Sunday June 17, 2001
KANGAROO COURTS,
MUZZLED WATCHDOGS AND
FAT CAT BOSSES.....
IS THIS REALLY THE RSPCA

SPLIT IN TWO BY EXTREMISTS AND UNDER FIRE FROM THOUSANDS OF PET OWNERS, BRITAIN'S OLDEST - AND RICHEST ANIMAL CHARITY IS AT CRISIS POINT

As the worthy members of the RSPCA convene for their annual general meeting in Wales later this month, there will no doubt be a ritual licking of wounds. For Britain's biggest, richest and oldest animal welfare charity is riven with discord and under attack from all sides. At the heart of the hostility is a bitter struggle between fox-hunt supporters, who believe the Society has been infiltrated by loony animal rights activists, and campaigners for animal rights, who believe the Society has been infiltrated by blood- thirsty hunters.

The animal rights lobby directs particular loathing at the RSPCA's senior employees who, it says, are overpaid, ultra-conservative, authoritarian and ridiculously secretive.

The hunt supporters detest the elected members of the charity's governing Council who, they say, are either no-hopers or urban vegetarians with no interest in country issues.

Complicating the picture are the aggrieved owners of animals impounded by the RSPCA who are queueing up to sue, accusing the Society of arrogantly abusing its power and using its uniformed inspectors like a militaristic police force. A spokesman for the Charity Commission confirmed that it received 'quite a number' of complaints about the activities of the RSPCA.

On the Internet you can find plenty of individuals venting their anger against the organisation.

Victims Of The RSPCA, for example, is campaigning for a Government inquiry into the activities of the charity, claiming that it uses donated funds to violate the civil rights of animal owners.

Margaret House, co-founder of Watchdog, a critical newsletter, says: 'The RSPCA is undergoing the worst period of discord it has ever known. Members are treated in a despicable manner. There is no regard for natural justice and the secrecy is appalling.'

Mrs House, of Horley, Surrey, first joined a local branch of the RSPCA in 1974 and persuaded her late husband, a consultant anaesthetist, to become Chairman.

'When we started asking questions about the way the charity was run, every effort was made to remove us,' she says.

Watchdog is now a persistent thorn in the RSPCA's vulnerable flank. Along with her co-founders, Mrs House was at one time expelled from the organisation but later reinstated. She says she is now regularly harassed by RSPCA inspectors acting on 'anonymous' complaints that she mistreats her own dog, a Jack Russell-cross terrier which, ironically, she adopted from the RSPCA.

'People are harassed, victimised for speaking to the Press, hauled before terrible kangaroo courts if they step out of line. Is this the way a charity should be run?' she asks.

Money squandered on 'witch-hunts'

Indeed, the charity, founded in 1824 with the laudable aim of preventing cruelty to animals, now seems to be generating enmity both inside and out.

Many critics blame the RSPCA's £90,000-a-year director-general, Peter Davies, a retired Major General appointed in 1991. Mr Davies was at the centre of controversy recently when Lord Mancroft, deputy chairman of the British Field Sports Society, revealed that at a meeting with the director-general in 1996 Mr Davies had suggested hunt supporters be encouraged to join the RSPCA to counter the influx of animal rights extremists.

Mr Davies categorically denies Lord Mancroft's account of the meeting, but Lord Mancroft points out that there were a number of other people present who have similar recall to his own.

'I am firmly opposed to hunting with dogs,' says Mr Davies, 'and I have worked tirelessly to see an end to this cruel and outdated so-called sport. My wife and I have long been committed supporters of the campaign to ban hunting.'

Mr Davies claims the Countryside Animal Welfare Group (CAWG) tried to infiltrate the charity to overturn its policy of opposition to hunting. Earlier this year, the Society won a ruling in the High Court that it could exclude people from membership if they had ulterior motives for joining. Subsequently, 500 applications were 'frozen' pending investigation

. Event rider Richard Meade, three-time Olympic gold medal winner and long-time member of the RSPCA, was said to be behind the CAWG and was hauled before a disciplinary hearing of the ruling Council in London this week.

Meade's barrister responded with an elegant statement written by Sir John Mortimer QC pointing out that Meade's only 'crime' was to support fox-hunting. "This most inappropriate expulsion,' he argued, 'if allowed, will merely show that those who speak most loudly about animal rights have often lost sight of the fact that there are human rights also.' Members of the council refused to accept there was no legal basis for the hearing and later in the day it was announced that Meade had been expelled.The RSPCA issued a statement branding him as the 'ringleader' of a 'damaging campaign'.

Meade admits he has been actively encouraging what he describes as 'country people' to join the Society for years but not, he insists, with any subversive intent.

'It just seemed to me that , as country people look after the bulk of the animals in this country it was sensible they should be represented,' he said. 'Apparently members of the Council want to ban anyone who dissents from their views. It is disgraceful that they should squander money on this shabby affair.'

Money is the least of the Society's problems. Its reserves last year stood at £91 million and its income from legacies alone was in excess of £37 million.

