PROFILING THE RSPCA :
REPUTATION
AND REALITY
By
Verity
Maxwell
Adelaide,
March
2003
UNI
LECTURER
SAVES SOOTY-TWINKLE FROM RSPCA DEATH SENTENCE
77 year old pensioners Angelina and Sydney Levey were told by an RSPCA Inspector that their 19 year old cat, Sooty-Twinkle, had to be put down, because “it was half-starved, blind and had suffered liver failure”. Sydney phoned his son, Silvano, a senior lecturer at Keele University, who made a mercy dash to save his parent’s pet moggie. The vet they consulted told Silvano the cat’s only problem was that despite its daily shampoo, it had fleas. These were eliminated, and Sooty-Twinkle is still happily padding around the Levey house. The Leveys said that “Our pet would be dead now, if we had let her go with the inspector.” Silvano said “I would just like to urge people not to have blind faith in the RSPCA just because they expect what they say to be true.”
RSPCA
USES
ANIMALS TO MAKE MONEY, AND AVOIDS
REAL WELFARE ISSUES
The Sooty-Twinkle story is from the UK, where controversy has begun to swirl around the august institution of the RSPCA, and where this story is but one of many that people are collecting to build up a picture of the RSPCA as a bureaucratic and heartless organization. The RSPCA is very good at impression management and PR work, they say, but doesn’t deliver the goods. Their primary concern has become how to keep the money flowing. The RSPCA budget is almost entirely funded by donations. RSPCA staff are paid handsomely, and get free housing loans. The UK’s ‘Director-General” since 1991 is ex-Major General Peter Davies, who gets paid ninety thousand pounds stirling per annum. They have just built a new Head Quarters costing ten million pounds. Other newly built local facilities now house more staff and less animals. Then there is the story of the RSPCA facility at Swansea. After ten years of fund-raising they felt ready to build a new and better center. But the money ran out! It now has excellent and spacious administrative offices, but room to keep just 27 dogs, whereas they had previously been able to house 140. Presumably the dogs that can no longer be housed will put down immediately, on the grounds of their age, unlikelihood of being re-homed, or some asserted (but unproven) defect? Perhaps 27 dogs are enough to create photo opportunities for the impression managers. (See details at http://members.aol.com/walk202/nini.htm)
RSPCA
COUNCIL
MEMBER EXPELLED FOR ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT BUDGET
A member of the British RSPCA Council, Margaret House, was expelled over ten years ago because she was asking questions about RSPCA priorities, and had begun to publish Watchdog, a newsletter circulated to RSPCA members, critical of the RSPCA. She was re-instated after taking her case to court, and she continues to publish. She is pleading for an investigation of the management of the RSPCA budget. “I believe that the Government should conduct an inquiry into the powers exercised by the RSPCA Council, and also into the use of the society's funds,” she said. (http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/Margarethouse.htm)
WELSH
FARMERS
SET UP SELF-HELP GROUP TO FIGHT RSPCA
In Wales the farmers reckon the RSPCA is made up of a bunch of “unreasonable extremists whose main aim seems to be the kudos gained from glamorous prosecutions”. They feel so strongly about the predatory character of the RSPCA’s relationship with the farming community that they have formed a Self Help Group (SHG) to defend themselves. You can read what they have to say at : http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~shg/selfhelp.htm
Agreeing
with the observation that RSPCA is an
extremely wealthy
and powerful organisation, not at all under-resourced, they are most
upset that
this money provides the RSPCA with apparently unlimited funds to spend
on
prosecution costs.
RSPCA
APE
POLICE STYLE TO GET IMPROPER LEVERAGE IN LEGAL SYSTEM,
AND
ONLY
TARGET VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS
They deeply regret that the
ranks, the uniforms and the name RSPCA
“serve to impress both members of the public and, unfortunately, some
magistrates”.
RSPCA prosecutions, they say,
are nearly always of fairly hapless
individuals.
AUSSIE
FARMER
DIES IN JAIL AFTER RSPCA PROSECUTION
I am reminded of the
sad case of
Glynn Robertson here in Australia (briefly reported in The Australian on
11th
October 2001. He was jailed for shooting an RSPCA Inspector in the face
with a
shotgun. This sounds terrible. We ask what were the preceding
circumstances?
And we discover that the RSPCA Inspector had come on to his property and
simply
shot several of his sheep. Well, we do need more information. But it
seems
likely that the RSPCA Inspector was over-bearing, rude and not of a mind
to
negotiate. We have to ask what kind of behaviour would prompt an average
kind
of bloke on the land to actually get out a gun and shoot.
It would also be interesting to find
out what legal rights if any the Inspector had to be on the property.
The story
as reported in the newspaper includes the interesting information that
Mr.
Robertson died in jail, and that his estate was plundered by the RSPCA
to the
tune of $150,000.
