Wednesday, 24 March 2010


The joyless bureaucrats of the RSPCA

The lady looked up at me sourly. “You're ten minutes too late”. They said it would be OK, I pleaded; ten past three - I did ring to check. You see, it's quite hard to find the time and I don't know when...
“3pm”, she said sharply. “There's no one available to speak to you now.”
I looked at the bevy of staff loitering around behind the desk, doing nothing much. One woman caught my eye sympathetically. “You can have a quick look round”, Ms Timetable said. “Then come back another time.”
And then what? “Then you fill in a form.” Could I do that now?
“No, because there's no one available to interview you.”

Tuesday, 23 March 2010




de Brauwere

It concerned Martin and Gina’s 24 year old laminitic horse Florrie, which had been a family pet for two


The case, as usual for the RSPCA, was a private prosecution for ‘cruelty’:

1) accompanied by the RSPCA’s traditional PR techniques, and spinning to local and national media;

2) presented to the court over a number of days, at great expense (to both the taxpayer and the

RSPCA’s hapless subscribers) and inconvenience to other court-users;

3) brought by the RSPCA’s unaccountable Prosecutions Department, led by barrister Sally Case,

against defendants (in this case a council worker and a salesperson) of impeccable character; and

4) where the Defendants own vet - with whom the RSPCA ‘expert’ disagreed – was advising them.

The RSPCA’s ‘expert’ in this case was Nic de Brauwere. Rather worryingly for the RSPCA, in the light of

the court’s findings against it, Mr de Brauwere is the vet in the RSPCA’s recent high-profile seizures in

Amersham. Mr de Brauwere is in charge of welfare at ‘Redwings’, the rescue centre which the RSPCA

pays to stable many of its ‘rescued’ horses. The Griffins vainly tried to tell de Brauwere that they knew the

horse was thin and that they had to keep its weight down to avoid an acute recurrence of the long-standing

laminitis. This is not only good equine practice – it followed the excellent advice obtained from their

horse’s vet, Charlotte Mayers, who knew all about the horse, but with whom it seems that de Brauwere


So, the RSPCA’s ‘Inspector’ John Jenkins and Mr de Brauwere thought they knew better than the Griffins’

own vet. The horse was seized from the Griffins’ field where all the other animals, everyone agreed, were

in superb condition. Three ‘cruelty’ charges eventually emerged. The animal was taken to a “place of

safety” - de Brauwere’s facility - and his clients, the RSPCA, blindly pressed on with its case. They were

undeterred by the report of Colin Vogel, the country’s pre-eminent equine specialist (who incidentally

writes the RSPCA’s own “Horse-Care Manual”). Mr Vogel was called as an expert by the defence.

Judge Philip Browning, who is not known as a firebrand, made the following findings:

(1) “Mr Vogel is a pre-eminent authority on horses who heard the evidence in the case. In his opinion,

the horse was not suffering; he said that he had heard no evidence that the horse could not eat, no

evidence that it was hungry and he said that he had heard reasonable evidence that there was a

reason to keep the animal thin.”

(2) “It seems pretty clear that Inspector Jenkins had made his mind up [to seize the animal] and that

he was unlikely to have agreed that the horse could be treated as offered by Miss Mayers, a course

which would, in my opinion have avoided all of this”

(3) “Mr de Brauwere was not minded to discuss alternative causes of the thinness with Mrs Griffin and

agreed that Mrs Griffin was offering other causes - he did, to use his words, not want to enter a

long debate and did walk away at one point.”

(4) “I go further than saying that there is doubt - I find that the horse was not suffering at all at the

time it was seized. I do not need to go on to consider causing or permitting, but I will say that

nothing I have heard in this case casts any criticism of Mr and Mrs Griffin.”

(5) “I fully understand the reaction of Mrs Griffin in a situation where she is faced with the sudden

removal of Florrie, a much loved virtual member of the family.”

