation made up of human beings, show me one human who's never made a mistake…

( Exactly, yet this CHARITY prosecutes others for making mistakes)

However think what this country would be like without an rspca??????

( That sounds very appealing)

Sharing negative rspca posts or commenting negatively without doing a bit of homework first to see if what you're posting is true results in only 1 thing.... Less money to the rspca and in turn they can do less, not more…

( Good it is working, keep it up is what I say, keep posting the TRUTH)

So if you ever find yourself in a position where you need the help of the rspca, please don't ever have shared a negative post, made a negative comment or not donated yourself... To do otherwise is hypocritical…

( Help and RSPCA in the same sentence? Now that is hypocritical, or just plain ignorant. Do not worry I would never ring the RSPCA for help with anything, no one should, however if that negative post is the truth then why should it not be shared )

Now the rspca is facing a £40 million defecit. If having read this you are thinking oh, then maybe take action now, donate and help the charity continue to be there. Even if that's sadly in a reduced capacity…

( Thankfully I am not thinking that at all, I will not tell you what I am thinking, I will leave that to your imagination!!)

Couple banned from keeping animals for life

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 06:20:01 GMT

Taken from RSPCA website

Below is a perfect example of RSPCA prosecuting someone under section 4 of the animal welfare act 2006 for their dog having fleas. Did they prove the baldness on the dogs back was an actual skin condition or was it in fact due to the fleas? lots of dogs are allergic to the saliva of fleas and the description fits that perfectly, however it just proves the fact that RSPCA do prosecute under section 4 for a dog having fleas!.

Another major concern is, animals removed but the humans left to live in unsuitable conditions, what does that say, not only about the RSPCA, but this country too?.

Couple banned from keeping animals for life

11.11.20

A man and woman from County Durham have been disqualified from keeping animals for life following one of our prosecutions.

John Raper and Clare Louise Raper, both of Darlington, were convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to their dog Chico and failing to meet the needs of Chico, a cat called Puss, three domestic white rats and two Budgerigars. Mr Raper pleaded guilty to a third offence of failing to protect Chico and Puss from pain, suffering, injury or disease, which are all offences contrary to the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Both were sentenced at Peterlee Magistrates' Court on Tuesday 20 October.

Living conditions like dirty water with dead flies and soiled bedding

When our inspector Clare Wilson entered the property with police she found the animals were living in an unhygienic and hazardous environment. Inside, the rooms were hoarded household items which were infested with fleas, flies and other insects.

Clare saw Chico, a Labrador cross, had an untreated skin condition with hair loss to his back, and he was scratching his skin. Additionally, the water available to him was dirty and undrinkable.

There was a metal cage containing two white rats - the only water they had was also dirty and had dead flies floating in it. There was rubbish and takeaway containers filling their cage and she saw donner meat from a takeaway box but no specific rat food. The rats were huddled in a corner as their soiled newspaper was falling and dripping through the base of the cage.

The black cat Puss was found curled up on a bed that was damp and soiled. Puss was also found to have a flea infestation.

Two budgies called Penny and Shadow were in a cage where they had no room to fly because of a large number of hanging toys. Their cage was also soiled with droppings.

Clare found another white rat living in a filing drawer. The drawer was closed so the rat was living in the dark amongst rubbish with no food or water.

Our inspector could feel fleas on her

She said:

I could feel insects on me throughout the time I was in the property so it was clear there was a major flea infestation and maybe other insects as well. The floor was wet with urine in places and there was no natural light or ventilation inside as all the windows were covered. There was rubbish and hazards everywhere making it an inappropriate environment for animals to be living in.

In addition to the lifetime disqualification, which they cannot contest for 20 years, they both received a six-month conditional discharge and were ordered to pay £200 costs and a £22 victim surcharge. A deprivation order was given for Chico, Puss, Penny and Shadow meaning that these animals we'll be able to rehome them after a 21-day appeal period has passed. The rats were signed over into our care and have been rehomed.

No animals deserve to live lives like this and we want to make sure we can at least give them a second chance to live a happy life.

Senior Staff leave RSPCA

Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:43:36 GMT

Senior staff leave RSPCA as union

attacks 'chaotic' restructure.

24 September 2020 by Daniel Farey-Jones

Several senior executives are leaving the RSPCA as its chief executive Chris Sherwood comes under renewed attack from the trade union Unite over the management of the charity’s redundancy process.

Following deputy chief executive Chris Wainwright out of the door are finance, IT and planning director Kevin O’Brien and group finance controller Helen Tracey, as well as external consultant Patricia Williamson.

Wainwright has taken the chief executive role at the equine welfare charity Brooke. He is due to start there in November after nearly five years at the RSPCA, where he also oversees communications, external affairs and income-generation.

Finance chief O’Brien was hired just before the coronavirus outbreak, while his direct report Tracey joined as head of finance in 2013.

The RSPCA’s finances have become a flashpoint with Unite. The union is unhappy that the charity is not making greater use of its reserves – which the union puts at about £60m – to lighten the impact of its redundancy programme on staff.

The union claimed yesterday the programme had generated “chaos and confusion” and called on the RSPCA chief executive “to reflect on the lack of staff confidence in him”, which it claimed was illustrated by the senior departures.

An RSPCA spokeswoman took issue with Unite's characterisation of the departures, saying that one of them was due to redundancy, two to resignations and one to the end of a contract.

“The departures of Chris, Patricia, Helen and Kevin are entirely unrelated to the restructure and the decisions taken and the timing is because they have remained to help see us through this difficult period,” she said.

