RSPCA

[stonecircle]

Did anyone watch the Panorama programme on the RSPCA? I know they get a bad press - and not just on here - but some of the case studies they used hardly supported the clear suggestion that their actions are misguided. A farmer who keeps his sheep dogs in grim conditions where one is left dead for two days? A woman who has 60 cats in her home and doesn't seek medical help for the sick ones? What on earth are they meant to do other than remove animals and prosecute? "Be more sympathetic to humans" was the closing suggestion ....

The judge did not agree that the farmer kept his dogs in grim conditions. The dog died when the farmer was working away from home so it went unburied for 2 days. And after the farmer was cleared the RSPCA took months to return the dogs. Given that the courts found the farmer not guilty of any offence the RSPCA had the clear option of leaving the animals where they were and not prosecuting.

The point being made with the cat lady was that there is a difference between someone who is deliberately cruel to animals and someone who tries to help animals but becomes overwhelmed. She had so many cats because people knew she took in unwanted cats. And I note that she was supported by a vet who felt that the RSPCA's intervention was inappropriate - that the RSPCA should have been doing more to help her rather than prosecuting her. However, in this case the courts agreed with the RSPCA.

I think Panorama acknowledged that the RSPCA had worked with the cat lady to find a solution - but she just wouldn't stop taking on more cats. I thought the vet was a bit ridiculous to ask what else she was meant to do when people kept leaving them on her doorstep. Perhaps she could have got in touch with the rspca, cat protection league or other charities to make sure they were rehomed. As she wouldn't stop, I'm not sure what else the RSPCA could do.

I can't believe that the RSPCA would have removed the dogs on a whim and that they didn't have good reasons to do so. The living conditions shown certainly looked grim imo. I also didn't see any signs of affection between the farmer's wife and the dog she was with when they went to collect them. I know they're working dogs but I would have expected to see something.

I can't believe that the RSPCA would have removed the dogs on a whim and that they didn't have good reasons to do so

Again, the judge was of the view that the RSPCA did not have good reasons to remove the dogs. This is one of the criticisms of the RSPCA - that sometimes they are too quick to remove animals and prosecute. It may be that the judge in this case got it wrong but I certainly wouldn't be willing to form that view based on the Panorama footage.

I disagree about there being no signs of affection. She wasn't smothering the dog with love but there was some affection there, at least once the dog was in the back of the vehicle.

I watched some of it but having seen the stupidity of the RSPCA first hand I just turned it off.

They should spend their time educating people not prosecuting people.

In addition they need to remember that the inspectors personal feelings should never be the catalyst for a prosecution. They've lost site of what their role really is.

I wholeheartedly support them having their prosecution powers removed and put them into the education system to promote care and welfare of animals etc.

According to the RSPCAs response online, the farmer's dog was found to have died of malnutrition and would have been suffering for months before it died. In my opinion, it is very easy to snipe from the sidelines and pinpoint individual cases that perhaps could have been handled better with he benefit of hindsight. However, it is pretty telling that the examples Panorama relied on didn't seem to be particularly strong. So if that was the worst they can say about the organisation, it hardly merits a Panorama expose!

As I see and read at the moment, the RSPCA, the National Trust and the RNLI are all over dramatising their fund raising efforts and getting too political. As they are among the top charities, I am fearful that many people are being put off by the stridency, unless they are zealots. I am trying to concentrate on smaller charities with very tight focus.

Panorama would have been much better off typing RSPCA into MNs search engine when they were looking for cases for this programme!

According to the RSPCAs response online, the farmer's dog was found to have died of malnutrition and would have been suffering for months before it died

Given that the farmer was found not guilty by the courts, the RSPCA are playing with fire by publishing a response that implies the courts were wrong. It may put the farmer in a position to sue them for libel.

I disagree about there being no signs of affection. She wasn't smothering the dog with love but there was some affection there, at least once the dog was in the back of the vehicle.

