View Full Version : Are the RSPCA fit for purpose?

12th Jan 2013, 16:56
Stories like this have been piling up in recent years.

Are they going astray?

RSPCA accused of needlessly slaughtering sheep - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/farming/9797383/RSPCA-accused-of-needlessly-slaughtering-sheep.html)

12th Jan 2013, 16:58
RSPCA was politicised a LONG time ago, and that was the point when it should have been stripped of it's status so an organisation could be formed which had the same values as the RSPCA once had.

12th Jan 2013, 17:07
From the same newspaper....

RSPCA accused of double standards over hunt prosecutions - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9796043/RSPCA-accused-of-double-standards-over-hunt-prosecutions.html)

So all the footage from a TV series is not "evidence" in the eyes of the RSPCA? And if they asked Plod in SEVERAL areas to get warrants and were refused in (at least) only ONE, they won't mind telling the world what happened with the warrants they did actually get.

glad rag
12th Jan 2013, 17:12
Just about the same as the RSPB,

Every bird is equal, but some are more equal than others.

12th Jan 2013, 17:24
Things like this really trouble me. I love animals, always have, it still bugs me that I eat meat again (although that's another story). I donate £3 a month to the RSPCA, stories like this make me think I should save that money up and donate it to my local RSPCA, I follow their work, it's separate from the national charity and I know they work damn hard.

I actually applied for an inspectors job a while back, I heard nothing back but a question on the application was basically would you be ok putting animals down. I'm rather glad I didn't hear back.

12th Jan 2013, 17:29
Next question please.

12th Jan 2013, 17:29
RSPCA lost it years ago. Same applies over here in Aus. Now run by a bunch of greenies. They are almost worse than PETA.

The fact that the Gov't picks up the bill in some cases is crazy.

I notice someone mentioned RSPB. Remember when our family had a lot to do with the RSPB when bird catching in the UK, was agreat org. Now I read in various UK newspaper and magazine about what the poster above said, some birds are more equal than others.

12th Jan 2013, 17:43
Penn and Teller's opinion of PETA and RSPCA.

Penn and Teller - P.E.T.A. (Full Episode) - YouTube

Caution, is Penn and Teller after all, LANGUAGE

Milo Minderbinder
12th Jan 2013, 18:36
A couple of points
First the transport of sheep is strictly controlled, and carriage of lame animals is totally banned. If those sheep were lame, then they could be neither exported nor - legally - shipped to a holding site to recover. Slaughter was the only legal action. Further transport - even only a short distance - would be illegal.
Even if they had been sent to a holding site, finding one at short notice may have been very difficult. No farmer would want sheep of uncertain origin dumped on him: the risk of lice / ticks / scab / scrapie would be too high. Besides which the cost of the land rental would exceed the return from the eventual slaughter.

Second, if the port really has closed then the UK hill farms will be hard hit. Live sheep exports for the halal market (predominantly to France) have in the last few years given many of our sheep farmers a survival lifeline. The UK can produce better quality sheep more cheaply than the Europeans. If the port is closed to live exports, then that market will die and many of our hill farms will be unable to sell their product. The european halal market only wants live animals.
You can argue that the cessation of the halal trade would, ethically, be a good thing. Maybe so, but it could mean the closure of yet more of our indiginous farming industry.

12th Jan 2013, 18:55
A big problem in the US is that the nationally funded humane organizations tend to produce compelling, heart-wrenching advertisements deploring the cruelty, neglect, and longing for love suffered by unowned pets, but they tend to take the lion's share of donations to pay administrative costs and staff salaries, not to care for animals.

A sizable chunk of my wife's and my charitable contributions go to animals, but we donate directly to the veterinarian who cares for our own beloved canine. We know where her heart is and she's local. We can see what she is doing. She has set up a small foundation to rescue, care for, feed, and place animals from kittens to horses who would otherwise be euthanized. I'm comfortable that our dollars are going to help the animals, not to a business calling itself a charity that makes its money pandering to emotive guilt rather than providing aid to the suffering animals it purports to be helping.

12th Jan 2013, 19:05
I took the decision along time ago that not one penny of my money would find its way into the coffers of the RSPCA.

12th Jan 2013, 19:13
I had dealings with the RSPCA and saw no evidence of the basic business skills needed to use donations effectivley.

12th Jan 2013, 19:16
We are the same as Ben, we donate money and time to Great Pyrenees, Malamute and German Shepard rescue centers run by individuals and to a lady that lives on a farm near our oldest son's farm, that will take in any hurt, lost or abandoned animal, you name it, she'll take it.