(6) “Mr de Brauwere was challenged in a number of respects by Miss Mayers and Mr Stanley as well

as by the Griffins themselves. On the 2nd October, other than being thin, agreed by everyone, the

horse was apparently healthy, alert and happy as far as one can judge these things. It is significant

that the other horses were in good condition … I cannot accept the inferences I am asked to draw

by the prosecution from the thinness of the horse and state of her teeth. I consider that she was

able to eat and although she appeared to be getting thinner, her demeanour and general condition on

the 2nd October at the very least would create strong reservations about whether she was

suffering. There is no explicit evidence to that effect.”

(7) “I recognise the emotional aspect of this case and the feelings of the whole family on her removal.

For reasons which will become apparent, I am of the view that this case could have been dealt

with in a better way, and certainly more sympathetically by Inspector Jenkins and the RSPCA.”

The SHG speculates that the RSPCA might have brought the case to highlight the 10th anniversary of the

damning report from BEVA (the British Equine Veterinary Association). BEVA’s concerns – one of many

criticisms by specialist vets. Is it possible that Sally Case, the Barrister in charge of the RSPCA’s

Prosecutions Department, and her team of highly-paid support staff and “out-house” lawyers, wanted to

emphasise the correctness of BEVA’s report?

1) “Some BEVA Council Members have voiced concern that the Society has appeared to prosecute

cases more in order to generate publicity and gain ‘scalps’ than out of genuine concern for equine


2) “In most cases, equine welfare cases do not present as an emergency; the cases usually involve

[alleged] neglect or malnutrition, which is by nature not acute … Recent cases have highlighted the

failure of some vets to perform full, or competent examinations, which are necessary to support the

decision to seize animals, or prosecute owners.”

Ten years ago, the BEVA report was hastened by specialist equine vets who were concerned that the

RSPCA was damaging the profession. The criticisms in RSPCA v Humphries are quite well summarised

by BEVA, and every one of these points could be made of the RSPCA again today. The RSPCA has

learned nothing in ten years, other than better ways of causing expense, distress and misery for ordinary

decent people, like the Griffins, who look after animals properly. It has also “generated publicity” recently!

The Self-Help Group (“SHG”) was formed to, and does, help people like the Grffins. SHG’s Anne Kasica


“Like BEVA ten years ago, the public have had enough. The Griffins’ case shows the RSPCA does

not want to learn a thing from BEVA. It wants money to keep its leviathan prosecutions running.

The public, and the judiciary, are turning their backs on an RSPCA which is increasingly desperate

to justify and promote its sinister and unattractive agenda. It is not just the RSPCA’s most obvious

victims - like the Griffins, the people in the Harwich and Portsmouth cases , and the many others

referred to on SHG’s website - who see the RSPCA for what it is.”

Ernest Vine, also from the SHG said:

“The reporting of the recent cases shows that even the media now recognise the public don’t like

the RSPCA’s animal rights ‘take and spin’ approach. The actual results, and serious

consequences, of the RSPCA’s ridiculous cases have been escaping into the public domain. The

truth sells papers better than printing the RSPCA’s press releases, which furiously spin against

honest and decent defendants like the Griffins. The RSPCA want more donations from people to

run more cases like this. We want to save the RSPCA from animal rights extremists and its own

lawyers, who are regularly paid ten times more than defence teams. I sincerely hope the result of

the Griffins’ case will be reported with the same alacrity and prominence that the RSPCA’s

preposterous allegations against them were given. Long may judges like Gray and Browning, and

brave magistrates, like those in Portsmouth, continue to hear the cases fairly, objectively and also

without fear.”

Name Withheld ** Names removed to protect individuals who have been the subject of animal rights

harassment. Can be supplied but only to bona fide journalists.


A vet was on site, why didnt he euthanise the horse?
Why are unqualified members of the public allowed to kill animals?
How was the horse killed?
Bolt gun?
Lethal injection?
Why are the RSPCA (ordinary members of the public) allowed to carry weapons and controlled drugs?

An emaciated and bleeding horse was found lying in a field behind a Lincolnshire cemetery.

