Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP Key. Home Page
The RSPCA
The RSPCA is short for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It was a worthy outfit once. Now it is deeply political and much too close to Her Majesty's Government. Private Eye number 1169 tells us on page 9 that:-
QUOTE
There are still possibly old ladies who leave money in their wills to the RSPCA under the impression that it is staffed by kindly folk whose main task is rescue oil-soaked cormorants or tend maltreated puppies. What they haven't grasped is the extent to which the RSPCA has been transformed into something rather different: a political organization, unhealthily close to government, which spends a large part of its charitable donations to promote political lobbying campaigns of a highly partisan nature
UNQUOTE
It goes on to give chapter and verse of their malpractice.
Down On
The Farm
Private Eye [ page 9 of 1208 ] feeds us the dirt and dirt there is
aplenty. Telling witnesses what to say, lying to their victims; it is
all part of the fun with a bunch of nasty little apparatchiks who
have too much money. Would you believe that the BBC, is their in
house propagandist?
RSPCA - Animadversion
Feeds you the dirt, dirt like perverting the course of
justice and some pointers for help should you need it.
Offering a man a £5,000
bribe to commit perjury and threatening to give false information if he
refused is a pretty convincing example. There was a nice new tape
recording of the event.
The
RSPCA Rides Again
They
are not nice people. Infiltrating a once decent outfit to push a half
crazed agenda is a Marxist thing.
Antonio Gramsci would
regard
it
as a little battle in his
Long March Through The Institutions and
part of his campaign to destroy civilization.
Historical note:- Gramsci took over where
Marx left
off.
Self
Help
Group for Farmers and Other Victims of the RSPCA
The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing
difficulties with the RSPCA
(The SHG)
Press Release
For Immediate Release
8th February 2008
RSPCA v ANNETTE NALLY
ANOTHER RSPCA CRUELTY CASE KICKED OUT
ANOTHER DEFENDANT IS COMMENDED BY THE JUDGE
AND THEN BREAKS DOWN IN TEARS
Annette Nally has, following 5 days in court and the expenditure of
tens
of thousands of pounds, joined the list of highly-respectable
Defendants
to RSPCA private prosecutions who should never have been
prosecuted. Her case was tried by Judge David Chinnery its sole result
being
even
more serious criticism of the RSPCA's beleaguered Prosecutions
Department, which the RSPCA says is led by Barrister Sally Case.
Judge Chinnerys remarks, in particular, focused on the RSPCA's
non-disclosure of very important documents which showed the case was
misconceived. The Learned Judge found that the case had been
punctuated with stops and starts due to the non-disclosure of
documents
by the [RSPCA] that should have in my opinion been disclosed to the
defence from the outset.
The RSPCA claimed that, because it was a private prosecutor which was
(incredibly) not used to bringing prosecutions, it did not
think
that
it needed to disclose documents which undermined the prosecution case
in
the same way as the CPS would have to.
Ernest Vine of the Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others
experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA said: We at
the
SHG say that
that is an incredible statement. The RSPCA brings hundreds,
if not
thousands, of prosecutions every year (we cant say how many, because
the RSPCA, which is a private organization, is not required to, and
will
not, release up-to-date accurate information).
Annette Nally was, like most defendants to RSPCA prosecutions, a
thoroughly decent woman. As Judge Chinnery rightly pointed
out, her
first taste of the courts was being prosecuted for cruelty to her pet
dog. Holly, a German Shepherd dog, had been in Annettes
care for a
very long time.
It was claimed by one RSPCA Inspector, on the
infamous unannounced
visit which Annette experienced, that Holly was in lean
condition.
Indeed, it was on this basis, and on the basis of allegedly untreated
ear and bowel conditions, that the RSPCA claimed Annette was
cruel. The
RSPCA had to accept at trial that every one of Annettes other
animals
were, and had always been, in excellent condition.
There were therefore strong parallels with last weeks judicial
criticism of the RSPCA, by District Judge Philip Browning in Norwich,
in
RSPCA v Griffin
Yet again in this case, the RSPCA's actions following seizure of the
dog, prevented documents which dramatically assisted the defence from
being seen by the court and the defence until the trial was in full
session. The undisclosed documents would have shown that
Hollys ears
had not required any treatment at all after the RSPCA took
her. How
then could an omission on Annettes part be proved, it might be asked.
