RSPCA PROSECUTION CASES COLLAPSE RIGHT, LEFT AND CENTRE !

A friend of ours has 3 lovely rotweillers. 2 bitches and a boy. the boy got to the 2 bitches and before long she ended up with 22 pups. not too much of a problem, until she had their tails docked.

this was done for whatever reasons, and i don't wish to open up a debate on the rights and wrongs of tail docking. that could go on for ever. and i dont personally agree with it.

she ended up in court prosecuted by the rspca, was found guilty and fined £3000 + £11,000 costs.
as you can see, the costs awarded to the rspca are horrific.
the thing is, the courts only given her 14 days to find the FULL £14,000.

Whilst i dont have a problem with the principle of the prosecution, the financial penalty is disgraceful, she could have robbed a post office and would got of a lot lighter.the rspca's attitude to my friend was shocking, they treated her like dirt and splashed her name all over the local papers, they got threats from animal activist nutters, damage to their property, threatening phone calls etc etc.she had to remortgage her house to pay the fine, if you work out the interest on that it must be costing over £25k, WHERE IS THE JUSTICE ?

The reality of todays RSPCA is that they are no longer concerned with animal welfare rather than high profile prosecutions against animal lovers that generate substantial income from the media coverage they receive, they object to pets sold in pet shops, animals in schools, people keeping more than 1 pet, the list goes on.
Nice one Gordon, hows Tony ?

Recent court cases have exposed these bigots for what they really are, egotistical, power hungry, interfering busy bodies that impersonate police officer and intimidate little old ladies and disabled and vulnerable animal lovers. They spend the massive amounts of money they extort from the public under the pretense of caring for animal welfare on political campaigning, advertising and courting celebrity chefs, whilst killing sacred cows and neglecting animals in their own care .

The RSPCA's day will come, the public will realise that there are legitimate and caring animal welfare organisations that really want to make a difference to animals, the RSPCA funding will dry up, its only a matter of time until they fall foul of the CPS and the charities commission.

The media coverage they crave will be their undoing.

Days after being the subject of two more hard-hitting BBC documentaries highlighting its serious flaws, the RSPCA's Prosecutions Department has experienced yet another serious reversal .

The case took so long to determine - 18 months - that it could not be referred to in either Radio 4's "File on 4" or Five Live's "McIntyre".
Ludovic and Murvilla Kancels' pet dog Bully, three years old, was seized 18 months ago by the RSPCA and kept in an RSPCA secret "place of safety". The RSPCA's expert Martin Lawton claimed that the seized animal had "suffered unnecessarily" from thinness as a result of being "starved".
Defence vet Daniel Mackenzie-Frazer made clear Bully was not suffering. She was, in fact, feeding pups and this led to loss of condition. He said: "She was thin but not emaciated and followed her owner into the vets which she wouldn't have done if she was in considerable pain".
Mr Kancel had approached Oak Hill Vets the day before Bully was seized and asked for advice on feeding her. It was obvious that he cared deeply for her. Mr Mackenzie-Frazer added: "There has been no evidence of pain in this case. The dog was thin because she had just given birth to puppies and had dedicated her time to allowing them to feed rather than feeding herself".
However, the RSPCA, always hungry for a conviction, elected to rely on Martin Lawton. Both the Kancels, and Kino Hines, were charged with cruelty by starving Bully, perhaps the most serious and emotive animal welfare offence there is, and subjected to the usual media campaign against them.
Criticisms of Lawton made in other matters, in the proceedings against Newham pet-shop owner Simon Gilbert and Lawton's own admission of "reprehensible conduct" in disciplinary proceedings against him before the RCVS, were not disclosed to the defence or to the court.
However, Magistrates saw through the RSPCA's thin case. The submissions of the RSPCA's Solicitors Male & Wagland and Counsel Rex Bryan were, like Martin Lawton's evidence, not accepted.
The court found Ludovic and Murvilla not guilty of causing suffering, AND that there had been no suffering at all.
Bully must be returned and the RSPCA must pay the massive costs. Ludovic and Murvilla very much look forward to having Bully back, and getting to know her again.
After the case, RSPCA Inspector Dawn Avery, herself well-known to the SHG, said that she wanted to "rehome" Bully. Ms Avery said she was "unhappy that Bully spent 18 months in RSPCA kennels while the case was decided".
Ms Avery continued, ominously, that she would "try to monitor the situation and make sure that Bully is okay in the future". The charity paid thousands of pounds for "place of safety" kennels to ensure that Bully was kept away from Ludovic and Murvilla throughout the case.
The charity - given the new powers contained in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 - is perhaps therefore unlikely to leave the matter there.
Anne Kasica, of the SHG, said:
"Bully, happily, was not euthanized, and did not die in the RSPCA's kennel, as happened to Annette Nally's dog Holly. The vast resources spent every year by the RSPCA on its team of fat-cat lawyers, vets and 'place of safety' kennel-owners is sickening."
"The RSPCA says it's 'only' £8 million a year."
"Rex Bryan, Male and Wagland and RSPCA independent witness Martin Lawton have each earned a king's ransom from a series of RSPCA cases."
"I agree with Frank Field MP. It is time that each and every one of the RSPCA's decisions to cause misery is subjected to proper review by the CPS, not by lawyers who personally benefit from the decision to prosecute."
Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said:
"The RSPCA's new Head of Prosecutions Phil Wilson is not even a lawyer and, after his shameful performance on File on 4, I don't think that the RSPCA should let him near any microphones for a bit."
"Sally Case was hopeless , but Mr Wilson is worse. He is also continuing her policy of wasting RSPCA donations. There are defence and court costs to consider too."
"This ridiculous case about an allegedly thin dog took four days to present to the court. At £300 per hour - and some RSPCA lawyers get even more - each member of the RSPCA's legal team have billed £10,000 for court time alone."
"Martin Lawton is, of course, looking to have his costs of attending the trial for four days paid by the court, and therefore the taxpayer, as usual."