RSPCA
REPUTATION
IN AUSTRALIA NEEDS A REALITY CHECK
So – is the RSPCA in
Australia
more interested in money than in animals, do they have excessively plush
facilities and high salaries, and do they use prosecutions as an easy
way of
getting cheap publicity and a public image that is unsupported by what
they
actually do?
Certainly in Australia the RSPCA still has a generally good reputation – they are seen as tackling a hard job, they have more wins than losses, and they are regarded as a bulwark against psychopaths who obtain pleasure from hurting animals. They may not be able to cope with every problem, but that is generally thought to be an issue of resourcing, not a fundamental problem of RSPCA priorities. Perhaps we need to look more closely.
HYPOCRISY
THE
BIGGEST ISSUE
One the main charges
against the
RSPCA in the UK is that they are hypocrites. In the UK they are
especially
upset about so-called Freedom Farms, which supposedly guarantee animal
rights,
but which critics characterize as ‘disgusting’. The
RSPCA gets a steady income from farms they accredit with
the Freedom Farm label. This is important enough for the RSPCA to spend
approximately ninety thousand pounds stirling, to investigate Council
members
and identify the source of the leaks that gave rise to a BBC program
critical of
the RSPCA-Freedom Farm link. (See details at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/07/nrspca07.xml)
Perhaps the more
telling datum
is that they refuse to publish a list of ‘Freedom Farms” which have to
be
tracked down by clever sleuthing.
In Wales hypocrisy is also in
focus – Welsh dog owners can’t see
why the RSPCA prosecutes dog owners for tail-docking, while approving
the
equally nasty de-beaking of chickens. But the dogs are owned by
individuals,
and the chickens are on farms from which the RSPCA gets royalties. And
all the
RSPCA would need to do to call a halt to de-beaking is give the chickens
a
little more space – this would stop the pecking that prompts the
de-beaking.
In Australia we do see a
steady number of prosecutions of
individuals. We also see a failure to prosecute well-defended and/or
powerful
groups who perpetrate the most dreadful atrocities. The most notable
instance
here is provided by the live sheep trade.
RSPCA
FAILS
TO PROSECUTE PERPETRATORS, OR STOP LIVE SHEEP TRADE
We are well aware that the
corporations and shipping companies who
carry on the live sheep trade with the Muslim Middle East consign
thousands of
animals to death in hideous conditions in temperatures of up to 50
degrees
Celsius. And while the RSPCA has spoken against this, it has done
nothing
effective to stop it. Certainly no-one has been hauled into court and
made to
pay massive fines.
RSPCA
MAKES
NO PROTEST TO SAVE COWS FROM FACTORY-FARMNG TRENDS.
In Australia the RSPCA has
also remained silent regarding recent
developments in the dairy industry, that have generated a significant
increase
in the size of herds. Dairy cows are now herded in numbers which
preclude
prevention of suffering by any cow that is off colour, or for any reason
cannot
keep up with the others, or with the daily automaticity of the
milking-machine
process. The bovine equivalent of having a headache is enough to get the
defenceless
milker sent off, in the equivalent of that ‘Animal Farm’ van, for
slaughter as
a ‘chopper cow.’ The problem of the size of the herds is exacerbated by
the
need to put them in the charge of employees, who have a lesser
commitment to
the well being of the animals than the owner who look after his own
smaller
herd. All the problems of factory farming have just appeared in this
area. The
RSPCA’s silence is deafening.
RSPCA
GIVES
APPROVAL TO HALAL
SLAUGHTER OF SHEEP
In Australia, the RSPCA’s
unwillingness to offend the
sensibilities of a relatively powerful religious community may be behind
its
grant of approval to the halal slaughtering of
animals – whereby the sheep is ‘stunned’ with a blow to the head to make
it
‘lose consciousness’, and then has its throat slit, and is hung up so it
can
die slowly as its blood drains on the floor. How certain can we be that
the
sheep have really lost consciousness?
[The folk up at Waterford Corner where the proposed
slaughter-house
(Muslim abbatoir) will be located with council approval (because it is
on land
zoned ‘horticultural’) are less than impressed.]
RSPCA
KILLS
THOUSANDS OF KANGAROOS FOR PET MEAT COMPANIES
Worse, we have instances in
Australia when the RSPCA has moved
beyond allowing powerful groups to get away with horrible abuse of
animals, and
itself takes on organizing large scale slaughters, or ‘culls’ – deemed OK so long as the way the
animals are killed is deemed to be ‘humane’. These culls are normally
explained
as ‘necessary’ – to protect environments from over-population, and human
activities from animals being a nuisance.
Animal rights protesters
campaigned in vain to save thousands of
kangaroos said to be over loading the carrying capacity of the land at
Puckapunyal, the army base in the southern state of Victoria. But there
wasn’t
even the ‘justification’ that the roos were eating grass that would
otherwise
have nourished sheep – not a wooly-back in sight at Puckapunyal !!! Further, roos never breed in excess of the
carrying capacity
of the land – it is well-known that if there isn’t enough grass, Mummy
Roo
simply doesn’t give birth until there is.