The stricken animal, which is believed to have been left after a miscarriage, was later put down by RSPCA inspectors who visited the site on the outskirts of Lincoln yesterday evening.
The horse was discovered on a patch of rough ground behind Washingborough Road cemetery.
RSPCA officers and the police attended the scene to work out the best way to proceed.
Vannessa Malone, from the Silver Florin Horse Sanctuary had previously looked after the horse when it was ill.
She found the animal when she was out with her daughter.

"We nursed her back to health when she was last ill and now this has happened.
"I'm disgusted this was allowed to happen and I have told the RSPCA and the police that too."
Spokesman for the RSPCA Katie Geary said: "Officers did attend after reports of the horse being found.
"A vet did attend as well and sadly decided that it would be in the best interests of the animal for it to be put to sleep because of its condition.

Friday, 19 March 2010


Why are unqualified RSPCA Inspectors allowed to administer and be in posession of a Class B drug, when even highly-trained veterinary nurses are not allowed to do this?


AN angry couple have condemned the RSPCA for putting down a fox. ... “She said she would get her equipment, but came back with a needle. ...


This followed a suicide attempt by RSPCA Inspector Crowley when she took barbiturates issued to her by the RSPCA for putting down animals. ...

RSPCA employees house burgled, ammo and drugs stolen.

What the papers say when smaller quantities of the addictive controlled drug Pentobarbitone is stolen from the very secure safes of veterinary surgeries:

Pentobarbitone were also stolen. Police are appealing to any witnesses who find the safe or drugs to contact them with information. ...

Alert over lethal drug stolen from vet

The wall safe, stolen late on Saturday or in the early hours of Sunday, from Bransgore Vets contained a 100ml bottle of pentobarbitone. ...

Tuesday, 16 March 2010



An animal lover said his “blood is boiling” after his cat was put down by the RSPCA - without his knowledge.

John Edwards said his beloved Gizmo had been missing for two weeks when he learned he had been mistaken for a stray and picked up by the animal charity.
The white puss, described as a “fluffy furball”, was put down the same day.
Mr Edwards, of Gloucester Street, Brighton, said: “I am absolutely seething. He always used to go out walking and all the neighbours knew this.
“My other cat, who is a Siamese, is grieving as he knows his mate has gone.
“My blood is boiling and I don’t know when I’ll calm down.”
Gizmo was taken two weeks ago by animal inspectors from the RSPCA but Mr Edwards only found out his cat had been picked up on Monday after leaflets were delivered by concerned residents.
A spokeswoman for RSPCA said they were called to the street by members of the public who said they thought the animal had been involved in a fight.
She added: “Unfortunately the animal was in very bad health, with bad teeth and matted fur. He was covered in fight wounds when concerned residents asked us for help. we were unable to trace his owner.
“The RSPCA does everything it can to avoid having to put animals to sleep, but sometimes we have little choice.”

"I stopped supporting the rspca many years ago because they are too quick to put down animals.all they are interested in is raising money for political aims.and recently even going to court to try to overturn a request of money that was going to be given to them and then changed.the bill for the court fight was a quarter of a million pounds and that is where your donations are going.i give my money to a local animal charity that truly cares for animals.its about time the queen took away the royal part of this so called caring association."

"Quite agree with you, Jonny. I suffered at the hands of the RSPCA through an interfering neighbour reporting me without understanding anything about my little cat. I rescued him at 4 weeks old with his mum and they were both very ill. She was only 8 when she died, but her little son lived for 12 years. I'm sure that many of us and, more importantly, our little pets, suffer at the hands of the RSPCA, but, hopefully not to the extent of them killing our pets without cause.

My thoughts are with you for your sad loss."

"The RSPCA do kill healthy animals all the time. Even dogs who have been in kennels 'too long', though they won't specify what 'too long' is. Regardless of age or health, they kill one in every three dogs they get, and even more cats!
They even have a noise counter and take out the noisiest dogs and kill them. The RSPCA is not the benevolent Society it wants the public to believe it is. It's the richest animal charity in Britain, it kills the most animals, and all the money goes to HQ, not to its shelters. They have to raise their own funds and pay HQ to use the rspca logo."