The charity announced last month it would be making 269 job cuts .

It blamed the coronavirus pandemic for the need to accelerate plans it already had to make changes affecting its more than 1,600 employees.

Unite has published the contents of a letter to Sherwood from Siobhan Endean, its national officer for the not-for-profit sector, which said: “The redundancy consultation process is leading to chaos and confusion. The individual consultation process has been rushed, poorly co-ordinated and poorly resourced.

“The whole process has effectively collapsed. The human resources division has admitted to being in a catastrophic situation due to unachievable timescales and unreasonable demands.”

The RSPCA issued a statement saying it “did not recognise the inaccurate picture painted by Unite as resembling the reality of the situation”.

It said: “These changes are being made out of absolute necessity to safeguard the future of the RSPCA. This was a thorough and meaningful consultation carried out by the executive team and overseen by trustees.

“The pace of these changes has been critical as the RSPCA needs to quickly reduce its structural deficit in order to be in a better place to tackle the challenges ahead. Each month of delay costs the RSPCA £1m.”

It said if it did nothing, its free reserves – which it was using to fund its deficit this year – could fall to the equivalent of about three months’ running costs, which would leave it in an “incredibly precarious and unsustainable position”.

It said: “Like many other charities we are facing severe financial difficulties. We already had a sizeable deficit, which we were working hard to reduce, before the Covid pandemic struck, which has exacerbated an already challenging financial picture.”

Article by Lynn Wallis

Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:16:09 GMT

Not too sure when the following article was written but it is suggested it was written pre 2004 before the hunting ban. Either way it is an interesting read.

Has anything changed since the article was written?.

Written by Lynne Wallis

All is not well within the RSPCA, the country's largest, oldest and best known animal-welfare charity. Its high profile, enhanced by aggressive marketing and royal patronage, ensures it an income of around £40 million a year in donations – far more than any of the other animal charities. But its growing number of critics believe that, if the archetypal, animal- loving little old ladies knew how their contributions were spent, they'd be shaking their collecting tins and earmarking their legacies for some other cause.

Critics include members of the RSPCA's own council, other animal charities, vets, breeders, current and ex-staff, disillusioned volunteers, breed rescue groups and animal behaviourists. They say the society has grown arrogant: its financial clout and friends in high places have made it impervious to criticism and adept at marginalising those who question policy.

In a nutshell, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals stands accused of destroying too many animals and misusing, or under-using, its huge financial resources. There has been internal dissent for many years and frequent bust-ups between branches and head office. The charity, so say the critics, is run on inappropiately military lines; far too much is spent on administration; and there is too little commitment to animal welfare.

The RSPCA faced its last major challenge in 1974, when the independent Sparrow Inquiry looked into the charity's handling of its finances following allegations of mismanagement. There were accusations of "high living" by HQ staff while animals were kept in poor conditions. Three members of the reform group responsible for much of the criticism made headline news when they claimed they had received death threats. In his report, Charles Sparrow QC made 30 recommendations, including better long-term financial planning and improved budgetary systems.

Then in 1994, some members of the RSPCA Council, the charity's elected governing body, called for another inquiry into the use of funds, pointing to the senselessness of sitting on a cash mountain of £75m while volunteers struggled to raise money for animal welfare. The criticisms were rejected by the charity's directors and the request for an inquiry refused.

An organisation calling itself the Provisional RSPCA has recently begun sending letters out on RSPCA letterhead to the branches, signed A Mole, detailing RSPCA plans – such as its scheduled move to new premises at an estimated cost of £10-12m. The current HQ, a Georgian mansion in Horsham, isn't big enough, and Peter Davies, director general of the RSPCA, pointed out that it gets unbearably hot in summer. A Mole has also written about alleged losses of £1-2m incurred by the Freedom Food initiative, launched to improve standards of animal food production and widely perceived as a huge failure.

The charity's reserves have now reached £85m(Update 1999). Half of its £40m annual income still goes on salaries, compared with less than seven per cent at the National Canine Defence League (NCDL) and a similar figure at Blue Cross. The RSPCA argues that its salary bill is high because it employs 1,200 people, many more than the other charities. Davies says: "We do have large reserves now, and we put it down to television programmes like Animal Hospital attracting more donations than ever, but we've also been rather lucky with legacies recently. It happens sometimes. Anyway, the British public think we do a bloody good job, or they wouldn't donate to us." The society has just announced plans to spend £10m on new animal homes.

At present, the RSPCA puts down more animals than any other charity: in 1995, no less than 71,596. Of that number, 25,661 were deemed too sick or too injured to live. The RSPCA claims it doesn't have the facilities to keep animals for long if no new home is found, and after seven days they can be put down. It blames the high number of animal deaths on the public for irresponsible animal ownership. Ten years ago, the RSPCA announced that it would stop killing healthy dogs, but to date nothing much has changed The destruction figures for l 996, as yet unpublished are expected to show a rise in the numbers of animals destroyed, with a much higher proportion deemed too sick or injured to live.

Davies denies that animals are put down unnecessarily "We only ever destroy animals if they are in severe pain, are sick, or exhibit anti-social behaviour, which means they are impossible to re-home. We take the view that it is cruel to keep an animal locked up for the rest of its life, but it is simply not true that we put animals down needlessly." His constant refrain is that the function of the RSPCA is to prevent cruelty.