All the funds they receive goes only for food and vet bills. All of these people have a steady income that more than handles their personal needs.

The city animal shelter have made great strides to becoming a 'no kill'* shelter and plans are that it will make the complete change over by 2014. Even now adoptable pets are very rarely put down, as the local newspaper and local TV stations run articles and news segments when an adoptable animal is getting close to its time.

* Only animals that so badly injured or sick to the point they are in un-treatable pain will be put down. Wild animals, such as feral cats, are neutered and released.

12th Jan 2013, 19:19
There's no shortage of donors who give to the RSPCA.

Many lonely elderly people leave their estate to the RSPCA.

This enables the RSPCA to spend large sums on management and high profile court cases.

12th Jan 2013, 19:31
RSPCA summoned to meet head of charity watchdog after controversial David Cameron hunt prosecution - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9796582/RSPCA-summoned-to-meet-head-of-charity-watchdog-after-controversial-David-Cameron-hunt-prosecution.html)

12th Jan 2013, 19:42
RSPCA - wouldn't widdle on them if they were on fire.

Came home some years ago to find everything but the alamo in the yard.

"There's a terrier stuck down a fox hole and the fire brigade are digging it out" I was told.

Off I went to investigate and found thatthe digging was at a badger sett on my property. There was a lurcher tied to the fence and a pick and shovel lying nearby.

The fire brigade were working themselves into a fair lather whils the terrier - and lurcher owner leaned on the fence watching.

I wandered over to the RSPCA rep and asked them why they didn't recognise someone out for a bit of badger baiting - tow dogs, pick, shovel, and at a badger sett nowhere near a public footpath?

All I got was a blank stare and a comment that they can only respond to the message received as to how they treat a call out.

What is the point of them, if when presented with a scenario like this, they do nothing?

12th Jan 2013, 19:46
For over 24 years I worked for a police force and made many requests to the RSPCA for assistance. In that time I can only recall them agreeing to an attendence less than 5 times. We would only call them if unable to get a local vet etc because of the poor response.

They would take ages to answer their emergency number, to hold waiting for an answer for more than 15 mins was regular, even at 2am on a Sunday. Did not help in them having only one number for the whole of the UK.

They don't have enough staff. Recall an example where they stated they had one inspector to cover three counties and that was during a weekday in office hours. They wanted police to remain on scene until that inspector travelled to the scene with an eta of 3 hours due to their current commitment and travelling time. We did'nt stay as we had other more urgent calls to deal with. They rang later asking for an update and we told then unit had been diverted. The indication was that they would cancel their inspector without calling the original caller back first.

The RSPCA became a last resort well before I retired as we prefered anyone local to assist.

DX Wombat
12th Jan 2013, 20:07
Having watched some of the tv programmes, made some years ago, featuring the RSPCA I can say in all honesty that I have never seen so many people with minimal people and animal handling skills allegedly helping supposedly poorly treated animals. I can't remember specific details apart from one, very young inspector announcing that one dog mustn't have been fed for days as it was so hungry. Really? She made that judgement purely on the basis that the dog had polished off a bowl of food which she had plonked in front of it. Plonk a bowl of food in front of Bryn and he would most likely tuck in too even if he had not long been fed. He does a good line in appearing to be starving. Dilys, on the other hand, looks as if she has never had a decent meal in her life but eats as much as she wishes. :hmm: The words "It will have to be put down" were uttered far too frequently. Animals which were obviously starving and extremely thin were not given a chance. Contrast that attitude with these examples from our local Border Collie Rescue (http://www.fostbc.org.uk/index.php): Tweed (http://www.fostbc.org.uk/awaitingDetail.php?id=439) The photo of him taken when he first arrived isn't there but he was skin and bone, minus huge areas of fur, with sore, scabby skin. but just look at him now.
Then there is Moss, poor, terrified little Moss (http://www.fostbc.org.uk/permanentDetail.php?id=127). He has a home there, if necessary for the rest of his life.

I'm sure there must be some good, caring people working for the RSPCA but very few appeared in those programmes - maybe that was the fault of the programme makers, who knows? They don't do emergencies out of hours which is when many happen and have the nerve to tell some people that they can't have a dog/cat whatever because they live in the wrong area! Nothing to do with the person's ability to love and care for the animal.

13th Jan 2013, 08:04
The export of live animals because of halal rules is an absolute abomination and should be stopped immediately. If the muslims want to eat meat then they should be able to get meat that is slaughtered in humane abbatoirs (even using halal or kosher rules) and then shipped chilled or frozen.