Why then was the RSPCA
promoting the kangaroo massacre – well,
they stuck to their fairly thin and contestable opinion that there were
just
too many kangaroos around; but they sold the carcasses to the pet meat
companies. You may make your own deductions.
RSPCA
APPROVES
DISGUSTING BARNS, FOR ROYALTIES ON ‘BARNLAID’ EGGS
Again in Victoria, animal
rights protesters are fighting the RSPCA
because of the organisation’s links with the egg industry. PACE farms
have been
the main focus of protest. The protesters say the eggs stamped as
‘barnlaid’
are a joke at the public’s expense – the barns are dreadful, and the
hens kept
in them are just about as badly off as the hens kept in the battery
cages. The problem is factory-farming, and
the
RSPCA has no business getting into bed with factory-farmers.
Why would they even think about doing such a thing? Well, say the
protesters, they get a hefty amount of money from a royalty on each egg
stamped
by the RSPCA as barn-laid. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734326082.html and/or
http://www.alv.org.au/storyarchive/0109rspcafraud/0109rspcafraud.htm)
RSPCA
KILLS
MORE THAN HALF OF ALL PUPS AND KITTENS THEY HANDLE
Much of the public approval of
the RSPCA derives from the
publicity material they put out about how they find new homes for little
puppies and kittens that would otherwise have no prospects. Yet their
placement
record is abysmal, and they have execution chambers in which every year
thousands of puppies and kittens are routinely exterminated without
compunction, as the RSPCA goes about its business of saving them from a
life
worse than death. Nationally, in Australia, in 2000-2001, apart from the
dogs
that were reclaimed by their owners, 20,936 were rehomed, but 25,911
were euthanased.
Similarly, 63% of the cats received by the RSPCA were ‘put down’. The
stats are
summarised on http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/petswelfare/links1.html
SHELTER
STAFF
WEEP WHEN RSPCA ‘HIT SQUAD’ KILLS SEVENTY ADULT DOGS
The RSPCA is even capable of a mass exterminations of adults dogs taken into care. The most dramatic ‘incident’ I came across is from Wales, where Mrs. Bernice Jones spent a lifetime rescuing and caring for animals. She was secretary of the Gwent committee that ran the Newport shelter’s Ringland kennels in South Wales. HQ determined that the Ringland shelter had too many dogs, and sent out a ‘hit squad’ that instructed the Gwent personnel that on no account was anybody to tell anyone what happened, and then proceeded to slaughter seventy dogs. They were binned before rigor mortis had set in. The kennel girls felt they had to check that they were really dead, and wept as they pulled the dogs’ bodies out of the garbage bins to make absolutely sure none were still alive. Several members of the Ghent staff were reported as feeling suicidal, and one took an overdose of pills. (http://www.webtribe.net/~animadversion)
PROSECUTING INDIVIDUALS PROVIDES QUICK FIX IN
GETTING DONATIONS
Let us go back to the claim
that the RSPCA has a penchant for
prosecuting hapless individuals. Why would this be their preferred modus
operandi? Observers say it regularly and
predictably generates highly profitable cheap publicity that apparently
provokes too many old ladies into leaving the RSPCA all their worldly
wealth -
on the grounds that they are doing a wonderful job of protecting animals
from
nasty mean human beings – who, ironically, often turn out to be fellow
members
of their own demographic sector!
The RSPCA, say the
Welsh,
have “prosecuted, terrorised, and reviled innumerable people -
most
often ladies, especially those who live alone...”
(http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/freedomf.htm)
The Welsh have noted that
individuals charged by the RSPCA are
likely to be without adequate funds to obtain good legal advice.
(Wealthy,
powerful individuals are unlikely, there as well as here, for reasons
enumerated, to be amongst those charged in the first place.)
RSPCA
DEEMS
RABBIT A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN GRIEF OVER LOST CHILD
In England Cyril Dixon (Daily
Express, Jan. 28th 2003)
reported the case in which a grieving mother was taken to court by the
RSPCA
for neglecting a pet rabbit, as she lay in hospital recovering from the
loss of
her unborn child. Distraught Elizabeth Vallis and husband Simon forgot
to feed
the white Angora when they were engulfed in sorrow after losing one of
the
twins they were expecting. Despite the couple explaining their dilemma,
the
animal charity decided to prosecute them for causing unnecessary
suffering. (http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/vallis.htm)
How do we
compare the
situation of one underfed white angora rabbit with the situation of thousands of sheep dying inch-by-inch
in the
packed hell-holes of a cargo ship in equatorial regions.
Elizabeth
Vallis
RSPCA’S GOOD REPUTATION SCARES AWAY TARGET’S
POTENTIAL SUPPORTERS
Vulnerable individuals
selected by the RSPCA for exemplary
prosecution have their situation made worse because they find it hard to
find anyone willing to speak on their behalf.