To gain some insight into the culture of the RSPCA, it's worth looking at its history. The SPCA was set up in 1824 following the establishment of the Society for the Suppression of Vice a few years previously, and gained Royal assent in 1840. In the new post- enlightenment industrial Britain popular recreations boomed and the emerging working class discovered football alongside such "sports" as bull-baiting and cockfighting. Industrialists were keen to stamp out anything that distracted the populace from factory work. Lewis Gompertz a genuine animal-rights campaigner, helped set up the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Cruelty to Animals Act was passed in 1835. The social historian Robert Malcolmson writes in Popular Recreations In English Society, l700- l850: "The SPCA's first decade was one of insecurity, disorder and dissension. Financial difficulties concentration on prosecuting offenders and the use of paid informers was well documented. Anti-semitism is evident early in the charity's history. Gompertz, who was Jewish, resigned in 1832 when the SPCA announced it was open to "Christians only".

Malcolmson writes: "The reformers' energies were mobilised largely against popular amusements... Few were so indelicate as to storm the citadels of genteel pleasure. despite protests to the contrary, the RSPCA discreetly disregarded the pleasures of the fashionable world and almost always prosecuted only plebeian sportsmen In other words if you owned the land on which you pursued your sport no one could touch you. Some would say the same rules apply today.

Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine and a newspaper columnist is well respected in animal-welfare circles and a fierce critic of the world's most famous animal charity. The RSPCA are like a police force with their rows of studs and epaulettes and short hair and uniforms she says. Nor does she believe the RSPCA is interested in promoting animal ownership. "They are totally negative, and obsessed with making prosecutions." RSPCA policies are, she says, very inflexible: living in a flat or being over 65 is likely to count against a prospective pet owner who wishes to take a cat or dog off the RSPCA's hands – as is, says Cuddy, simply living in an unconventional way. (Cuddy and others are concerned at the RSPCA's plans to run a new dog licensing scheme, Favoured by Labour which they fear will give the charity powers to decide who is a suitable owner

"People like the vet and breeder Helen Hein are prosecuted for keeping animals in filthy conditions Yes, Helen is eccentric but in her defence she was living in the same conditions as her dogs and the notion that dogs appreciate cleanliness is ludicrous! She wasn't cruel, or evil, but if the RSPCA think you're odd, a bit anti-establishment, you're unsuitable. If you haven't got electricity or running water, you're done for." Cuddy says what Helen needed most was constructive advice. "instead there was a costly prosecution. But for the RSPCA, it's another statistic, and the tabloids loved it. What a good story: a house full of shit and Helen demonised as a 'monster'. Judges and magistrates never question the RSPCA precisely because of who they are."

Bill Cartnell, an eminent vet who acted as an advisor in the Hein case, says: " Helen's a very strong-minded lady, and she was at odds with the law, but it's a preposterous suggestion that she could be cruel. She's dedicated her life and put all her money into animals."

Statistics – gaining prosecutions for cruelty – are the lifeblood of the RSPCA. In March, a number of inspectors were withholding statistical information on rescues and re-homing as a protest against a failed pay claim Their union had advised them that upsetting the charity's bureaucracy was the best way bringing pressure to bear.

Workers at branch level say the charity receives hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints from the public who have firsthand experience of over zealous inspectors removing animals from their owners like Mike and Anne Whitworth, who do not fall into the RSPCA's usual category of target, Mike, a chiropodist and former colonel, married to Anne a social worker left their 16-year old Springer Spaniel in a basket in the back of Mike's Range Rover while he was working at a nursing home. He'd left the car parked under a tree for shade, and positioned the vehicle so he could see it from the window of the room where he was working. Bella was 16, emaciated with diabetes and partially blind, and the Whitworths knew she hadn't long left, but claim she still enjoyed life. They fed her a complex special diet, and fussed over her terribly.

Mike says he heard a commotion outside and startled returned to his car to find an RSPCA inspector driving off in a van with Bella. A workman at the nursing home had seen Bella, assumed from her appearance she was being ill-treated, and called the RSPCA. That afternoon the Whitworths were telephoned to be told that Bella had been put down by an RSPCA vet, and that they would be prosecuted for cruelty. Anne says: "We couldn't understand it. We loved her, they stole her, and we were treated like common criminals." The RSPCA backed down from a prosecution, but asked Anne and Mike to sign statements that would be kept at the police station and referred to if they ever "re-offended". (Mike was once awarded a bravery medal by the RSPCA for pulling two dogs out of a canal in Scotland.) the RSPCA insists Bella was left in a car boot with only one inch open, and that the inspector, "as a woman on her own", took the dog to the vet in order to let the owner calm down as he was "extremely aggressive and threatening" – which Mike vigorously denies. The RSPCA maintains Bella was put down on humanitarian grounds.

Last year, Andrea Furze's cat was let out at 9am and was dead by 2.30pm. It had been mistaken for a stray by the RSPCA. Chief Inspector Jeremy Goodger apologised but says his team "acted in good faith". A neighbour of Andrea's phoned the charity and reported a "stray", which then scratched the inspector when he tried to pick it up. He put the cat down instantly in Andrea's neighbour's kitchen, on the basis that it was "dangerous" All he needed was the neighbour's signature to verify the cat was a stray. The RSPCA settled out of court.

Ex-RSPCA inspector David Barnes says: "When you've put down a lot of animals, you become immune to any emotional feeling about it, and you do it almost without blinking" Barnes left the RSPCA to set up another animal charity.

In l988, a former RSPCA branch secretary Margaret House, co-founded Watchdog, a newsletter critical of the RSPCA which claims to receive contributions and letters from hundreds of present and former members of the society. She and four others – the Watchdog Five – were expelled from the RSPCA, but have all since been reinstated She argues that "the RSPCA is undergoing the worst period of discord it has ever known and some of the most dedicated workers are cold-shouldered because they might be progressive, or vegetarian or question the RSPCA. The basic trouble is that the paid staff aren't animal welfare people – they just have to be proficient in managerial skills and admin ".