What happens to animals in the middle east or other more 'backward' islamic countries doesn't bear thinking about.

We have a big debate in Australia at the moment about this and because one of the ports of export (Fremantle) ships a huge amount of live sheep right in one of our biggest metropolitan areas it is of concern to all.

Additionally there was a huge hue and cry a while ago about live cattle exported from our northern ports to Indonesia being cruelly treated. It almost caused an international incident. We thought it had all blown over and the Indons had mended their ways. But then this appeared in our newspapers a few days ago.....all I can say is BASTARDS!


13th Jan 2013, 08:09
And who says these sheep were being exported for "halal" reasons, sisemen?

13th Jan 2013, 08:22
What happens to animals in the middle east or other more 'backward' islamic countries doesn't bear thinking about.

The filters at their desalination plants are regularly blocked by the carcasses of dead sheep, jettisoned overboard before docking.

13th Jan 2013, 08:26
Agreed. The article does not specifically mention halal slaughter but it does say that Ramsgate is the only British port still doing live export "for further fattening and slaughter". The inference is that the animals were destined for the halal trade.

And from milo - note his last sentence Second, if the port really has closed then the UK hill farms will be hard hit. Live sheep exports for the halal market (predominantly to France) have in the last few years given many of our sheep farmers a survival lifeline. The UK can produce better quality sheep more cheaply than the Europeans. If the port is closed to live exports, then that market will die and many of our hill farms will be unable to sell their product. The european halal market only wants live animals.

The same quotes keep appearing - kill off our livelihood/farmers love their animals/animals treated humanely etc etc. If the muslims had no other option than to buy chilled/frozen then this gruesome trade would not continue. The things some people will do for a dollar. :yuk::yuk:

13th Jan 2013, 08:34
Wrong, sisemen.

The UK has exported various live animals for "fattening and slaughter" for decades, the more famous one being veal calves for the French market. This screw-up by the RSPCA just happened to be sheep, it could have been cattle, calves or pigs at any other time.

Only you are seeing any "inference", nobody else is seeing Islam or Halal as the reason for these exports.

Maybe because others know that Muslims ain't the reason for live animal exports, unless you are saying that the live pig exports from Wyndham are also to appease the need for "proper" Halal food in countries near Australia.........

13th Jan 2013, 08:36
Here's quite an anodyne example of the "humane" treatment of live export animals. Brings a whole new meaning to 'bring and buy' sale:



13th Jan 2013, 08:40
I guess the plot is well and truly lost when you have to use pictures like that to try and defend a position that you have clearly been told is indefensible, sisemen.

Now be a man and remove the pic so we can get back to the issues of the UK RSPCA instead of having the thread turned into yet another hysterical and inaccurate rant about Islam.

13th Jan 2013, 08:43
It's not a rant about Islam. It's rant about how they treat animals. It's a rant about western nations allowing this to happen to sentient beasts.

If you want to close your eyes to it then all well and good but I refuse to take down my posts. Report it if you will and let the mods decide.

13th Jan 2013, 08:53
Then start another thread about that then instead of trying to hijack this one for your own personal crusade.

After all, we are talking about the obvious cruelty inflicted on various animals by a charity which is supposed to PROTECT these critters from cruelty, not how people in other countries do not share our own "morals" over things like that.

I repeat, this whole thing has absolutely bugger all to do with YOUR perceptions on how these sheep MIGHT have been treated once into France and everything to do with how the RSPCA willingly subjected these sheep to the sort of cruelty they are supposed to be protecting them from, as well as how they now follow political ideals instead of the very ideals they were founded upon.

13th Jan 2013, 09:03
Many so called charities give very little, if any money, to the causes they claim to support. There are a fair number who style themselves as "advocacy groups" in their small print, and the donated cash is spent on flying activists and celebs to conferences around the world, where they can get their faces into the press by haranguing politicians.

Biz class of course, with a bit of shopping and sight-seeing while they are there.

Milo Minderbinder
13th Jan 2013, 09:23
It was I who introduced the topic of halal slaughter into the debate, and I made no claim that this particular batch of sheep were intended for that market. Nor did I make any claim that hala slaughter was the only market for exported animals.
However what I was trying to point out was that export sales of live sheep from the UK is an extememly important market for the UK sheep industry, and its one that in recent years has created a reprieve from closure of many of the marginal farms in this country. Without those live export sales, a good proportion of our sheep farmers will be out of business. The UK market for sheep meat isn't as big as it was in the past. If you close that port to live exports, then the farmers lose their main market.
As to destination - mainly France, but a lot for Germany as well.