“Potential professional
witnesses (for instance) will often
decline to even consider the case, on hearing that the RSPCA is
involved.”
CIVIL
RIGHTS
ABUSED WHEN RSPCA ASSUMES RIGHTS OF ENTRY AND SEIZURE
The Welsh farmers are now aware of the legal framework and nature of the game-playing going on, and have pointed out to their Self Help Group that the RSPCA, has, in law, “no rights of access, no rights to inspect animals, or to demand answers to their questions.” They go on to warn members to beware that “Nevertheless, their employees often act as if they have such rights, and proceed to ignore the civil and legal rights of others in pursuit of their ends.”
Dr. Barry Peachey has issued similar warnings regarding the way RSPCA ‘inspectors’ assume a persona and rights of entry, seizure, etc. which they do not possess. See Appendix 1.
Moreover, to be legally acceptable, seizure of an animal has to be with the agreement of the owner, or in the presence and with the agreement of a real police officer.
VETS
USED
BY RSPCA ARE OFTEN PROFESSIONALLY INCOMPETENT – OR WILLING TO LIE (OR
GIVE
ONE-SIDED EVIDENCE)
The
British Equine Veterinarian Association (BEVA) had a Council meeting at
which
they discussed the way the RSPCA, in cases they knew about, appeared to
prosecute cases more in order to generate publicity and gain ‘scalps’
than to
look after the welfare of the horses.
They put out a statement calling for greater levels of competence
in
attending vets, and greater professionalism in the RSPCA. Inter alia they told their members to observe that
RSPCA
‘inspectors’ had no statutory powers of entry to equine premises, stable
yards
or studs. . .
Full story : http://www.webtribe.net/~animadversion
There
is an interesting twist on this problem with the vets. One needs to
observe how
the RSPCA gets ‘their’ vets to have the only professional and ‘expert
witness’
voice in court either by using a well honed practice of destroying the
evidence, e.g. by cremation of the animal, or the equally strategic
practice of
keeping the animal(s) in question in a ‘safe haven’ where the owner
cannot get
through the phone system (e.g. by being forced to leave messages which
go
unanswered) to arrange to get his or her expert to do an examination of
the
animal close to the time the animal was seized (and therefore with some
chance
of providing evidence deemed relevant by a court). A third option is, of
course, to prosecute only those individuals innocent enough to think
truth is
an adequate defence, and that they don’t need, any more than they can
afford,
‘experts’ to speak on their behalf.
‘REASONABLE
SUSPICION’
TO JUSTIFY ENTRY IS EASILY AND OFTEN ABUSED
In Australia ‘right of entry’ is predicated on ‘reasonable suspicion’.
But ‘reasonable suspicion’ is a shaky concept. “Reasonable suspicion” can be generated with a single phone call from a malicious individual – or from a person, who for nasty hostile personal reasons is specifically interested in making life difficult for the target.
With the habit of inspections well-entrenched at local government level in Australia, the RSPCA has abrogated to itself rights of entry legally restricted to local government employees. Yet those rights have often been identified as the most tyrannical ‘rights’ employed by any level of government in this country. Instead of being spread around, they ought to be challenged, contained, safe-guarded and restricted.
So the RSPCA has a
well-established habit of pushing the legal
boundaries to the maximum they can get away with, and relying on the
vulnerability of those they target for prosecution to keep them safe
from
themselves being sued for unconscionable behaviour.
LAWYERS
IDENTIFY
OTHER LEGAL IMPROPRIETIES IN RSPCA PROCEDURES.
Other more subtle analyses of
the legal abuses perpetrated by the
RSPCA are now beginning to appear. I have put a sample briefing paper
from
Knights (solicitors of Tunbridge Wells) in Appendix 2.
ARE
RSPCA
‘INSPECTORS’ JUST BULLY-BOYS IN SEARCH OF A CAREER PATH?
What legal rights, then, do the RSPCA actually have in pursuing people as they do? The answer is - like the classic bully-boy, the RSPCA intimidates and threatens the vulnerable, distorts the facts, argues in bad faith, gets vets to lie, all with the aim not of preventing suffering – for which, as we have seem, they themselves are directly responsible in numerous other circumstances – but with the direct goal of ‘obtaining another scalp’, getting media coverage, improving their stats, and looking as though they are doing something really useful, so that donations will continue to flow into their coffers.
RECRUITMENT
CRITERIA
ENSURES RSPCA INSPECTORS ARE CLASSIC ‘AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY’ TYPE
KILLERS
What drives the emotional
mainspring of the RSPCA
inspectorate? Well, yes, they want
to keep the money flowing, and will do whatever it takes to persuade
potential
donors to continue funding their increasingly excessive and wasteful
expenditures. If this means using well-honed techniques of intimidation,
lying,
victimization, and prosecutions designed to obtain media coverage, well,
that’s
what it takes. But is there is a deeper set of motives?