The RSPCA has been known for recruiting large numbers of its inspectorate – the 320 paid inspectors whose job it is to bring prosecutions against perpetrators of animal cruelty -- from the armed services and police forces The RSPCA calls itself a law enforcement agency. All the inspectors are, in the words of the director general Peter Davies, himself ex-army, "subject to my discipline". A large chunk of the inspectors' 26-week training is devoted to learning how to destroy animals humanely, and an inspector may he required to put down as many as 60 animals, including healthy ones, to prove that he or she has the guts for the job. All inspectors carry firearms.

The RSPCA's London headquarters, in South Norwood is the HQ for around 30 inspectors working the capital. When I visited three years ago, female telephone operators were taking calls and the almost exclusively male inspectors such as ex-soldier Steve Dockery were waiting for their lists of visits. Inspector Cliff Harrison, a concerned, quietly spoken man tells me about some appalling cruelty cases he and his colleagues have had to deal with. There's nothing terribly dramatic coming in for Dockery, and he is bored. He leaps up. "There's a man who might have tied his dog to a sink pipe, and a Rotherhithe woman who reportedly keeps letting her cat and dog get pregnant". Dockery's off, and from his manner he could be about to lead a major drugs bust. As we approach the Rotherhithe council estate, Dockery glances up at the high-rise block and says, "These people haven't got a clue when it comes to looking after animals." He appears put out to learn all the woman's animals had in fact been spayed. "She says she'd had 'em 'spaded'," he mutters. "Can't even speak English" a message from HQ comes over his radio. "It's from a Miss E," says the operator "She says, quote, I will knock you over and fucking kill you if I ever see you, and I hate you to distraction, unquote." It was from someone he'd prosecuted. Dockery shrugs his shoulders

Back in the street, a young woman called Debbie runs over to the white RSPCA van and asks the inspector if he could find homes for a cat and dog she can no longer afford to keep She sobs as Dockery takes them from her shabby home Debbie phones South Norwood a few hours later stating she'd made a mistake and wants them back "lt's too late," Dockery tells me when he gets her message "She'll have to apply through proper channels, but she's bound to fail the home check. She lives in a flat"

Davies insists that all his inspectors are animal-lovers. "We have thousands more applications than there are inspectors' jobs available, and those who apply love animals and want to help them. I'm an animal-lover, we all are. I've had dogs all my life." He is twitchy about accusations that his charity is "too military" and says that nowadays, although the RSPCA still uses the forces' employment bureau, only three in 20 new recruits are ex-service people. He says he wants more ethnic minority applicants, more animal welfare types and has already got more women at senior level (18 per cent of inspectors are female) than the police "There's nothing wrong with the ex- service people – they do a magnificent job and their training tends to stand them in good stead – but we're looking at a new breed of person now."

Dr Roger Mugford, the celebrated animal behaviourist, faces RSPCA inspectors and vets almost weekly in court over "dangerous dog" disputes and cruelty cases, appearing for the defence. The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act demands that all Pit Bull "types" and other potentially dangerous dogs are registered, insured against injury to other persons, micro chipped, tattooed and muzzled at all times in public places. Any animal whose owner is found to be in breach of the rules is put under a mandatory destruction order, although amendments to this less than humane element of the act are imminent. The "death row dogs", as the tabloids have christened them, are held in private holding kennels for around £9 per dog per night. The act has cost the taxpayer £3, I 75,542 so far in kennelling fees alone.

The RSPCA says it opposes the "flawed" Dangerous Dogs Act but continued until very recently to provide inspectors in court as expert witnesses for the prosecution. Mugford contributed to the DDA as a consultant to the Home Office under Kenneth Baker's rule in 199I, but he has since changed his stance. "I realised immediately that this panic measure was a terrible mistake," he says. "I offered to train RSPCA inspectors in animal behaviour therapy. They refused. When I first heard the blatant, errant, nonsense being uttered in the witness box about so-called dangerous dogs by RSPCA inspectors bent on prosecution, and saw how their resources are poured into gaining convictions, my eyes were opened. They are a charity whose generosity of spirit is invisible. A lot of the real work is done by pensioners, like the Animal Samaritans." Mugford believes the RSPCA doesn't target large organisations that have the power to defend themselves he continues: "Successful prosecutions of, say, circuses or wealthy farmers are rare. It's generally some poor sod on a housing estate, or a bloke who keeps a few chickens in his shed."

Davies denies the RSPCA is wedded to prosecutions: "That is simply not true. We take this extreme measure when we have to, but we always try to sort things out by giving advice and issuing warnings. A lot of cruelty is caused by ignorance, so you go in to the home and say, look, this is a flea, this is what fleas do to dogs, this is what you do to prevent it. Prosecutions are a last resort. First and foremost, we are about preventing cruelty and promoting animal welfare."

Until very recently London RSPCA Inspector Jan Eachus, together with three RSPCA vets, regularly appeared for the prosecution as a Pit Bull "type" expert in dangerous dog cases. Dr Mugford, Our Dogs journalist Robert Killick, Beverley Cuddy and others in the dog world have asked for him to stand down on the basis that he is too quick to condemn and have questioned his expertise on "dangerous" dogs. The RSPCA agreed several years ago that he was to cease appearing for the prosecution, but the lengthy nature of DDA cases ensured his continued appearance in court for some time.