Regarding the sheep in this incident, I'll repeat what I said before as everyone appears to be ignoring the point. If those sheep were really lame, then slaughter was the only legal option. Transportation of ill or lame animals is illegal. There is no legal way that once those animals were identified as lame that they could be moved further.

13th Jan 2013, 09:37
But the question that must be asked is this.

Were these sheep "lame" before they were offloaded into an area wholly unsuitable for the penning of livestock? After all, the report clearly says that before being offloaded only two of the sheep were classed as being "unsuitable" for transportation due to injury. Now, since the temporary pen area was so unsuitable it directly led to the death of two sheep when they fell down a storm drain it does bring in the possibility that the sheep who were "lame" were either perfectly healthy or were made lame by the incompetence of those who were supposed to be looking after the interests of the animals. Either way, the reasons for the RSPCA existing in it's current form must be brought into question, especially with the regular reports of the politicised actions taken by the organisation.

That is a question that cannot be ignored, nor should it be buried under any drivel about what MIGHT have been the end result for the animals.

13th Jan 2013, 09:39
Regarding the sheep in this incident, I'll repeat what I said before as everyone appears to be ignoring the point. If those sheep were really lame, then slaughter was the only legal option. Transportation of ill or lame animals is illegal. There is no legal way that once those animals were identified as lame that they could be moved further.

Not ignoring the point, Milo. The facts (as I read them) were that TWO animals had broken limbs on arrival and were put down - fair enough. The real damage was all caused by the RSPCA forcing the disembarkation of the animals from the lorry in well under optimum conditions. Six sheep fell into a storm drain and two died. The RSPCA [email protected] then slaughtered, badly and inhumanely, 41 beasts thatl livestock experts are reported as saying there was no reason for them to be put down.

Load of to55ers.


Milo Minderbinder
13th Jan 2013, 11:06
I'm not sure its as simple as that.....I see it more like some kind of domino effect going on.
First, if the vehicle had been roadworthy it wouldn't have been snagged and given a prohibition notice (presumably by the Dept of Transport)
Next, if the Port Authorities had given any thought of care to the animals regularly transiting through their port they would have provided some kind of holding facility for just this kind of problem. Or, for instance when sailings are stopped due to storms. As it was, the authorities were faced with having to create a makeshift pen with whatever was available.
Thirdly, this wouldn't normally have been an RSPCA decision or involvement. To the best of my knowledge, animal transportation is monitored by DEFRA and their vets. I don't really see how the RSPCA got involved, unless they were answering a panic call for help from DEFRA. Whatever the cause, the RSPCA were the wrong people anyway: their staff are not trained stockmen. What was needed here were a couple of farmers, or abbatoir workers. Not RSPCA inspectors who wouldn't know which end of a sheepdog bites and which end shites.....

So, what do we have?
Transport company at fault for poor vehicle
Port Authority at fault for not providing proper care for the animals being carried through their facilities
DEFRA for not handling the problem better
The RSPCA for getting involved when its nothing to do with them: they're not trained stockmen
All in all a glorious multi agency f'up

............................................................ ..........................

Back to the matter of the reason for live exports...
an often overlooked fact is that by exporting the live animals, the prepared meat can be sold as having an origin of the country of slaughter, obviously appealing to local markets. For instance, if these sheep had made it to France and been slaughtered there, they would legally have been describable as "French Lamb" (or Mutton or Mouton or whatever.....)

13th Jan 2013, 11:41
RSPCA trustees report 2011 :
1 Person paid £110,000 - £119,999
3 People paid £80,000 - £89,999
5 People paid £70,000 - £79,999
9 People Paid £60,000 - £69,999

Taking the mid values, that's £1.3m paid out to those on senior roles. Plus an extra £100k or so in expenses claims and an extra £100k or so in pension contributions.

Let's say we end up on average with £1.50 per month per punter after fundraising expenses etc.... the exec salaries means they need 72,000 punters just to pay the execs salaries. :yuk:

Personally, my top two policies when it comes to picking charities to support are :
(1) I give absolutely no money to those who pay their senior execs a high amount of renumeration. The typical argument of "oh, we have to pay competitive rates to attract talent" doesn't wash... you're a :mad: charity, not an investment bank.

(2) I give absolutely no money to those who insist on maintaing plush city-centre offices.

There are other factors too, obviously, but if charities don't pass the first two hoops, they're struck off the list.

13th Jan 2013, 11:52
Back to the matter of the reason for live exports...
an often overlooked fact is that by exporting the live animals, the prepared meat can be sold as having an origin of the country of slaughter, obviously appealing to local markets. For instance, if these sheep had made it to France and been slaughtered there, they would legally have been describable as "French Lamb" (or Mutton or Mouton or whatever.....)