When disclosure of these boarding records was required, the RSPCA
disclosed the wrong ones.
The dog whose records were released was not Holly.
When Holly's notes came through it became clear that there
had been no
treatment whatsoever for her ears. However, more than this,
the routine
wormers and broad-spectrum antibiotics, which the RSPCA's vets claimed
had been prescribed, had never once been recorded as having been
provided to the dog! So much for Annettes failure to
provide this
necessary treatment!
It was obviously very lucky that the mistake which the RSPCA claimed to
have made in relation to the notes was eventually uncovered.
However,
it was too late for Holly. She died six months into her stay
with the
RSPCA. Annette was not told about this, and only found out
five months
after Hollys death. She was, like so many animal owners
who have had
their animals taken away, not allowed to see her dog in the RSPCA's
place of safety. Annette is still waiting for Hollys
body to be
returned to her so that she can lay her to rest.
Some important quotes from the Judge David Chinnerys findings
include:
(1) I
heard evidence from Miss Annette Nally and from Mr
Colin Vogel [defence vet] who were both impressive witnesses but for
different reasons Mr Vogel gave impartial and impressive
evidence. I
am satisfied that you [Miss Nally] are an experienced animal owner and
have cared for them for many years.
(2) I
note that Miss Nally is a lady of good character
which is never a defence in itself but it supports your credibility and
means you are less likely to tell untruths I believe Miss
Nallys
evidence and that she would not commit any offence, least of all
offences of this kind.
(3) I
find as a fact that Holly was a German Shepherd dog
and at the top end of the scale for her age, being around 14 years
old
She had a temperature of 103, which went back down to 102.5. I accept
that the increased temperature at seizure could well be due to the
stresses of her removal. The teeth were not perfect, but she was an old
dog. The ears were red and inflamed, but did not require any treatment
at all from the RSPCA after seizure .
(4) The
prosecution submit that the test of cruelty is
purely objective and mens rea is not necessary. The defence
do not
accept this and I have been referred to various cases including RSPCA v
Hall, RSPCA v Isaac, RSPCA v Peterssen and RSPCA v Hussey. On
the
evidence, the only concern that was obvious to Miss Nally was the bowel
problem but even with careful monitoring little changed.
(5) I
am in no way persuaded that during the summonses
period or leading up to it that Holly has suffered. People do
seek
veterinary advice for all sorts of reasons but I cannot find any reason
why Miss Nally should have.
(6) The
summonses were not laid until two days before
the six month expiry period. This case has been punctuated with stops
and starts due to the non-disclosure of documents by the Prosecution
that should have in my opinion been disclosed to the defence from the
outset. I make no criticism of Mr Cave personally for this failing and
thank him for his efforts in ensuring these documents were [eventually]
disclosed [by the RSPCA] during the trial.
Following the case, Annette Nally broke down in tears and was unable to
speak. The good news for her is that she will not have to pay
the tens
of thousands of pounds of costs which the RSPCA ran up in prosecuting
yet another ridiculous case.
Anne Kasica, from the SHG, said: Annette is a kind and decent
woman.
It
was, as it so often is, a pleasure to help another victim of the RSPCA
in this case. So many people still do not find their way to
the
specialist lawyers, such as Jonathan Cairns, who we put Annette in
touch
with. No reasonable prosecutor would have made the serious
claims
against Annette that the RSPCA instructed its team of hardened
specialists to make - albeit six months after the event. They
then
claimed that they were inexperienced prosecutors and did not know the
rules on disclosure. I believe that, if you ask the
prosecutor where he
is this week, you will find that he is on yet another cruelty case.
Ernest Vine, said: It seems that the RSPCA's team may have
regrettably
again lost sight of the duty to be fair to the defendant against whom
it
makes these grotesque allegations of cruelty. It would be
helpful if
Sally Case were to remind the lawyers (instructed by her Department at
very great expense to the charity) of the heavy duty that all
prosecutors in a civilised country have to be fair.
If the RSPCA focussed more on fairness, and less on putting out
press
releases and trying to procure convictions against people like Annette,
this country would be a nicer, and very much safer, place in which to
care for animals.