A Canadian chain-smoker whose gait and manner is straight out of a Clint Eastwood movie, Eachus told journalist Tony Thompson in 1990: "We are the police force for animals. We exist because we're needed, not because we're liked... I am the law, And if people don't like it, well, there's not a damn thing they can do about it." Thompson concluded that Eachus has contributed significantly to the deaths of a large number of the 900 dogs put down so far under the act.

Davies says of Eachus: "He has done a tremendous job, but the poor man has had a rough time for doing it. The alternative to Eachus was to have someone who doesn't know about dangerous dogs. In 199l, we wanted to ban these Pit Bull type breeds from coming in because they are for fighting, and we know a lot about what these so- called anti-Dangerous Dogs Act people get up to, believe me. Dog fighting. People may not like coming forward to register their dogs, but that is the law. Anyway, 20 per cent of the suspected Pit Bulls Eachus looked at weren't put down."

Eachus condemned a paraplegic, toothless dog in 1995 whose owner, with backing from Dr Mugford and vet Peter Larkin, claims she was a "Staffy". Jessie had never bitten anybody, and her owner, Mark O'Brien, was distraught when, after a year in police kennels (at a cost to the taxpayer of £3,285), she was killed by lethal injection because her owner didn't have a "dangerous dog" licence. It is difficult to understand what danger such a dog could have posed.

It is sometimes the police who condemn a dog. A Pit Bull Terrier called Khan was shot – by an RSPCA inspector – when its mandatory insurance had lapsed by three days. The RSPCA says it bit a policeman, but no charges were brought against Khan's owner, John Thompson. Thompson could not prove posting of the insurance, hut a cheque arrived three days after Khan's death. The case was dismissed and the dog was cremated without the owner's consent.

Internal rows have plagued the RSPCA for years, virtually since its inception, and there have been numerous sackings, oustings, disciplinary hearings, and tribunals. Peter Davies, 59, left his post as Major General in the army and joined the RSPCA in 1991 as chief executive. A charming, tanned politician of a man who enjoys good food and wine, Davies consulted his wife before accepting the job. He told one newspaper: "She saw that the organisation had a hierarchical structure, its officers wore uniforms and it would appeal to my sense of order." During the nine years prior to Davies's appointment, there was a succession of ex- military men heading the charity, following the ousting of Julian Hopkins, a progressive animal rights vegetarian, in 1982.

A current furore concerns the imminent replacement of the existing deputy director general, Derek Sayce, by the current director of science, Dr Tony Suckling, an ex- vivisector. The society claims to oppose all experiments involving cruelty, although during the l980s the charity invested in drug firms including ICI and Beechams which use animals for experiments. Suckling says he left his old job because he could no longer justify the destruction of animals for the sort of work his company was doing.

Former inspector and shelter manager Jamie Stephenson was sacked after five weeks. One of the reasons given was that he couldn't remember the names of all the cats and dogs in his care. The RSPCA was found to be in breach of contract and he was awarded £2,010 at tribunal.

The ousting of one particular RSPCA inspector is of especial concern. Animal welfare isn't renowned for its employment of ethnic minorities – some charities, including the RSPCA and the NCDL, claim blacks just don't apply – the RSPCA has one Asian and one black inspector out of more than 300. Ex-marine Ossie Glover, the RSPCA's first ever black inspector, was, he claims, continually harassed and told he would not be able to cope as an inspector, because he would suffer prejudice from the public. In a story he sent to the newsletter Watchdog, he describes his experiences working under Superintendent Freddie Drew, whose daily routine included marching and parading inspectors and organising training trips to the Royal Army Veterinary Corps at Melton Mowbray, where the army keeps horses used for hunting.

Glover also writes of the terror of learning how to electrocute and shoot healthy dogs. His local branch in Enfield supported him throughout but, after months of humiliation, Glover resigned in 1987.

The RSPCA's chief officer of the Inspectorate, Richard Davies, says the only concerns Glover ever registered in writing were about the volume of work and needless destruction of animals. "One thing I will not accept in this job is prejudice of any kind and I would discipline anyone who displayed prejudice immediately. We have very egalitarian standards. Mr Drew is an experienced and very capable senior officer, and he was on the interview panel which selected Glover, so it is difficult to understand allegations of racism. If Glover was discriminated against, I would have known about it."

There have been a series of disputes between RSPCA branches and HQ, which have often led to expulsions or resignations. The "Wakefield Three" were voluntary branch committee members who were made to resign in one such case. In 1994 after questions were asked about the running of their branch. To understand Wakefield, it's important to grasp the relationship between local branches and HQ. The branches are semi-independent but ultimately answerable to the RSPCA HQ in Horsham via ten RSPCA regional boards. But funds raised locally through any of the RSPCA's 200 branches don't go to local projects but to headquarters, the source of many branch versus HQ disputes, The branches pay an annual membership fee to HQ of £4,000 and, in return, are able to use the good name of the RSPCA, which handles all prosecutions against perpetrators of animal cruelty.

Although Watchdog and many other supporters across the country protested the innocence of the Wakefield Three, the case dragged on for two years, cost the RSPCA, on some estimates £100,000, although the charity insists a third of that figure is more accurate, and resulted in the three being reinstated and awarded their legal costs, The RSPCA, which backed off before judicial review, on the basis that the rules under which the three had been disciplined were invalid, said the dispute was caused by a minor procedural flaw. The three, Inspector Peter Clarke of West Yorkshire Police, his wife Wendy and bank manager Brian Harvey, say they were persecuted because they stood up to HQ.