"This is typical RSPCA. I completely agree with Queenie. They are too ready to pts animals that are not seriously ill upon admitting them, without even waiting for the owner to appear. Any animal being admitted by the RSPCA could very well be dead by the next day, that is unless there is a TV crew filming. A multi million charity, which must have the slogan `charity begins at HQ´.
This is not the first time a cat not really missing has been taken off the street by them and instantly slaughtered."


Charities aren't allowed to tell you which way to vote. The rules say they can't campaign on behalf of one political party or another.
When the RSPCA launches a website called 'Political Animal', and feels the need to put up a splash screen stressing they're not telling you how to vote, they clearly feel they're sailing close to the wind.
Anonymous said...

The "Political Animal" site is a clever vote-winner for the Labour Party. Many (ZA)NU-Labour MPs have taken the RSPCA/LACS shilling, perhaps noone more clearly that Angela Smith MP, Minister for Charities, Gordon Brown's former PPS and former Press Officer for the League Against Cruel Sports. Check out what the RSPCA said about her appointment. Apparently she's "done a lot for them behind the scenes".


Charities: Animal Welfare


Asked by Lord Elton


To ask Her Majesty's Government under what authority, controls and supervision and in what circumstances officers of a charity are empowered to (a) remove a pet from its owner's care, (b) keep it in their own care, (c) deny access to it to the owner, and (d) refuse to inform the owner of the place in which it is kept. [HL2038]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): Charities have no power under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to seize pet animals. The power of seizure can be exercised only by a police officer, an officer of a local authority or Animal Health. If the person who was responsible for the animal has concerns regarding its welfare following seizure then it is open to him to apply to the court for an order which could, among other things, grant him custody over the animal. Anyone aggrieved by the removal of an animal under the Animal Welfare Act may appeal to a magistrate's court for its return. The location of a seized animal may be withheld if it is considered that there is a danger that the animal may be stolen back.

Rodney Elton, 2nd Baron Elton (born 2 March 1930) is a British politician and Conservative member of the House of Lords.

Lord Elton was educated at Eton College and New College, Oxford. The son of Godfrey Elton, 1st Baron Elton, Lord Elton succeeded to the peerage on his father's death in 1973. On the formation of a Conservative government after the 1979 general election, Lord Elton was made a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office. In 1981 he was moved to the Department of Health and Social Security and in 1982 to the Home Office. In 1984 he was promoted to Minister of State within the Home Office. In 1985, Lord Elton joined the Department of Environment, again as a Minister of State, but left the government the following year.
With the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, Lord Elton along with almost all other hereditary peers lost his automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. He was however elected as one of the ninety elected hereditary peers to remain in the House of Lords pending completion of House of Lords reform.
Lord Elton was a candidate to become Lord Speaker in the elections that took place at the end of June 2006, but he was defeated, with Helene Hayman ultimately winning.

Wednesday, 3 March 2010



The RSPCA has lost out on part of a£400,000 legacy after a pet dog was put down.

