Rspca Spends £250K On A Fox Hunting Court Case

[flip_flop]

I have no opinion on fox hunting - I couldn't really care less either way - but this seems an incredibly large amount of money for a charity to spend.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10115578.RSPCA_defends___250k_cost_of_taking_fox_hunters_to_court/

So, was it worth it? Strikes me it was a pyrrhic victory.

[Mosaic]

I listened to this piece on Radio 4 t'other morning. Chap doing the talking seemed convinced that their case would not be taken up by the courts (whatever the acronym is) and so rather than let the blatant breach of the law get swept under the carpet RSPCA took the decision to go for it privately.
I think in the light of Plebgate and Hillsborough we might concede they had a point there?

[jake-the-peg]

This was on the national news about a week ago

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1198461.html

Unfortunately the CPS have had a habbit of dropping such court cases which rather forced the RSPCA to prosecute it themselves.

The whole tone is rather "ay yes well it's just fox-hunting - it's not that important"

If they'd spent that money prosecuting a burglar the papers would be full of questions about why the CPS hadn't done so.

I'm not that bothered either way myself - but I do think the law needs to be inforced and taken seriously

[Buenchico]

Discussed here:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1198461.html

My own thoughts:
If the RSPCA doesn't prosecute those who break the law on fox-hunting, then who will? If the police and the CPS spend the money, instead of the RSPCA, won't people then question whether the police and the CPS shouldn't have better things to spend the money on?

If nobody prosecutes, a law which took decades to get onto the statute books will effectively be rendered meaningless.

Chris

[ZedBloke]

The problem is that to prosecute a fox hunting case the police have to gather evidence and that would mean under cover infiltration because it is is not illegal to kill a fox with dogs, it's illegal to set out with that purpose. If during a drag hunt the dogs get a fox then that's ok. So as you can imagine it's very unlikely that a case will ever be brought by the CPS. So the RSPCA presumably thought it was worth it, I don't think their donors would agree.

[Prudie]

I didn't partake in the previous threads and haven't read them but I think it's a disgraceful waste of their money that really only had a political motive. I'm totally disillusioned with the RSPCA who could have spent this donated money on caring for some dogs and cats etc instead of putting them down. Oh and helping out in general animal problems that they usually won't touch.

[rojash]

"I don't think their donors would agree."

As one of their donors, I can tell you that I agree.

[rojash]

" really only had a political motive."

You're not the first to say that but I'd love to hear how you explain prosecuting a crime as having a political motive. A crime is a crime and should be prosecuted.
As has been said, there's not much point in having a law (a law which the vast majority of the electorate voted for) if offenders are not prosecuted.

[Prudie]

Firstly I have always been anti-hunting but I never got the opportunity to cast my vote on it. When was that then? I believe it was political because I don't believe they'd spend that amount of money on a cruelty case alone.

[ladybirder]

I'm a donor and I agree, as I said on the other thread. The thing that annoys me is that the RSPCA shouldn't have had to do it. It should have been the police/CPS. Of course I would rather the money was spent on the animals but a prosecution was necessary to show the hunts they just can't break the law and not be held accountable.

[woofgang]

What ladybirder said.

[Milvus]

It's interesting to see the reaction against suspect breaches of the law against hunting with dogs, when we do nothing against the unnecessary destruction of wildlife (200 million animals per year) by domestic cats because their feckless owners cannot be bothered to control them

[rojash]

" I never got the opportunity to cast my vote on it"

You did. It was in the Labour Party Election Manifesto. The Labour Party were voted in.
It may be that you voted against them, but nevertheless, you had your opportunity to vote, and a majority of people in that election voted Labour.

[ladybirder]

What would you propose Milvus?

[Prudie]

Labour scraped in with about 35% of votes cast with Cons about 32% in 2005 just after the ban came in. That is neither the vast majority of the electorate (fact) nor was hunting the priority of the Labour voters (in my opinion).

[Milvus]

Actually I don't propose much. Hunting with Dogs is a particularly poor piece of legislation, especially if you are a rabbit. But to what purpose considering the number of wild animals killed by dogs in vastly outweighed by the number of animals killed and maimed by the domestic cat. How you get cat owners to take responsibility for their animals when they already ignore the mess and damage they cause would be difficult to get support for. However the problem exists

[ZedBloke]

woofgang + Ladybirder, did you read what I said? The police/CPS would have to devote huge resources, never going to happen.

Rojash, you are entitled to your opinion of course but I for one would be gutted to find that a charity I supported had donated 300K+ to lawyers in order to prosecute for hunting one fox. They could have helped thousands of animals with the hard earned contributions of their donors. This will not deter hunting either because he hunters know that RSPCA donations will be eaten up quicker and then dry up altogether as the futility of this is realised.

We should at this point pay homage to Blair and co for banning hunting and not banning it at the same time!

[New Judge]

Simple. All cats to be drowned at birth. Those around at the moment to be arrested and prosecuted for assault, GBH and murder of birds.

“ ‘I never got the opportunity to cast my vote on it’

You did. It was in the Labour Party Election Manifesto. The Labour Party were voted in.”

So, you agree with one of the other party’s views on defence, the economy, law and order, Europe, foreign policy and transport. But they did not include an undertaking to ban fox hunting. So you vote for their opponents. Another triumph for the party political system.

“…and a majority of people in that election voted Labour”

Not quite correct. 2005 General Election results: Labour 37% of the votes; The Rest (none of whom included and undertaking to ban fox hunting) 63%.

Get a grip rojash and have a nice Christmas.

[Milvus]

New Judge, the legislation was to ban hunting with dogs not Foxhunting. The rabbit was excluded. But to what purpose, the number of wild animals killed by dogs is vastly outweighed by those killed by the domestic cat but we did and continue to do nothing to reduce the effect.

[ladybirder]

Zed of course I read your comments. It seems to me the sabs have the evidence, why can't the police use that?

Milvus I agree. My two cats both wore a collar with a bell to at least give the wildlife a chance, plus I kept them in (with difficulty) at dawn and dusk during the spring and early summer while the juvenile, fledgeling and baby birds were about. But while my cats were indoors, the neighbours cats were doing the damage.

No matter how much I have tried I have never managed to persuade a friend or a neighbour to take seriously the fact that their cats kill our wildlife. It's usually talk to the hand the face ain't listening. Only one person ever agreed to put a collar on her cat, a small miracle. I only have the one cat now and she is in her 20th year and goes outside for about 5 seconds a week and it is such a relief to know she's indoors where she can't harm any living thing except me. It's heart breaking when you've put up next boxes and feeders plus live mealworms to support the birds only to find the whole lot have been killed, one by one, by a bl00dy cat.

[New Judge]

So really then, rather than a bill to ban hunting with dogs, we should have had a bill to ban hunting with cats. I don't think that would have gone down too well in Islington (where the bill was probably discussed at length).