The most vocal of the Wakefield Three, Inspector Clarke, explained: "The branch was broke, so we built up some reserves to expand the facilities for re-homing. But, after building started, we were £3,000 short, and it was either pay the RSPCA quota or finish the work. We knew we'd be okay again shortly because we had a legacy of £40,000 due. (Ironically, the departed lady altered her will after a row with the RSPCA about use of funds, and it was Wendy and I who persuaded her to change her mind.) A month after we'd raised the quota we 'owed', we were informed we were all suspended. We were put before a kangaroo court of seven people and told to explain why we shouldn't be thrown off, even though the legacy had come through by then. They made a list of 30 'charges', including things like not recording the numbers of animals re- homed, which we had done! We sat there in total amazement."

Peter Davies commented: "In any large organisation, where Iots of people are giving their time for free, there will be difficulties, like Wakefeld. But the majority of the branches are marvellous. They're always writing to let me know what they're up to. Generally, there is a collective identity, and everyone pulls together. There isn't a lot of trouble at branch level."

Prior to Wakefield, the entire l4 strong committee of the Newcastle branch sought a judicial review after being disbanded by HQ in 1991 after conflicts over their new kennels and the branch's re-homing policies. The branch paid £5,000 in legal costs in preparation and were advised by their QC they had a good chance of winning, but they backed down through fear of losing the case (and consequently their homes, to pay damages). The RSPCA sold the kennels and offices for £27,000 and now uses privately run kennels and sanctuaries. The charity says the Newcastle project wasn't up to scratch. Why then, with such huge reserves, didn't they replace it with something decent? Because the rule is, the branches must themselves fund-raise locally for their projects.

Enfield branch claims to have been persecuted relentlessly over a dispute with HQ which took disciplinary action against it under rules the RSPCA has since (as they did in Wakefield) acknowledged to be invalid. And North East London branch members barricaded themselves into their building when HQ tried and eventually succeeded in closing them down during the Eighties after they fell behind on their quota. But Swansea takes the biscuit.

The Glamorgan and Swansea branch, which affiliated to the RSPCA in 1968 while remaining financially independent (or so its volunteers believed), raised more than a million pounds over 30 years for a new animal centre. But they needed HQ approval for their plans, which were to buy modest premises, allow £390,000 for two years' running costs, and keep some funds in reserve. Instead, HQ shut the branch out of all decision-making about its project and instructed architects to design a home for £1.3 million which, even with an HQ grant of £360,000, still left the branch in the red before building had begun. HQ's property services manager appointed architects for the sum of £120,000. Joe Harris, branch chair, says the costs should have been just £25,000, and has ten firms willing to back him up on that, even one which offered to do it free of charge.

Amid fervent protest, the work began in January last year, and RSPCA HQ issued a formal complaint to the Charity Commission that the branch had mishandled funds. The society has since withdrawn this allegation, although it forms the basis of its decision to disband the branch. Swansea's former members describe the current project as 75 acres of land, a cathedral of an office, three little huts for the animals, l6 dog kennels and 40 cat pens – the old centre had room for 60 dogs and cats, so it's hard to see the gain for the animals. The RSPCA says the project was built with expansion in mind, to include an equine facility.

Branch members are currently seeking legal action to regain control of their funds, which they claim HQ has squandered, and have just applied for a judicial review against the decision to disband the branch. If they win, they may sue the RSPCA for professional negligence.

"The RSPCA just wanted a showcase project for public relations, never mind the care of the animals," Joe Harris insists. "The office work could have been done from a portacabin, instead of which we've got this bloody cathedral. The whole thing stinks, but were going to win and get our centre back." Swansea Labour MP Alan Williams is behind the branch, and the RSPCA is known to be extremely worried about the situation, although Peter Davies dismisses it as the actions of a few troublemaking hotheads. "We want them kicked out because they are causing mayhem. We just want to complete the project. The penalties to stop the work now are significant." Davies claims the new project had the full support of the previous committee, which was "taken over" by Harris when he joined the branch last year. Harris denies this. And Nestor Thomas, who served on both committees, old and new, says that there was never local agreement to the HQ scheme.

As well as being torn by internal disputes, the RSPCA has often fallen out with fellow animal charities and campaigns. The lobby group Compassion In World Farming (CWF) is furious that RSPCA vice-patron George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, voted against the banning of transport of live animals last November, something the charity claims to support. "It stinks," says spokeswoman Joyce DeSilva. "It's appalling that he, a supposed champion of animal welfare, has bowed to pressure from farmers." CWF was also piqued when, after campaigning vigorously to improve the appalling way sows are kept in crates during pregnancy, the RSPCA jumped on the bandwagon and stole its thunder.

The campaign group for the abolition of the six-month quarantine laws, Passport For Pets, was forced out of the limelight last year when the RSPCA decided it, too, wanted to replace quarantine with a vaccinations and passport package, after years of defending its pro-quarantine position. Neutering is another issue the RSPCA only began campaigning for with any force after it was successfully promoted by other organisations.

Respect For Animals, in l995, organised a boycott of the three main ferry companies in protest at their participation in the transport of live animals. They were on the brink, they say, of getting ferry transport of live animals banned when Peter Davies stepped in to get the ferry companies to agree to a code of conduct. Mark Glover, a campaign spokesman, fumes: "For 40 years they'd campaigned on this issue, and then they wanted a bloody code of conduct. We were absolutely astonished." Glover believes some of the RSPCA's undercover work is excellent. But, he adds, "the problem is, they don't use their information to change anything. What do they do when ostrich farming hits the headlines? Ban it? No. They want to regulate it."