Have just watched this bit back. She asks if someone can open the door so she can lift "it" into the back of the vehicle (who calls their dog "it"?). She says, "it will be lovely to have them back" (naturally, she's on camera) and pokes her fingers through the grill at one of the dogs who doesn't respond to her at all. Of course that's not evidence of anything, but it's telling.

However, it is pretty telling that the examples Panorama relied on didn't seem to be particularly strong. So if that was the worst they can say about the organisation, it hardly merits a Panorama expose!

Totally agree. And one or two positive case studies might have made for a more balanced programme.

Panorama would have been much better off typing RSPCA into MNs search engine when they were looking for cases for this programme!

Why? Most of the criticism about the RSPCA on Mumsnet seems to relate to them not doing enough rather than being over-zealous, which is what the Panorama programme was about.

Most of the criticism about the RSPCA on Mumsnet seems to relate to them not doing enough rather than being over-zealous

Nope thats wrong, I've posted (old user name) on dozens of threads where they've absolutely been over zealous.

In my personal experience they took a friend to court because her native ponies were in a field in winter (february) without rugs. They looked like wooly mammoths they were so hairy. They dont need rugs in the south of England when you come from the Shetland Isles and Highlands of Scotland.

They seized her ponies and tried to prosecute on welfare grounds. The judge laughed the RSPCA out of court but they didn't give up. They tried to get money out of her for the cost of keeping her ponies during their investigation. They went back to court asking for £10,000 for up keep costs and the judge warned the RSPCA that they were close to overstepping the mark with regard to the number of non-cases they were bringing before him.

My friend didn't have to pay and to this day the RSPCA still harass her dropping in unannounced to follow up with the case which they lost in a Court of Law. Shes made dozens of complaints about the staff not leaving her alone and their defence is theyre not interested in her concerns theyre only interested in the welfare of her animals.

I could tell you dozens of similar stories some from other horsey people, some farmers, some police and some vets. They all agree the RSPCA is wasting the money donated to it and that they overstepped the mark far too many times by prosecuting the wrong people.

They seem to go for easy targets, people who need extra help providing the right care and not taking to court. Most of those they prosecute dont have the money to fight it so give in then find they have a criminal record when the reality is the RSPCA failed them by not offering any real help or support. Real genuine cruelty cases are difficult to gather evidence for so they dont pursue those as much as they should.

I suppose she should have put a jumper on it and cuddled it until it passed out.

It's a working collie, not a handbag accessory. You can have respect for an animal and meet all of its needs while still referring to it as 'it'.

That would have made a much better case study Reinette than the ones they used.

Sadmum - your comments are ridiculous.

Yes there were. That was more cheeky than it should have been and I apologise.

I maintain that we have lost sight of what animal cruelty actually is. Our farm dogs lived in the byre with the animals all year. They had a warm den, food and water, and lots of exercise. That is one thing that most dogs I know are lacking, adequate exercise. Pet obesity is rising, but as long as you 'love' your dog and treat it like a member of your family it's not cruel. Which of the two examples do you think many people would believe to be cruel?

You're talking about two extremes sadmum. I've been around dogs all my life and I totally agree with you that cruelty takes many forms. I don't want to see any dog wrapped up or treated as an accessory. I would however expect to see signs of a bond between a working dog and their owner. I know we only saw a brief clip on Panorama, but I was surprised not to see a connection that's all.

I see more obese dogs than I like. Would rather the RSPCA prosecuted the owners of those dogs. But usually you only need see the owner to know why the dog is obese.

OC - I'd like parents of obese children to be prosecuted as well (where there is no underlying medical condition) not just those who batter their offspring.

This is the point entirely. I would also like to see dog owners who dress their animals up and paint their claws prosecuted. Since when is that 'allowing an animal to exhibit natural behaviour'. You can guarantee the poor thing hasn't been on a decent walk or been allowed to roll around in some dirt. Yet images of these dogs are everywhere.