Although the Judge made the right decision, no one least of
all
Annette and Holly - can be said to be a winner.
Before: District Judge David Chinnery, sitting at Leamington Spa
Prosecution Counsel: Mr J Cave
Defence Counsel: Anne-Marie Gregory
Defence Solicitor: Jonathan Cairns of OGarras Solicitors Leeds
Notes to Editors: -
1.
The claim that cruelty is an offence of strict liability,
requiring no mens rea (wrongful mind) and an objective standard
of
care, is one which the RSPCA's team of highly paid specialist lawyers
makes time and time again. The Court of Appeal made clear
findings on
this point in RSPCA v Peterssen - a Defendant has to behave
unreasonably
in all the circumstances as (s)he knows them to be. However,
the RSPCA
took another specimen case to appeal - RSPCA v Isaac
(correct). There,
the RSPCA's lawyers appeared alone, having promised Ms Isaac an
acquittal, but failed to cite RSPCA v Peterssen to the Court of
Appeal.
Indeed, the Court of Appeal in Isaac was led to, and it is clear from
the judgment of Lord Justice Holland did, believe the case was the
first occasion that the 1911 Act had ever come before a court of
record.
Many lawyers, inexperienced in animal welfare law, have since fallen
for
the strict liability argument. We would direct them,
and the reader,
to the unreported cases rightly relied on by the defence in this
case.
In RSPCA v C - another of the more infamous RSPCA cases - the RSPCA
unsuccessfully appealed findings that it was wrong to impose a uniform
adult standard of care on a child. The child was said by the
charity to
have failed to summon a vet to care for a cat with a bad tail
sufficiently quickly.
2.
The RSPCA, in order to increase the stigma that defendants
like Annette have to face before and during trial, promotes the idea
that there are strong links between child abuse and animal
abuse.
Jonathan Silk, South West Regional Director RSPCA, is Chairman of "The
Links Group, whose sole purpose is to promote the idea of a strong
link
between these most regrettable, and in our view unrelated, phenomena.
3.
Annette Nally's case is very far from being the first time
that such serious findings have been made against the RSPCA.
Indeed, as
a very basic example, and as seasoned RSPCA-watchers will all
know,
the RSPCA has a conviction - which, unsurprisingly, Ms Case and her
team
of highly-paid specialists do not like talking about - arising out of
the RSPCA v Retallick case, for perverting the course of
justice. Very
senior personnel from the RSPCA were involved in disciplining one of
their own inspectors for allowing material which assisted the defence
to
fall into the hands of the defendants lawyers (see Attorney General
v
RSPCA, The Times [1985] 22 June). The result of this, back
then, was a
huge fine in the Attorney Generals contempt proceedings against the
charity.
References:-
Attorney
General versus the RSPCA
For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or
Ernest
Vine on 01559 370566. Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: shg@the-shg.org
The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people
to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever
since. The
national help line number is 08700 72 66 89
A copy of this and previous press releases from The SHG are
online at
http://www.the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm
Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners
and
Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at
http://www.the-shg.org
Details of further criticisms of the RSPCA can be found at the RSPCA-
Animadversion website:
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion
ENDS
--
Fenris
RSPCA-Animadversion
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/
SHG
http://the-shg.org
RSPCA Appoints Chief Executive With Handsome Remuneration Package
QUOTE
The RSPCA is announcing a series of major
investments as it appoints Mark Watts as its new chief executive.
A multi-million pound programme of modernisation is underway at the charity,
including new handheld mobile technology for RSPCA inspectors and animal
collection officers (ACOs), a new online rehoming service for the public and
other investments in animal welfare.
Mark (63) has worked at the RSPCA for more than 28 years, most recently as
the charity's director of corporate services, overseeing the RSPCA's
financial and technology planning.
UNQUOTE
The RSPCA is a corporation which looks after its own.
Screwing the peasants and spending lots of money on public relations are just
part of the game.
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
is scathing on malicious apparatchiks.
Errors
& omissions,
broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or
whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.
Email me at Mike
Emery.
All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to
keep it
private, use my PGP Key. Home Page
Updated onSaturday, 19 July 2008 17:54:58