Let us disregard their PR hype
about saving puppies and kittens
(most of whom they kill) and re-homing strays (most of whom they kill)
and
caring for the sick and the wounded (most of whom they kill). Let us try
and
find out how the RSPCA staff really regard their work.
Interesting evidence is
available from a BBC documentary (or
‘docu-soap’) made with the co-operation (or should we say collaboration)
of the
RSPCA in 1999. (I am indebted for my information on this to Peter
Paterson’s TV
Program Review of "Animal Police", in the UK
Daily Mail of February 9th 1999. Available on line
at http://members.aol.com/walk202/pat.htm )
Let us start with the title.
No subtleties here – it is called
ANIMAL POLICE. So they do think of themselves as a police force (perhaps
with
the double charge of policing human interaction with animals, and of
keeping
the animals themselves in line – even when the only fault the animal
might have
committed is the fault of being needy.)
In the first episode the RSPCA explained how an RSPCA ‘Inspector’ is selected and trained. Now we know that ‘Inspector’ is their lowest, entry point rank. So we can start with noting an indulgence in title inflation. The next question is to what extent this indicates some felt need for personal clout. It looks as though we are dealing with an organization that provides a ‘legitimated’ expression of domineering and officious behaviour. (Insofar as this is exercised against animals, the animals have no chance of any kind of comeback. They are dispatched to the next world very quickly for the sin of not being able to cope very well in this one. Insofar as this desire to call all the shots is exercised against people, the RSPCA is usually pretty safe if it chooses vulnerable, socially isolated individuals for their exemplary prosecutions.)
In the UK the RSPCA has 2000 applicants every year who aspire to become RSPCA Inspectors. They select 20. So the selection process does need to be fairly drastic. And indeed it is. What is the first and primary quality an RSPCA ‘inspector’ must possess? Well, the entry test for a potential recruit is go to an abbatoir and shoot a cow in the head. Yes, an RSPCA ‘Inspector’ must be capable of quick clean killing. Those who fail this test are not suitable for employment in the RSPCA. Not surprisingly this thins the ranks of the applicants quite efficiently.
I am also pleased to tell you
that most viewers of this episode
were appalled, and that rather than prompting more donations, it is
likely that
the RSPCA miscalculated in coming clean with the BBC team, and many
potential
donors were alienated.
“The RSPCAs pragmatic argument
is that on a frosty morning on the
Welsh hills, or on a motorway, an inspector might have to kill a large
animal -
a horse, perhaps, or a runaway circus tiger, so he or she had better be
prepared, emotionally and technically,” notes Paterson.
“Most of these would-be
inspectors are idealistic young people
attracted by the idea of helping animals and ending cruelty. Yet, as
well as
personally having to kill a cow, they learn that the organisation they
wish to
join dispatches 90,000 animals a year 'most of them sick or injured' -
and
that, assuming they pass the course, they will often be expected to
kill.”
CASUAL
KILLING
AS NORMAL PRACTICE : CORKY AND TOMMY TERMINATED - WHEN THEY HAD LOVING
OWNERS DESPERATELY SEARCHING FOR THEM
The RSPCA’s penchant for
killing is further documented in the
story of Corky, a 14 year tabby who went missing. His owner reported him
this
to the RSPCA shelter in the neighborhood. He gave the RSPCA a full
description.
He called several times in the days that followed, drawing a blank each
time –
until six days after the original phone call. When
he made that last call the RSPCA staff told them that
Corky had in fact been with them the entire previous week, but, they
were so
sorry, he’d been put down just hours before the last phone call. It
seems that
Corky had been picked up the day before he was reported missing and they
hadn’t
checked back prior to the initial report. “Well” , said the RSPCA staff
member
sanctimoniously, “it just goes to show the importance of having
identification
tags on your animals”. Full story : http://www.webtribe.net/~animadversion
Tommy,
a valuable tortoise owned by Mrs. Barker since he was a wee thing 40
years
before, was put out into the street by new neighbours who weren’t sure
why he
had tried to take a small stroll in their backyard. Another neighbour
further
up called the RSPCA and an inspector came around to collect him. There
followed
a saga of phone calls, rudeness, insistence that the ‘terrapin’ that had
been
collected couldn’t possibly have been the missing tortoise, and so on.
Mrs.
Barker was reassured that collected animals were not euthanased for at
least
seven days. But on the sixth day the RSPCA finally got back to Mrs.
Barker’s
concerned neighbour who had been helping her with all these calls, to
say that
the tortoise (still referred to as a terrapin) was dead. How was this
possible!!!??? Outrage, anger – all were ignored as the RSPCA staff
person
calmly explained that the female inspector had given him a lethal
injection the
day she had picked him up. It seems she had put the tortoise in a cat
basket in
the back of her van, but the stupid creature kept trying to get out. So
to save
herself any further botheration she got out her injection kit and made
an end
of him. Full story : http://www.webtribe.net/~animadversion
ST.