Blackie's owner Claude Atack, 80, from Caernarfon, Gwynedd, had specified that any charity which found his pet a home would get a large part of his estate.
Solicitor Dewi Pritchard Jones thought the dog was in good health and was shocked he had been put down.
But the RSPCA said Blackie was found to suffer from numerous health problems, and was put down on humane grounds.
Mr Atack was found collapsed at his home by concerned neighbours when they realised they had not seen him walking sheepdog Blackie on 29 January.
"He walked Blackie four times a day, and he lived for the dog," said Mr Pritchard Jones.
Mr Atack died in hospital on 1 February.
A neighbour initially looked after Blackie, then he was handed over to the RSPCA.
"I wasn't concerned because their leaflets state that they do not put animals down without good reason. I thought he was safe," said the solicitor.
He added that Mr Atack had stated in his will that his estate should be shared between different charities, but with no less than one fifth going to an animal charity.
I am angry about what happened
But verbally he had told his solicitor that more of his estate should be given to any charity which found Blackie a new home.
He had stipulated that he could be "especially generous" to any charity which found his dog a home.
Mr Pritchard Jones said that a couple, who do not wish to be named but who knew Mr Atack, came forward to offer Blackie a home on 8 February.
They traced him to an RSPCA kennel at Shrewsbury, but were told he had already been put down on the day he was handed in.
"The old gentleman thought the world of him and at any sign of illness he would be whipped off to the vet," he said.
The vet said he (Blackie) had cataracts and was overweight, as a dog which is pampered tends to be," he added.
The incident would have broken Mr Atack's heart, he said.
"He lived by himself, it was just him and the dog," he added.
The solicitor added that the money - in excess of £400,000 - would be shared between other charities.
"I am angry about what happened, because I have a dog which is 15 years old, and you can't put them down just because they are old," he said.
"I think Blackie would have made someone elderly a lovely companion, as he was used to being around an older person, and they often don't want the hassle of getting a puppy," he added. RSPCA officials told Mr Jones Blackie was put down because of his age and poor health. But this is disputed by the solicitor.

Mr Jones added: "The dog was 10 years old but definitely not in poor health, as Mr Atack would regularly take the dog to a vet and would spare no expense over its health. The vet confirmed that apart from his age the only thing wrong with the dog was the early stages of cataracts and that it was slightly overweight."
Mr Atack, who was born in Salford, moved to North Wales more than 20 years ago to oversee the family steel fabrication business. He lived alone and had no close family.
The RSPCA said they were aware of the case, but no one was available to comment last night.


The RSPCA requires a lethal injection.

Once it was a fine animal, fit for purpose and with a moral imperative to help animals in need. But over the years it has become bloated, top-heavy, self-absorbed and full of righteous spleen and political meddling. It has even taken to going to the Courts in ever more ludicrous attempts to grasp more money from dead benefactors.
Please be warned - this animal should be terminated to save it doing any further damge to it's once fine reputation or to others.
The Penguin

Tuesday, 2 March 2010



TWO medical professionals have been fined for failing to stop their seriously injured cats from getting outside following a two-year RSPCA investigation that cost the charity £13,000.

Paramedic Simon Butterworth, 32, and wife Lesley, a 29-year-old nurse, admitted failing to provide necessary care and supervision by failing to prevent injured black and white cats Stella and Guinness from leaving their home.
The couple, described as responsible pet owners of good character, appeared at Teesside Magistrates’ Court yesterday.
The couple, of Appleby Close, Darlington, along with the RSPCA, made an appeal for information in The Northern Echo in June 2008, after both cats returned home with mysterious injuries, receiving skin damage, broken ribs and internal injuries in two incidents.
As a result of the injuries, Stella died and Guinness had her tail docked.
It is unclear how the cats were hurt, but the couple have always denied injuring them.
Yesterday, Kieran Rainey, in mitigation, told the court that the couple, who recently had their first baby, were experienced and responsible pet owners.
He said: “They had two cats and both were injured by someone or something else.”
He said the couple had struggled to keep their pets inside because of the nature of cats.
The court was told that both Stella and Guinness escaped from the house despite the couple trying to keep them inside on vets’ advice.
Mr Rainey added: “This is the first and only time they have fallen below the high standard of care they set for themselves.”
He said an incident where the couple’s cocker spaniel, Scrumpy, then a six-monthold puppy, tried to play with Guinness, causing her to hide under the sofa, was an oversight on the couple’s part.
He added: “Both are of impeccable character. Both have been in steady jobs all their lives”, and said it would be inappropriate to ban the couple from keeping animals.
The RSPCA case had cost £13,000, excluding vets’ fees.
District judge Kristina Harrison fined Simon Butterworth £560, and ordered him to pay £500 costs.
She fined Lesley Butterworth, who is on maternity leave, £100, ordering her to pay £100 towards costs.
Judge Harrison said: “I do not think it is appropriate to impose on you a disqualification of having control of animals.
I take into account the professions you are in and your previous good character.”