Many animal lovers like to remember the RSPCA, which boasts the Queen as its patron, in their will.

The Society spends a huge amount of time and money every year investigating animal cruelty and bringing prosecutions - last year legal bills were to excess of £1 million.

Critics claim that under Mr Davies the Society has become an overbearing crusader, appareatly more interested in hauling animal owners through the courts.

Olive McFarland a 64 year old Suffolk smallholder and horse breeder, was raided by the RSPCA four years ago. She claims that a number of her horses injured themselves after being terrorised by low-flying military aircraft, but that the RSPCA inspectors were not interested in her explanation and forcibly removed all 27 animals.

Since then she has been fighting through the courts to have the horses returned.

'The RSPCA is a brutal organisation,' she says. "They are much more interested in getting scalps through prosecutions than in animal welfare.'

Judith Varley, a student from Washington, Tyne & Wear, discovered her pony was lame in September last year. When she returned from calling a vet, the animal had disappeared. She says it took her two days to discover that it had been taken away by the RSPCA. She still has not got her pony back.

'It seems they get away with anything'

Pedigree cat breeder Carol Jewitt from Morpeth, Northumberland , says she lost half her cats after a visit from the RSPCA in April, 1999.

"Their only reason for taking 12 cats away was that I had too many, which was ridiculous,' she says. 'I found the inspectors very intimidating. Since then we've been through hell. Everyone thinks the RSPCA can do no wrong, but they can get away with anything.'

The militarisation of the Society's front line - with uniforms and ranks ranging from 'Inspector" to 'Chief Superintendent' -also seems at odds with its simple pursuit of animal welfare. Eyebrows are also raised over the large number of animals that the Society puts down every year. Last year nearly 90,000 animals were destroyed because they were sick or injured and a further 1,600 because homes could not be found.

But Mr Davies rejects criticism. 'I believe the RSPCA does a wonderful job,' he says. 'No other society does more for animal welfare.'

Neither, he says, is the Society secretive or authoritarian.'You only have to examine the way our council members are elected to see that the Society's business is conducted in a fair and democratic way.'

Council member David Mawson, an admitted animals rights activist, may beg to disagree. The Society spent nearly £40,000 in legal fees trying, unsuccessfully, to eject him from the Council.

Mr Mawson, a 25-year-old London chef, complained to friends that he was the victim of a nine month witch-hunt, a 'horrible experience'. However, he could not go into detail because members of the Council are not allowed to talk to the media.

When I asked Celia Hammond, one of Britain's best-known animal welfare champions and a long-time member of the Council, what she thought of the RSPCA, she groaned. 'Ask me anything you like about anything except the RSPCA,' she said.

'I honestly can't say anything because I want to stay a member of the Council.'

Members gagged, kangaroo courts, animal owners bullied and intimidated, a man of the stature of Richard Meade expelled... if these claims are true, then what has it all to do with preventing cruelty to animals?

SHG Press Release

The Fat Dog Case

The RSPCA failed to alleviate Rusty's suffering.

All they achieved was to add the hunger pangs of starvation to the pain of arthritis and hip dysplasia and to separate Rusty from those he loved.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
18th January 2007

On the eve of Rusty's return to the Bentons The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) is breaking its silence on this matter in order to correct the misunderstandings relating to the merits of bringing this prosecution in the light of the statement by Ben Bradshaw, during the final debate before the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) became law, that

"It is not the Government's intention to punish the owners of fat cats, although overfeeding an animal can be problematic"

Said Ernest Vine of the SHG: "We hope that once the AWA is in force the RSPCA will comply with the intentions of Parliament and will never again bring a case involving an overweight animal before the courts."

"Rusty was suffering in the care of the Bentons. Rusty has been suffering in the care of the RSPCA. And Rusty will continue to suffer until the day he dies, irrespective of whose care he is in."

"Most of Rusty's weight gain occurred following an operation to neuter him. Neutered or spayed dogs need 30% less food than unaltered dogs and it is this factor that is contributing to so much obesity in the canine world."

"In Rusty's case this reduction in food intake has to be added to the reduction necessary to account for his inability to exercise because of the pain from his hip dysplasia and severe arthritis and his need to lose weight. The only means by which he can lose weight is for his dietary intake to be restricted."

According to Duncan Davidson, the defence vet, Rusty had unusually large amounts of grass in his faeces and was desperate to eat grass when outside. Rusty's need to eat grass can be explained by Mr. Davidson's estimation that Rusty needs a 75% reduction of the normal labrador's dietary intake.

Anne Kasica said "So the RSPCA have replaced the suffering of being overweight with the suffering of feeling continually starved and desperate to eat. No-one can cure Rusty's arthritis which is the cause of his obesity. Indeed, if it were so easy to diet Jackie Ballard, the Director General of the RSPCA would have gone through life with a slender waif like build."

"Which form of suffering is worse? Rusty cannot walk and exercise even when slimmed down because of his arthritis. And in his twilight years the one pleasure that every Labrador is renowned for enjoying, eating, has been denied him as a result of this ill-judged political prosecution."