The NCDL, most famous for advertising guru 'Trevor Beattie's Toys Aren't Us' posters in support of its campaign A Dog Is For Life, is growing in popularity and membership. It was the first to protest to Kenneth Baker about mandatory destruction of dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act, but it was the RSPCA that reaped the PR benefits. The NCDL was also the first to campaign vigorously against puppy farming last year, yet the bill drafted by the multi-agency working group set up to tackle the problem was hijacked by the RSPCA. The NCDL didn't get an opportunity to comment. Clarissa Baldwin, NCDL's chief executive, was furious. While the NCDL wants to ban puppy farming completely, the RSPCA is content just to tidy it up. Davies's response for the RSPCA is: "The NCDL aren't a campaigning organisation, and their campaigns, like puppy farming, were good, but they weren't gaining momentum, so we took over because it was needed. No one else can do it quite like us. I admit that before I came here five years ago, we did see ourselves a bit as 'big brother' and we were rather aloof. All that is changing. We get on much better now with others, and we're forging links with other charities we wouldn't have before. But people love to hit at successful things, and what we mustn't forget is that all these other charities are about single issues, just dogs, or just cats. We do everything, from wildlife to cats and dogs, which is our core work, to horses, international work, education and lobbying."

Davies insists that the RSPCA is firmly pro-pet. However the RSPCA's advertising campaigns do little, compared with other animal charities, to promote animal ownership in a positive way. Their campaigns, like the controversial pile of dead dogs poster, tend to focus on the negative.

The RSPCA's stand at Crufts featured a dirty kennel with synthetic dog excrement on the floor to illustrate how not to care for dogs. The stand was criticised by passers-by and animal-welfare people. Next to another charity's posters extolling the virtues of pet ownership among the elderly and lonely, the RSPCA's exhibit looked mean-spirited.

Davies says many of his critics are "little old ladies sat there with a box of lever arch files, with nothing better to do". He adds: "I'll sometimes get a complaint from one of them, and then I'll realise she is talking about something that happened 20 years ago. They trot out the same old stuff year after year. How can we be arrogant and uncaring when, twice a year, I invite all the other animal-welfare charities along to tell them what we are doing and exchange ideas? We consult widely with a large number of people. These people who knock us are voices from the past,"

In the wider world, criticism is far out- weighed by the excellent publicity gained from Animal Hospital. The show, now in its fourth year, has proved a more than efficient fund-raising tool for the RSPCA. There are four hospitals in the UK, including Harmsworth in Birmingham where the programme is filmed. The hospitals are not free, however. As Sarah Powell from the PDSA (Peoples' Dispensary for Sick Animals, which operates 45 veterinary clinics across Britain) points out, what they don't broadcast on the programme is that they charge for medicine. "People who can't afford the RSPCA's prices for pills come to us," she says. Single mother Theresa Leves contacted Putney Animal Hospital to get her dog spayed. She was quoted £90, the same price as a private veterinary practice, and they initially offered no concessions, unlike the NCDL, which has a policy of always trying to accommodate people on benefit. The RSPCA finally dropped the price to £40.

The charity keeps a close eye on costs in its more public role. Each year, thousands of abandoned and stray cats and dogs roam the streets of Britain and, until l990, the RSPCA took them in. Since the Environmental Protection Act was passed, the onus is now on local authority dog wardens to look after strays. Sometimes, the RSPCA will take strays in and bill the local authority for kennels but usually, according to the National Dog Warden Association's policy officer, Cuthbert Jackson, the RSPCA won't accept animals unless the owner can be contacted to ensure payment of medical bills, after a road accident for example. The local authority's duty ends at preventing suffering, so paying for emergency surgery, say, would be out of the question. RSPCA to the rescue? Probably not. The RSPCA says that when the new dog ID system is introduced, the problem of strays will decrease, but meanwhile they must remain a local authority responsibility. "If an animal is at the end of the local authority's statutory seven-day period and about to be put down, we may try in some instances to find kennels," says Peter Davies. "We always do what we can to help."

There is a plethora of complex, emotive issues challenging the RSPCA, from vegetarianism to "animal liberation". Among the most intractable is blood sports. Worryingly, the 2,000-3,000 members who leave the RSPCA every year have, since February 1996, been more than replaced by blood sports enthusiasts, Following Labour threats to reform the hunting laws, the British Field Sports Society lobby began infiltrating the RSPCA. Despite the obvious conflict of interests, there is nothing the RSPCA can do to prevent it. The Charity Commission forbade the society to exclude bIoodsports supporters on the basis that a persons membership of one organisation isn't sufficient to ban them from joining another. Meanwhile, RSPCA membership, which costs £l5 a year, has risen from 25,000 a year ago to a recent peak of 40,000, and this new membership is fuelling more internal dissension and criticism than ever.

Key policy areas such as hunting are voted on by all members and a majority vote at this year's AGM, although unlikely, could result in a change of policy. The RSPCA is meanwhile supporting the recent Bateson report, which found that hunting deer with hounds is extremely cruel, and resulted in the National Trust banning stag hunting on land it owns. "We are looking into this issue very carefully, and we will be seeking early legislation," Peter Davies says. He recently announced his intention of conducting a similar inquiry into the degree of suffering endured by hunted foxes.