Another reason, especially in the case of veal, was that the French always believed the meat was more tender and had more flavour if the animal was slaughtered locally instead of being killed and carved up near the UK farm and then frozen. They, basically, would not accept or buy meat that had been prepared elsewhere.

Drop the live exports of calves, and that's one hell of a market that is lost....

13th Jan 2013, 12:20
RSPCA trustees report 2011 :
1 Person paid £110,000 - £119,999
3 People paid £80,000 - £89,999
5 People paid £70,000 - £79,999
9 People Paid £60,000 - £69,999Mere amateurs compared to the way THE New South Wales RSPCA and
"ALL PRESIDENTS MEN" operated over the past decade.

Excerpts From SOS-News (http://sosnews.org/news/news2010/FEB12.HTM)

To gather more of an insight to this RSPCA-NSW Mafia, SOS-NEWS exposed President Andrew Wozniak (recently removed from the Board of Directors), who from his law firm Smyth Wozniak Solicitors of St Marys, has for over a decade collected millions of dollars in legal fees for prosecuting Animal Cruelty cases brought by the RSPCA-NSW, once handled by the Police Prosecutors Office until Mr Wozniak found a gravy train.

Working as the consulting solicitor, Wozniak invited fellow director and Barrister Paul O' to be the prosecuting Senior Counsel on the RSPCA Wozniak gravy train.

Further the "Good Old Boys Boardroom Club" use the current NSW RSPCA President Vet Dr Peter Wrights now replacing Wozniak as President, he was past Vice President, operating a vet clinic in the town of Goulburn. He has been on the Wozniak RSPCA prosecution gravy train for many years as an expert witness.

From just three 'Smythe Wozniak Solicitors' prosecution invoices of 2008, they have grossed to the tune, some $593,404.41

Smyth Wozniak Solicitors are the RSPCA-NSW solicitors still handling most legal matters even after Mr Wozniak was removed as President. He would never surrender this gravy train.

13th Jan 2013, 12:34

"It's not a rant about Islam. It's rant about how they treat animals."

They don't treat their women any better do they? :E

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 13:42
Nice rants about the RSPCA, shame that the Daily Mail appear to have a vendetta against them currently, mostly based on the accusations made by ex staff members who are being investigated for criminal offences.

With respect to the Ramsgate incident, it may interest you to know that the RSPCA inspectors were not in charge of the situation. But don't let that affect any rants :hmm:

RSPCA Statement

Today's article in the Daily Mail about the RSPCA is utterly inaccurate.

We are deeply disappointed in the bias in the Mail's article. The journalist was fully aware of the truth and has chosen not to report it, as such the RSPCA is examining the appropriate way forward and we are demanding a right to set the record straight in accordance with the facts.

This is the latest of a number of one-sided and misleading articles following the RSPCA's successful prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt; our application to seek judicial review on the live export of farm animals and the defeat in the House of Commons (by overwhelming majority) of the government's proposed badger cull.

In this current Mail article, the journalist has taken a one sided approach; stooped to personal attacks and replied on the opinions of unnamed sources and those who were not even present when the horrific events described at the port of Ramsgate took place - in which 47 animals died.

Just as we stand by our successful efforts to bring to justice the Heythrop hunt and its members for breaking the criminal law, so the RSPCA also stands by the actions it has taken in our opposition to the proposed badger cull and in drawing attention to the barbaric export of live sheep and calves from Ramsgate - and the actions taken by our inspectors at the port.

We reiterate that Animal Health as the agents of DEFRA was the relevant statutory body in control of these events at the port.

RSPCA Inspectors were present at the explicit request of the Port Authority, Thanet District Council to ensure that animal welfare laws (designed to protect the welfare of the animals) are fully implemented. This was made very clear to the paper but not reported as such.

The Daily Mail also failed to mention that several vets including two Defra vets were supervising the operation on 12 September 2012 and advising Animal Health.

The decisions on the day were being taken by Animal Health, as the competent authority recognised in law, and not by RSPCA inspectors. Again this was made very clear to the journalist but not clearly reported.

Parts of the Daily Mail feature, including comments made about the suitability of the truck used to transport the sheep and the unloading of the sheep, are part of a live criminal investigation by Kent Trading Standards which could result in charges against a third part. Consequently it would be inappropriate for us to comment to avoid prejudicing their investigation.