FRANCIS
WOULD NOT HAVE LASTED LONG IN THE RSPCA
The essential core
characteristic for those chosen to become RSPCA
‘inspectors’ is clearly not a love of animals or a desire to protect or
help
them, to feed them when they are hungry, and bandage them when they are
wounded. St. Francis would not have lasted long in the RSPCA, indeed
would not
have passed the entry test. Our RSPCA ‘inspectors’ are those who dress
up a
hidden, denied, and perhaps unconscious but essentially sadistic desire
to kill
with mealy-mouthed aphorisms about needing to be cruel to be kind.
BREAST-BEATING
OVER
‘HAVING TO KILL’ - RSPCA
SHEDS CROCODILE TEARS
We assume that the RSPCA
understands to a degree how the nasty
reality conflicts with the image they wish the public to have. They seem
to
think that asking for our sympathy will get the public on side. So in
public
they cry crocodile tears in bucketfuls, and beat their breasts in sorrow
at the
terrible things they say they have to do.
Occasionally the light reaches into the dark corners. Bernice
Jones saw
the truth when she witnessed the slaughter of those seventy dogs at the
Ghent
shelter, where she had worked for twenty-eight years, and was instructed
along
with all present that no-one should tell anyone about what was done that
day.
SO
WHY
DON’T WE KILL CHILDREN – SAME LOGIC APPLIES !
One interesting anomaly is the
RSPCA’s apparently firm belief that
if killing is done cleanly and quickly then it is OK. To see how
outrageous
this is, consider our hypothetical confrontation with the dilemma of
what to do
about a two year old child. Its
parents, let us say, have just been killed in a road accident. There are
no
living relatives, or friends, or anyone else who was in a position to
take care
of this child. So we get an officer from the RSPCH (Society for the
Prevention
of Cruelty to Humans) to put a bullet into the child’s head. We are
being cruel
to be kind, we have to do this to save the child (from a life worse than
death). It didn’t know it was coming. It died quickly without pain.
All’s for
the best in the best of all possible worlds. The RSPCH could find a lot
of work
to do in Rio de Janeiro – even though rumour has it that the ordinary
police do
in fact provide the street kids there with the kind of quick dispatch
described.
VOLUNTEERS
NEEDED
TO PROTECT ANIMALS FROM THE RSPCA
Public
awareness that an animal in a shelter
is most likely to be in dire trouble has now spread far enough into the
community that an organization has appeared in response. The acronym,
CAPACS,
stands for CAmpaign to Protect Animals in Charity Shelters. It works to
protect
animals from the protectors!!! ( http://www.webtribe.net/~animadversion/
)
GUT-WRENCHING
CYNICISM
& HYPOCRISY IN AWARD WINNING ADVERTISEMENT
In a newspaper piece entitled
“Gold gong for a dog's sad tale”
Julia Thrift reported the RSPCA’s advertising coup, the winning of the
top
award for the best radio commercial in 2000. It takes 60 seconds, and
purports
to be a dog speaking :
“VOICE OVER: I'm not
very well. At least I don't think I
am. Actually I feel fine but I must be ill because I'm here. I'm where
you go
when you're not very well. I must be really quite bad because I've just
had an
injection to make me better. My friend brought me here which shows he
cares. I
didn't think he did at first. But on the way here he was very nice. Very
nice.
Feel tired now ..very tired, here on this table where they put me down.
Put
down ..tired ..make better ..injection ..very tired ………FEMALE
VOICE-OVER:
Every Christmas the RSPCA has to rescue thousands of unwanted animals.
If you
give a damn, don't give a pet.”
Of all the RSPCA atrocity
stories I have come across in preparing
this piece, this is the one that most churns my stomach. The sickening
smarm of
it. The cruel joke of calling a lethal injection a form of rescue. It is
no
wonder that those members of the public who encounter the RSPCA at work
are
ringing alarm bells everywhere. And here, again, we see the worm in the
heart
of the rose, and it is murder, killing, presented as ‘necessary’, as
done
‘humanely’ (?!!) as demonstrating the responsible and caring nature of
the
RSPCA, even when they are ‘forced’ to terminate trusting, healthy
animals. To
see the full ad story follow the link from the animadversion page.
