Rspca, £375K Well Spent?

[ZedBloke]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-20758022
I would have thought that the many donors of the RSPCA hoped that they would have put the money to better use than prosecuting a few Hooray Henrys.

[ZedBloke]

sorry mis read £327k.

[rojash]

Well spent, as far as I'm concerned. It just might discourage all the other Hooray Henries who think that they are above the law, when truly they are below standards of human decency.

[emmie]

the point is many people who hunt are not Hooray Henry's, but farmers, landowners, those who actually like it, pop stars, politicians, and uncle tom cobley and all. Please don't mistake me when i say that most are not as you described. However I would put all hunt followers in jail, that is because hunting any animal to death isn't part of my remit. It is illegal, having been banned some years ago. So they are breaking the law.

[Frank97]

I don't understand why the RSPCA have to bring the prosecution, surely if the law is being broken the the Police should prosecute?

[ZedBloke]

yes they are breaking the law but clearly the police/CPS will never spare the resources to enforce the law so It's left to others, RSPCA in this case, to launch expensive prosecutions. How much more can they afford? Will the donors dry up when they see their hard earned going into the pockets of lawyers? The money they spent here would have gone a long way towards helping thousands of mistreated animals.

[ZedBloke]

D97, to all intents and purposes the law is unenforceable by the authorities. They'd have to have policemen infiltrating hunts and gathering evidence. Not a high priority.

[Zeuhl]

Hopefully it will be a deterrent and reduce the need for further prosecutions.

Otherwise if the law isn't applied, we might need to resort to more direct action to deal with these scumbags

[bentaxle]

Yes it would be kinder to catch them cage them and then transport them to a slaughterhouse and cut their throats

[New Judge]

They prosecute these matters because they can, D97. Anyone can take out a private prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court (although the Director of Public Prosecutions has the power of veto over them). The RSPCA prosecutes almost all Animal Cruelty matters even though the offences come under criminal law. They always ask for their full costs (which can be as much as £10k for the most straightforward cruelty matter). Their costs are always cut back (because magistrates must take account of the defendant’s ability to pay). They spend a small fortune on prosecutions.

By the way, the police do not prosecute any matters. That is the task of the Crown Prosecution Service. There are, however, proposals for the police to resume prosecuting some simple cases (which they have not done since the formation of the CPS in 1985).

[Gromit]

It is unlikely they have spent (wasted) £327k on bringing this to court. NewJudge says their costs are always cut back, so presumably they inflate their claim with this in mind.

They got £17K. Which is better than nothing. And will deter others, unlike they small fines imposed.

[starone]

I rang the RSPCA once because a man had parked his small van across the road from my house with two dogs shut inside. The weather was freezing cold and he just went off and left them to fend for themselves. And what did the RSPCA do? Nothing! So they do not get any of my money now. It's all very well with the big cases and the glory but when it is a small one and there is distress they are missing.

[New Judge]

Regretfully a number of their donors feel likewise, Starbuck.

[dotty.]

I have never really had much success when contacting the RSPCA and have in most instances been fobbed off and told to ring someone else,

[jake-the-peg]

They were on the radio this morning

They chose to prosecute this case because the CPS has had a habbit of declining to prosecute such cases.

I'd imagine they feel this money has been very well spent and I'd imagine their followers do too

It was successful

It has highlighted the fact that the law is being willfully ignored and that those who do so coming up to boxing day may now think twice if they think there is a real chance that they will be prosecuted - and get a criminal record,

It will put pressure on the CPS to prosecute more cases

Yes I think they'll be pretty pleased with themselves.


By the way I do think the judge in highlighting the costs was being very disingenuous and trying very hard to make trouble for te RSPCA probably because he rather identified with the defendants

[dave50]

I think this prosecution has more to do with giving a kick to the kind of people who are generally perceived to go hunting ie quote "hooray henrys" as much as it is to protect foxes. Which in itself is misleading as they come from many walks of life. That was the main reason the Labour government was obsessed with getting hunting banned,it was a class thing.

[youngmafbog]

Total waste of time, all the usual class warriors on here thinking a few grand fine will stop it have a screw loose. It's chnage out of their back pocket.

In fact it may well encourage some as the fine is so miniscule that it becomes doing.

Of course many are not horay henry's but I'm sure those with deep pockets (much deeper then the RSPCA) dont mind stepping in to the breach.

Large organizations such as the RSPCA often loose their way, particularly when the top brass (usually also taking a big cut out the charity) have an axe to grind. I never fund large charities, instead choosing direct local ones where I know where it will be spent.

[Old_Geezer]

If they did the police's job for them, shouldn't the police budget cover their costs ?

[jake-the-peg]

This is *not* a class thing no matter what certain Tory appologists would like to pretend.

How do I know?

Simple! Cameron promissed a free vote on fox hunting but has yet to fulfill this pledge citing lack of parliamentry time (despite finding plenty for gay marriageswhich was not a pledge)

So why has he not? - Because there is a big swath of Tory voting animal lovers that get very hot about it from the other side.

It is a divicive issue in Tory circles, in general Labour supporters are either anti or just don't care that much

[Old_Geezer]

It may well be more of a culture than class thing, but if one can afford to keep a horse then one is sure not to be of peasant stock. But in any event, if society has now been convinced it is immoral to make "sport" out of the suffering of an animal, then a ban should be enforced.

[pdq1]

Well its alright to kill badgers in cold blood but not to kill foxes who mutilate chickens for no other reason than to cause mass destruction.