The journalist compounds his misrepresentation of the facts in relation to the membership of the RSPCA. We are honoured to have millions of supporters and donors. Without them, we would not be able to do the vast amount of animal welfare work we do every year.

There are many different types of supporter and charities define them in a number of different ways. For example constitutional members of the RSPCA, who have voting rights and are eligible to be trustees, number around 25,000 while we also have over 60,000 campaigners, over 300,000 facebook supporters and millions of donors.

Support for the RSPCA is growing, not declining.

The RSPCA is proud to speak out for animals who cannot do so for themselves and we will not be distracted from delivering the charitable purpose of the Society both to care for animals in need and to bring to justice those who abuse our fellow creatures.

Blatantly biased articles such as this simply increases our resolve.


Interstingly, the Daily Mail gets equally slated on Jetblast and quoted!

13th Jan 2013, 13:49
"This is the latest of a number of one-sided and misleading articles"

They don't like it when the tactics they use are used against them.

RSPCA and all organisations like this are political not welfare
orgs, hence the loss of support from a fair few people - except
those little old ladies who still remember them from the 60's and 70's !!!

13th Jan 2013, 14:39
Except, Mr Chips, only you and the RSPCA have mentioned the Mail......

Unless the Torygraph changed it's name overnight..........

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 14:40
So 500Nfrom your response may we assume that you really don't like the facts getting in the way of a good rant? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 14:41
Apologies Hellsbrink but the vendetta aginst the RSPCA appears to have been instigated by the Daily Mail

13th Jan 2013, 14:46
Ah, yes, a vendetta against the RSPCA by the Mail despite the same things appearing in so many news outlets across the nation.

Yeah, let's blame the Mail and hopefully enough fools will believe it........

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 15:09
ok Hellsbrink so the Mail have not been publishing stories knocking the RSPCA recently based on accusations levelled by sacked/ex staff? No, must have imagined that then.

And will you accept that the stories about Ramsgate are factually inaccurate?

Standard Noise
13th Jan 2013, 16:07
What do you expect from an organisation which appoints a self professed wannabe Liberal MP/PR man to the top job?

If you really care about animal welfare, help the little charities out there (including local RSPCA shelters).

Milo Minderbinder
13th Jan 2013, 16:28
Lookiing further into this, it does appear the RSPCA is being unfairly spotlighted here
Read these three reports
Live exports suspended after 45 sheep deaths at Ramsgate | News | Farmers Guardian (http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/livestock/live-exports-suspended-after-45-sheep-deaths-at-ramsgate/49739.article)
Report delayed into Ramsgate sheep deaths | News | Farmers Guardian (http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/livestock/report-delayed-into-ramsgate-sheep-deaths/52255.article)
Live animal exports suspended at Ramsgate port after dozens of sheep die (http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/home/2012/september/13/animal_exports.aspx)

Taken together its clear the main issue is the conditions under which the sheep are transported. There is mention of 30 statutory notices and 11 verbal warnings served on sheep-laden trucks using Ramsgate (though it doesn't say over which time period). The truck involved in this incident had been deemed unfit on three previous occasions, yet the owners persisted in using it.
One of the notable things is that all of those 30 notices and 11 warnings were placed on non-UK registered vehicles. The one in this case appears to be a Dutch truck, with French drivers (who are now on bail). Reading some of the other reports, the indication that much of the trade is by Belgian companies, making the whole business very very messy. Certainly it was Belgians who challenged in court Thanet Councils closure of the port following this incident.
Maybe its time the concept of cabotage was scrapped, and only UK based vehicles and crews allowed to be used. They may not be any better than the Europeans, but at least it would be easier to keep them under control.

As a final example of just how sick this export trade can be, take a look at this report from November. Ship put to sea with sheep onboard in the teeth of a force 10 gale
Farming minister to explain why hundreds of sheep suffered at sea | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/22/sheep-ramsgate-channel-crossing-storms)

13th Jan 2013, 16:46
hundreds of sheep were allowed to board a ferry for France and suffered "absolute misery"

I thought that sheep enjoyed being miserable - their dream is to wake up dead . . .

13th Jan 2013, 16:57
What a peculiar post from you G-CPTN !

Until fairly recently there was an animal rescue centre near Southend. It was run by an elderly couple and was rather overcrowded and not in best condition, probably due to shortage of funds and the age of the owners, but it did provide a home for many creatures ranging from owls to goats and donkeys.

The RSPCA instigated proceedings to get it closed down and it has been claimed that none of the animals survived the closure.

Not the first such action either - eliminate competition?

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 16:58
rather overcrowded and not in best condition

So the animals were suffering then?