(http://www.webtribe.net/~animadversion)
‘NO
PUPPIES
/ KITTENS FOR CHRISTMAS’ CAMPAIGN BUILDS RSPCA COFFERS
As an aside at this point, I’d
like to draw attention to the
strange linking of the ‘need’ to euthanase with the giving of animals
(usually
puppies or kittens) as Christmas presents. The
RSPCA and its followers argue that to do so invites the
abandonment of the kitten or puppy at an RSPCA shelter at the end of the
summer
holidays, with euthanasia the commonest exit pathway for any animal left
at a
shelter. I don’t believe that members of the public who spend good money
to buy
their child a kitten or puppy at Christmas (which is after all the
celebration
of the birth of a baby) will abandon that kitten or puppy when school
starts,
or when they decide to go on a holiday or whatever. Basic commonsense
suggests
that parents who were so inclined would choose some other gift. Basic
observation of human nature suggests that within a month or two of
living with
a puppy or kitten it becomes a loved member of the household. There is
other
evidence (see http://www.nafcon.dircon.co.uk/rspca2.html)
suggesting that the RSPCA would like to put pet-shops, and ‘backyard
breeders’
out of business, in line with their political alliance with registered
breeders
and vets, and consistent with their own direct economic interest in
selling
animals from their shelters. These animals are publicised as strays, and
described as a proper object of charitable impulse – but they are
certainly not
cheap, and the profit margin on each animal that is ‘re-homed’ makes
this
effort also a contribution of RSPCA coffers. I am not certain that this
is the
whole story. It has to be part of it.
CONCLUSION
Much of the positive
reputation enjoyed by the RSPCA is entirely
due to skilled Public Relations hype. Anyone wanting to do anything to
add to
the fortunes of the RSPCA should take care to inform themselves as fully
as
possible regarding the likely use of their funds. Don’t take this
summarizing
article as gospel. Look up the references yourself. Go visit their
facilities.
Ask questions. Check their stats – e.g. on the proportion of re-homed
animals
compared to the proportion who are ‘put down’.
Confronted with news of an
RSPCA prosecution, try and read between
the lines. Assess, for instance by noting the amount of media coverage
generated, the publicity value of the prosecution to the RSPCA. Check
the
relevant social variables – e.g. is the person being prosecuted an
individual
living alone on limited resources, and unlikely to be able to resist the
RSPCA
juggernaut. Next time there is a large scandal about real cruelty to
animals
perpetrated by large corporations, or powerful individuals, or
institutions,
watch what the RSPCA says - and compare it with what they do. Look up
their
annual budget figures, and ask if they use the money they get wisely.
How much
goes on salaries, fancy buildings and other career pleasantries, and how
much
on feeding and caring for needy animals.
Perhaps the best advice is –
practice skepticism!
Other web sites dealing with
the activities of the RSPCA,
especially in Australia, are planned. They should go up shortly. Look
out for
them.
APPENDIX ONE
http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/rspcarights.htm
By Dr. Barry Peachey LLB(Hons), LLM,
PhD, FCollP, MBAE, ACIArb, FETC
THIS
ARTICLE is written in my joint capacities as Legal
Adviser to a number of dog organisations, and Chairman of the Legal Aid
Working
Party of the British Academy of Experts.
I had
been approached by a number of dog people, and by
fellow professional members of the Academy, and asked to clear up a
number of
misconceptions about the RSPCA and the law that appear to be widely held
and
indeed publicly fostered by the Society itself.
* The
RSPCA
is a charity.
* The
Inspectorate
is NOT a public law enforcement
body.
* Society
Inspectors
have NO special legal powers
whatsoever.
* They
have
NO special powers to arrest
offenders.
*
They
have NO right to enter your home
to inspect
your animals or to demand that you answer any of their questions.
*
They
have NO right of access to shows,
fairs and
markets other than as members of the public, and can only carry out any
law
enforcement function as an assistant to a police-officer, upon that
officer’s
request.
* They
have
NO power to stop, obstruct or
otherwise
detain any vehicle carrying animals.
*
Whilst
the Society’s staff issue criminal proceedings against offenders, they
do so by
way of private prosecution.
*
Members
of the Inspectorate wear uniforms which make them as much like police
officers
as the law will allow. They are not. The LOWEST "rank" in the
Inspectorate is Inspector (apart from Trainee Inspectors). Above that
they have
"Chief Inspectors", "Superintendent", and
"Chief Superintendents". None of these ranks are officers of the
Crown, and have no legal significance whatsoever. They are designed to impress
the public.
Members
of the Inspectorate in senior positions have on
various occasions stated in public that they have a cavalier disregard
for the
law, and the protections that it affords to suspects. On September 3,
1992,
Chief Inspector John Paul gave evidence at Richmond-on-Thames
Magistrates’
Court in the case of David MacKay. During cross examination, defense
barrister
Mr Thomas Derbyshire asked the RSPCA man: "Are you telling this court
that
you encourage your staff to flagrantly disregard civil and legal rights
in the
pursuit of your ends?" Chief Inspector Paul replied: "My duty is to
look after the animals, and if that involves infringing people’s civil
or legal
rights then so be it. The animals cannot defend themselves so we have to
do it
for them."
It
is a matter of public record that in this case the RSPCA had illegally
entered
property, and illegally seized animals The recent RSPCA television
series
Animal Squad – Undercover which
appeared
on, Channel 4 featured Chief Superintendent Donald Balfour, Head of the
RSPCA
Special Operations Unit. He was asked
on camera
by a police officer if he had any legal powers to do what he was
proposing to
do. His reply was "Officially no, but we do it all the time."……………
APPENDIX TWO
Knights,
Solicitors of Tunbridge Wells, have
put out briefing paper on the legal aspects of “DEFENDING RSPCA
ANIMAL WELFARE PROSECUTIONS”. It makes for
very interesting reading. Go to http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/Defending%20Animal%20Welfare%20Prosecutions.htm
for the full article.