Former RSPCA deputy treasurer Bill Jordan says the RSPCA is made up of pragmatists who believe doing something is better than doing nothing, but who never rock the boat. "They are an establishment organisation," he says. "They never, ever listen to new ideas." The RSPCA would be the first to admit to pragmatism rather than idealism. But is reacting to external events and taking half measures good enough? Change certainly doesn't feature on the RSPCA's agenda. The society believes the best way to prevent cruelty is to prosecute and publicise. How about better education programmes, more advice and help for animal owners, and financial assistance with veterinary care for those who need it? The RSPCA says such help is available, but testimony from those who have had dealings with the RSPCA does not bear this out.

The Michael Howard approach, meanwhile, seems to hold sway. Confiscate the animals, fine offenders, and all will be well. But it isn't working. According to the RSPCA, there has been a steady increase in cruelty. More than a million complaints of cruelty against animals were investigated by the RSPCA last year. If the country's only law enforcement agency for animals is to be properly effective, it needs a new start.

Linda Joyce Jones Video

Sun, 20 Sep 2020 01:12:46 GMT

Linda Joyce jones talking about the RSPCA this lady is an ex trustee and volunteer for the RSPCA. Finally people are speaking out about this charity.

We can only hope and pray that the people who can do something about them will do something about them.

RSPCA sacks vets and closes animal clinics to save cash

Sun, 13 Sep 2020 22:21:57 GMT

What a day to start a blog.

Despite news reports claiming the RSPCA's biggest worry is mismanagement, we do not believe that, we believe the public have finally started to see the truth about the RSPCA. Too many people are speaking out about them, hence the drop in donations from 2018.

The RSPCA are blaming Covid19, however Covid19 was not to blame for the drop in donations in 2018. Typical of the RSPCA to blame anything and everything before speak the truth and blame themselves.

Why would anyone donate to a charity who closes animal hospitals that helps pets in need?

A charity that refuses to offer help to anyone who may be in a position of needing help?

A charity that kills more animals than it rehomes?

A charity that refuses to help stray animals?

A charity that simply seems to be without charity?

From The Sunday Times:

RSPCA sacks vets and closes animal clinics to save cash

Volunteers fear injured and abused pets and wildlife will have nowhere to go after centres are sold to cover a rising deficit

Shanti Das

Sunday September 13 2020, 12.01am, The Sunday Times

The animal care charity is facing a £47m funding gap

"The RSPCA has closed four animal centres and dismissed hundreds of staff as part of an overhaul that it hopes will help to plug a £47m funding gap.

The majority of the people being made redundant are frontline workers including vets, care assistants and animal collection officers, who attend rescues. About 90 staff in the RSPCA’s inspectorate division have been let go.

The closure of the animal centres by the 196-year-old charity will create 76 job losses. Former staff and volunteers fear that the closures will leave injured and abused animals with nowhere to go.

Among the facilities shutting down is Putney Animal Hospital, which has treated injured pets and wildlife across south London for more than 100 years.

As well as urgent care, it also offers veterinary services at a reduced cost to those on low incomes. The centre carries out 20% of all the RSPCA’s frontline work, treating more than 7,500 animals every year.

The other sites are Southall Cattery and Clinic in south London, and Lockwood Equine Centre and South Godstone Animal Centre, both in Surrey.

Selling the four sites could generate £18m for the charity, according to the RSPCA. Lockwood, which rehabilitates and rehomes horses, was bequeathed to the RSPCA in 2005 by its former owner, Kay Lockwood. The site of the Southall clinic was also donated to the charity.

Laura Stokes, 26, a former volunteer at Southall Cattery, said the centre was “chock-a-block” all the time: “They’re always full. I don’t feel like this is a decision being made in the interests of the animals. If they don’t have anywhere to go, what will happen to them?

“All the staff are absolutely heartbroken. They have concerns about money and what they’re going to do, but they’re also worried about the animals.

“There’s a lot of people who used Putney that don’t fall into any of the postcodes for other charities and don’t have anywhere else to get their veterinary support.”

A care assistant at Putney, who is among those made redundant, said he had been asked to help clear the building and empty equipment into a tip. “It’s unbearable,” he said. “This isn’t just a job for us; it’s a life. We do it for the animals. We can’t believe this is happening.”

The RSPCA, whose patron is the Queen, said Covid-19 had “exacerbated” a “challenging financial situation”. Its latest annual report showed a deficit of £6.9m in 2018 compared with a surplus of £24.8m the year before.

The charity’s figures show it had faced a £12m deficit before Covid-19. This could reach £25m by the end of this year and £47m by 2022. It hopes that cutting about 250 jobs will save £20m by 2022 and said 20% of those affected by the redundancies were managers. The charity has £60m in “free reserves”, but said using this money would leave it in a “precarious” position.

The RSPCA said: “No one wants to be in the position of making these cuts but they were sadly essential and urgent to safeguard our vital services for the future. Unfortunately, the vast majority of our expenditure, rightly, is on our frontline services and we can no longer achieve the savings we need without making cuts to these services.”

The Unite union accused the charity of using Covid-19 as a “woeful excuse” to dismiss staff.

There are also signs of turmoil at the top. In recent weeks four executives in the RSPCA’s leadership team — assistant chief executive Chris Wainwright, group financial controller Helen Tracey, director of finance Kevin O’Brien and head of people and culture Patricia Williamson — have departed.

The charity, which has not yet removed their names from its website, insisted their departures were “entirely unrelated” to the shake-up.

The restructure is part of a 10-year strategy agreed upon by trustees and will be completed by the end of this month.

As well as reducing its deficit, the charity hopes that the changes will help to “modernise” the RSPCA’s culture and organisation.

In June, it said it had been considering adopting the mantra “Animal lives matter” as one of its organisational beliefs, but had ditched it by August in favour of “All animals deserve a good life”.