"The Bentons were found not guilty of causing unnecessary suffering by failing to adequately treat Rusty's ear condition because with all of the immense resources available to them, the RSPCA had also failed to cure it. Just as they have failed to cure his eye problems and arthritis."

Indeed, Rusty had enjoyed treatment paid for by pet insurance for most of his life. But his pet insurance ended when he reached the cut off age. And the Benton's vets, Pet Doctors, refused to treat Rusty unless they were paid cash up front. Pet Doctors also refused to let the Bentons pay in instalments.

Said Anne Kasica: "The massive costs of the RSPCA's treatment regime for Rusty were beyond the purse of any ordinary pet owner. The RSPCA could have offered to help with the cost of veterinary treatment for Rusty but instead chose to spend many thousands of pounds in prosecuting his owners. They put Rusty through further misery by separating him from the people he loved and taking him from the only home he knew."

"This case highlights the reasons why people are afraid to approach the RSPCA for help. We have been campaigning for some time for an animal NHS for the animals of pensioners because just when insurance is most needed, when an animal becomes elderly and its owners income drops, is the time insurance is no longer available.

Conclusion

The SHG urges government to introduce a National Animal Health Service which we believe would do more to reduce animal suffering than all of the animal welfare legislation that has been passed while this government has been in power.

The SHG urges the government to take steps to control RSPCA prosecutions by requiring them to be scrutinised by the police and CPS before they are allowed to proceed, and we ask the CPS to actively quality control all RSPCA prosecutions by taking over and dropping those which are clearly political or which no responsible prosecutor would bring.

Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/ncat09.xml

Two years and £50,000 later, ordeal of policeman who put dying cat out of its misery is finally over

Ben Leapman and Matthew Chapman

Last Updated: 11:52pm BST 08/04/2006

A policeman who put an injured cat out of its misery after it had been run over was dragged through the courts by the RSPCA in a case that has cost £50,000.

After two years and eight hearings, the case against Pc Jonathan Bell was thrown out by the High Court. Pc Bell's supporters accuse the RSPCA of harassment and say the constable has been "to hell and back". He spent a month off work with stress as the legal process ground on. The officer's ordeal began when he was called to a night-time disturbance in Stoke-on-Trent, in April 2004. Residents showed him a cat that had been run over by a car. It was still alive but badly injured.

The constable, 36, called his control room and was told that there was no legal duty on the police to call out a vet, and that the RSPCA could not be contacted at that hour. After consulting with colleagues, he borrowed a spade and killed the cat with a blow to the head, striking three further blows to make sure it was dead.

A passer-by reported him to the RSPCA, which launched a prosecution. The cat's owner was never traced.

A two-day hearing scheduled for last June was postponed at the last minute when an RSPCA vet was called away to an emergency involving a bird.

Pc Bell, who is married with two children, was acquitted when the trial eventually went ahead last September. District Judge Graham Richards told him: "You did what you honestly thought best. You walk out of here without a stain on your character."

Yet despite the judge's words, the RSPCA carried on pursuing the case until, at the High Court last month, Mr Justice Bean refused leave to appeal.

A BBC Radio Five Live investigation into the case, to be broadcast this morning, raises questions about the standard of the RSPCA's prosecutions. It comes as Parliament considers the Animal Welfare Bill, which would allow the charity to pursue more than 100 extra cases per year.

Pc Bell, speaking after the September hearing, said he had "no regrets" about how he dealt with the cat. He said: "I am happy I killed it with the first blow. I made up my mind that I would hit it a number of times to make sure it was dead. I made the decision on what I had in front of me. I looked at the cat and I could see it was completely crushed at the back. I looked at it for between three and five minutes. I decided to put it out of its misery when I realised I was not going to get help from anywhere else."

Mark Judson, the chairman of the Staffordshire Police Federation, said: "He's been to hell and back. He thought he was doing his duty as a policeman in a difficult situation, and he had to make a judgement call, and he's been made to pay for it."

Colin Vogel, a vet called to give evidence in the trial as an independent expert witness, said the cat had been squashed to within an inch thick at its lower half. "He did the kindest thing, which was to put it out of its misery, whereas if he'd just walked away leaving it injured he could have just as easily faced a charge of animal The RSPCA, funded by voluntary donations, estimated its costs at £12,000. Pc Bell was partially funded by Legal Aid and his bill reached £7,500. Legal experts estimated court costs at £20,000 and the cost to the police, which put up four officers as defence witnesses, at £10,000.

The failed case drew criticism of the RSPCA from others in the animal welfare field. Chris Newman, the chairman of the Federation of Companion Animal Societies, said: "Some of their prosecutions seem to have a political agenda and are about proving a point rather than protecting animal welfare."

The RSPCA rejected the accusation and defended the way in which it pursued Pc Bell's case. A spokesman said: "The RSPCA prosecuted this man following complaints from witnesses to the killing and we maintain that this case was in the public interest."

• The report, The RSPCA and the Dead Cat, is at 10am on Sunday, April 9 on BBC Radio Five Live.