They point out that the RSPCA
starts off with a great advantage in
any case it chooses to run with, since ill-treating animals is a
repugnant
crime which the community rightly abhors, and because the accusation by
itself
is taken to be true. This, as Knights have pointed out, makes it
peculiarly
difficult to get a fair trial. “Many cases should not and would not have
been
brought had the subject matter not been about animals.” To establish the
truth
and assess what it might mean is very difficult in these circumstances
of
emotional hostility. In their notes, drawn up to advise solicitors who
find
themselves defending an animal ill-treatment case, Knights notes the way
in
which “a court will quite often make a criminal of a well-meaning
and
caring defendant, just because his or her husbandry did not reach the
standard
insisted upon by the prosecutor” (or alternately, “because
his
or her husbandry did not conform to rules and specifications defined by
the
prosecutor as ‘normal’.”
In the course of analyzing the legal games played around prosecutions, after noting that “The usual procedure by RSPCA employees who deal with the majority of animal cruelty allegations is, upon the receipt of information, to visit the person and attempt to gain entry to obtain evidence and interview them.…………..” Knights also observe that
“Animals which are seized are
usually examined by a veterinary
surgeon appointed by the RSPCA and thereafter usually disappear to a
safe-haven
and remain there until the end of the court case.”
“Contact with the RSPCA is
difficult. They have a national
telephone number for regional centres and only messages can be left
there. The
speed with which the RSPCA answers, if at all, is entirely in the hands
of the
RSPCA; the longer an animal seized by them remains unexamined by a
veterinary surgeon appointed by the prospective defendant, the more
difficult
it is for the defence to prove the condition of the animal at the time
of the
alleged offence.”
“We find time and time again an attitude whereby a person is led to believe prior to interview that it is not a particularly serious matter and a little help would be appreciated to clear it up - and then the person finds just within the six month limitation on proceedings, a summons requiring him to defend himself in court, or admit that he has committed the offence. It is surprising just how long it seems to take from the time of an alleged offence to lay the informations: they tend to be laid a week or two before the six months' limitation expires. This, of course, has the effect of making it very difficult for a defendant to gather evidence because so much time has passed since the incident. With the new moves in the courts to hasten matters, the defendant is left with a very short time, often a matter of weeks, to decide upon plea and a matter of a month or two in which to prepare a defence if the matter is to be contested. The prosecution have had almost six months in which to prepare their case.”
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the art of prosecuting has become a refined game in which the RSPCA is the experienced player and the person charged is lured into a series of no-win moves, essentially because he or she foolishly regards the situation as fairly straightforward – and especially if he or she does not feel guilty of any offence, misguidedly does believe that once the facts are on the table, everything will be OK. The target does not realize he or she has been selected for exemplary prosecution in order to get some good PR going for the RSPCA, that the RSPCA will lie through their teeth, will obtain veterinarian ‘evidence’ of extremely dubious veracity, will if possible destroy the evidence (e.g. by cremating the animal), and in every respect ignore every consideration of truth and justice in the effort to gain a conviction to boost their hit rate. Media coverage will generate public approval for the assiduous efforts of the RSPCA to protect our animals. And the figures which will adorn the year’s stats will also indicate what an excellent job the RSPCA is doing. A more cynical misuse of the legal system can in fact hardly be imagined.
Matthew Knight, senior partner in Knights Solicitors, in a separate piece discussing the legal situation of farmers and farm animals, made some comments that seem relevant to pet owners also. He wrote : “Farmers are used to dealing with minor ailments themselves in the normal course of husbandry. Indeed, often they will have taken veterinary advice, either generally or specifically, and will be following that advice. They will be following the codes of conduct laid down in various government publications and doing their very best for the sick animal. Some RSPCA officers, however, seem to think that unless the farmer calls a veterinary surgeon to treat the animal then there is the commission of an offence of causing unnecessary suffering through an omission to call a veterinary surgeon. This interpretation of the effects of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 has yet to be tested in the higher courts and each case is usually decided on its own merits. It is certainly my view that many cases which reach the courts because prosecutions are brought by the RSPCA should not be taking up court time and certainly do the animal concerned no good. However, once in court, magistrates seem most reluctant to dismiss charges brought by this charitable organisation even though a shoplifter or burglar may be given the benefit of the doubt. The farmer prosecuted by the RSPCA seems not to be.” (See article in full at http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/Farm Animal Welfare.htm)
In Australia the same rule seems to apply, to pet owners as well as farmers, and the pet owner who does not run to a vet for advice and assistance to deal with perfectly ordinary health issues, for which a vet has no useful answer or input, is nevertheless held liable for ‘ill-treating an animal’.