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 17:02
Sanctuary owners accept caution over animal cruelty claims (From Echo) (http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/8868509.Sanctuary_owners_accept_caution_over_animal_cruelty_ claims/)

However, yesterday the couple accepted cautions ahead of a Southend Magistrates’ Court hearing. They would otherwise have faced 18 charges of animal cruelty in relation to animals and birds.

The case followed a joint RSPCA, Castle Point Council and police raid last August, when the sanctuary’s “hospital” area was found to be filthy with rodent droppings and “suffering” creatures.

A council report said: “A number of animals were found to be in distress and suffering extremely poor health.

I am assuming this is the sanctuary that the RSPCA closed down "to eliminate competition" Vulcanised

I know this is Jetblast but if we could try and slip in a fact here and there... :ugh:

air pig
13th Jan 2013, 17:07
The RSPCA has had form for precipitate actions over the years, google is your friend:

Many news outlets and internet forums have exposed the actions of this discredited organisation recently, maybe it is time it was closed down centrally and the individual shelters dealt with the care and welfare of animals. When they also involve themselves with non stunning slaughter by religious diktat and have it stopped and the poor care of animals by other social groups and the sale of bush meat in the UK, I may, I repeat may, listen to what they have to say.

Sandy Toad
13th Jan 2013, 17:09
The RSPCA are regularly misrepresenting their powers under The Animal Welfare Act. They often arrive in company with the Police claiming they are just supporting Police action when it is actually the other way around, the RSPCA have requested Police presence as they "fear a break of the peace." From a frail old lady or a single smallholder??
The RSPCA have no right to enter your property without your permission or a Court Order or unless the Police request them to check an animal in distress. However they will pretend they have and the Police are often unaware of their lack of powers.
There are well documented cases of the RSPCA putting down animals despite the DEFRA vet certifying they were healthy. Animals being put down despite local Animal Sanctuary's offer of housing them. Of Pigs being put down because they were living in mud!
Animal Welfare Charity my @rse. Check out their Head Offices to see where the money goes!

air pig
13th Jan 2013, 17:11
Mr Chips: when you have no or little money accepting a caution is the easy option. They did not have the money to fight any court case so had to take the easy option, just like the recent court case as they did not have the money to fight. The RSPCA spent £330,000 in legal fees, that is donors money, this in my view was politically motivated and hopefully the Charity Commission will tale a very long deep look into this organisation's activities.

13th Jan 2013, 17:17
What a peculiar post from you G-CPTN !
It depends how much close contact you have had with sheep.

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 17:20
I would urge you to actually bother to read the link I have posted. The local council instigated these proceedings and from the article there was clear evidence of animal neglect.

What are the RSPCA supposed to do in this case? Ignore it because it is a little old lady?

air pig
13th Jan 2013, 17:22
Mr chips: are you an RSPCA troll?

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 17:25
Mr chips: are you an RSPCA troll?

What a childish comment. No, I'm not. I just have the ability to actually google and find facts rather than the garbage that is being spouted on this thread. Someone alleged that the RSPCA targeted this "sanctuary" to eliminate the competition. One simple google search showed this to be utter nonsense.

If you think that publishing the other side of a story makes one a troll.....

air pig
13th Jan 2013, 17:30
Not childish just trying to elicit information of where you are coming from. yes, i have googled many threads elsewhere and the actions of this organisation and its misrepresentation of its powers frightening even more so the police's lack of knowledge that it does not have any powers of entry to a property and 'bullying' attitude, makes me very wary of such an organisation.

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 17:38
Fascinating. Two stories have been alluded to on this thread - Ramsgate and Southend accusing the RSPCAS of being in the wrong. Simple googling has shot both these down in flames.

13th Jan 2013, 17:43
And will you accept that the stories about Ramsgate are factually inaccurate?

Why? Because the RSPCA say so? When the DEFRA report comes out then that will give us something but at this moment all the RSPCA comes out smelling of is the stuff that is good for the roses. And they're hardly going to start telling the truth when they can happily attack the Mail to divert attention whilst ignoring the articles in the rest of the press.

Oh, and if it's merely the Mail doing stories on the RSPCA, then explain why the same things, and other cases, are being said elsewhere. As I have already said. As you are still ignoring.

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 17:49
Actually Hellsbrink, I apologised to you. The Ramsgate statement quite clearly states/claims/fabricates that other agencies were involved and that the Mail journalist (in that particular instance) had ignored what he had been told.

Suddenly it doesn't look quite so clear cut, does it?

Just because other news agencies are reporting it, still doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it false either, but I would like to think I have presented the other side of the story. Like I did for the Southend accusation above. For that I get called a troll.

