The RSPCA Rides Again

The RSPCA is a bunch of wonderful, caring human beings. That is the theory. Cynics note that it is Royal while the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children [ NSPCC ] is merely National. That is probably just an accident of history. 

The modern day RSPCA is a heavy weight operation with revenue of £100 million a year. It is all tax free of course. That is why they have a well oiled publicity machine. It is a living for some people and doubtless a very well paid one for the senior management. Being taken over by the lunatic fringe means that it is vicious and dangerous too. Private Eye comes through with the truth from time to time. It is not pretty. Malicious prosecution is routine. Bribery and threats being used to pervert the course of justice are part of it too.

Down On The Farm - The Eye Explains - from Page 10 of PE 1203
QUOTE
THE RSPCA won much supportive publicity last month following its rescue of 111 horses and donkeys from a farm near Amersham in Buckinghamshire...............

Despite the success of this gruesome operation, however it was not quite enough to outweigh the less favourable coverage given recently in this column and elsewhere to cases where the RSPCA has been sharply criticised by the courts for the methods it used to bring animal cruelty charges on the basis of evidence shown to be so flawed the courts had to throw the cases out. In Portsmouth and Harwich before Christmas, for example,. the RSPCA was condemned for concocting evidence in ways which are unlawful, such as "coaching witnesses" and rewriting their statements to support lurid claims not borne out by the facts. 

Less than two weeks after the Amersham raid hit the headlines, the RSPCA brought another cruelty case: this time against Martin and Gina Griffin, who kept three horses in a village near Norwich. An RSPCA inspector, John Jenkins, told the court how, 15 months ago, he had found Florry, a 24-year-old pony, in an "emaciated" condition "with bones protruding", and removed the supposedly neglected animal to Mr de Brauwere's sanctuary.

The 12 charges brought against the Griffins included failure to provide the horse with proper food or veterinary treatment. As is now familiar in such cases, the RSPCA ensured that this horror  story was given considerable local publicity. When the defence came to reply, however, the facts began to look rather different.

The Griffins 'vet, Charlotte Mayers, testified that their three horses were all well looked after. The much-loved pony, which had been in the family for 20 years, was not emaciated but suffered from laminitis, an inflammatory disease which, she had advised the couple, required its weight to be kept down. . "

Mrs Griffin had tried to explain this to Mr de Brauwere but, as he himself told the court, he did "not want to enter a long debate" and walked off. Also appearing for the defence was Colin Vogel, an expert on equine welfare and author of the RSPCA's own Horse Care Manual, who confirmed Miss Mayers' diagnosis and stated that the pony had not been suffering.

At the end of a three-day trial, Judge Philip Browning delivered a withering verdict on the conduct of Jenkins, de Brauwere and the RSPCA. "It seems pretty clear," he said, that "Inspector Jenkins had made his mind up" to seize the animal, regardless of any expert opinion such as that of the vet on whose advice the Griffins were acting. The case should never have been brought.

Mr and Mrs Griffin were subsequently re-united with Florry, whom they had only been allowed to see once in 15 months, when the RSPCA wanted to put the horse down. Compared with the £100m poured into RSPCA coffers last year by members of the public, the bill for this dismal episode (estimated at £70,000) may seem tiny. But even some supporters might now be worried how often nowadays this supposed charity bids for publicity by bringing cases which crumble apart in the courts, supported by manipulation of the evidence so blatant that, increasingly, judges and magistrates are finding It hard to conceal their impatience.

'Muckspreader'