Sandy Toad
13th Jan 2013, 18:02
Mr Chips
Try Googling a little harder.
The case I was involved with is neither of the two you quote and it lead me to research similar cases. An alarming pattern emerged of how the RSPCA now operate. There are even video clips showing their bully boy tactics.

Initially I didn't want to believe it as I had always had thought the RSPCA the good guys, but when an Inspector ignores a DEFRA vet and won't wait for a further independent vet "because I can't be bothered, I have more important things to do".
Then sanctions the slaughter of 12 animals including a healthy suckling calf and its mother "Because it too difficult to look after a calf on its own".

Is this the organisation people think they are donating too?

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 18:04
sandy Toad I am happy to be educated, but you haven't really given me much to go on, have you? If you would be so kind as to provide a link to an unbiased report I will happily read it

Sandy Toad
13th Jan 2013, 18:06
The RSPCA are of course un biased...
Try Googling some of the cases Nigel Weller has handled and won.

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 18:10
so the answer to my request is "no"


Sandy Toad
13th Jan 2013, 18:16
The answer isn't NO!
I don't have the reams of paper I printed out here in Dubai.
You claim to be adroit at Googling, do what I did and Google, there is plenty out there.
You obviously are a closed mind, unable to look at any other possibilities......INTERESTING.....

air pig
13th Jan 2013, 18:20
Sandy toad, I smell a troll, in support of the RSPCA

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 18:22
Not closed minded at all, I think the fact I look at both sides of the story proves that, however it is a usual ploy on jetblast to claim to know of "hundreds of stories" but then fail to provide a single link to back up your assertion.

I'm sure thats not the case with you though

Sandy Toad
13th Jan 2013, 18:22
Hmm I think a case of Goodbye Mr Chips for me!

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 18:30
Air Pig I've been usingthis site since 1999. how does me showing that you are spouting nonsense make me a troll in support of the RSPCA? Do you have a major issue with people disagreeing with you and backing it up? Makes me think a discussion forum is not the best place for you to spend your time!

13th Jan 2013, 19:55
"So 500Nfrom your response may we assume that you really don't like the facts getting in the way of a good rant? :ugh::ugh::ugh:"

Mr Chips
No, I thought it funny because we (as in hunters, shooters and some conservationists) are always accusing the "Greens" et al of one sided
and misleading statistics.

So what I was saying is when it is done to them, they complain yet
they do it all the time.

A bit like PETA, always in the news but they kill millions of
animals rather than provide shelter or try to find new homes
for them. They (PETA) are one level worse than the RSPCA.

13th Jan 2013, 20:01
I am assuming this is the sanctuary that the RSPCA closed down "to eliminate competition" Vulcanised

I know this is Jetblast but if we could try and slip in a fact here and there...

Talking of slipping in facts - there was a squiggly thing after 'competition' in my post. That's a question mark, so by omitting it in your 'quote' you have turned a question into appearing as a statement.

Tactics of that sort just deserve contempt and no other response.

Mr Chips
13th Jan 2013, 20:17
Oh Vulcanised just because you put a question mark it doesn't mean you weren't accusing the RSPCA by inference. I didn't even realise I had missed it off. But then again, I posted the news story which made your assertion/question look a little stupid - but spookily you haven't responded to that.

As someone recently said Tactics of that sort just deserve contempt and no other response.

14th Jan 2013, 01:10
Mr Chips

Head over this way and I will show you the badger sett that the fire brigade had to dig out, whils the RSPCA were trying to tell me, on my own property, that an individual out walking with a lurcher, and a terrier, and a pick, and a shovel, was simply taking a stroll and most certainly not badger baiting.

That's not hearsay - its hard fact - and why I would not donate to them if they were the last organisation on earth

cockney steve
14th Jan 2013, 09:38
Doesn't anybody find it odd that a body claiming to promote Animal Welfare, can be so inept as to be totally unaware of potential and actual situations until they have got so bad as the Southend case?

Any truly professional organisation would not have stood -by watching animal suffering, neglect and insanitary conditions escalate.
As soon as the old couples' inability to cope was suspected, a caring, sharing organisation would have volunteered help, support and advice for the benefit of the supposed focus of their activities.

But of course, there are instead a load of self-aggrandising,arrogant ,pompous quasi -officials on a cushy, well-paid ,well-pensioned number,with a highly emotive USP.

I've no doubt whatsoever that there are genuine animal-lovers in the organisation who sincerely try their best......but the majority?

repeat after me.... "GRAVY TRAIN!"