Nature lover leaves wildlife haven to RSPCA – who sell it to be bulldozed and built on

I don't think it's an actual Royal warrant as such, but the Queen is, I believe, their Patron and happy to show her approval of their antics by putting her name to them. maybe this is the reason Prince Edward was not prosecuted when the front pages of the papers had the pictures of him quite clearly beating one of his gundogs with what looked like a large stick.

I think they were given that years ago when they were the "only" animal charity that dealt with cruelty cases and they actually DID care about animals then instead of being run as a profit making buisness maybe that could be looked into

How do they qualify having a Royal warrant?

I notice that rspca have now put out a statement (damage limitiation exercise)stating that they had no choice but to sell the haven to a building company and that the money will be spent on animals we ALL believe that don't we
They don't have any animals the small branches are all self funding one in my arear has had to close due to lack of funds their GREED knows no bounds I hope that the general public will soon realsie this and stop giving them donations
Upsetmum if you want to stand a chance of winning your case then you have to get a specialist solicitor (0ne who is used to dealing with respca)any normal solictor will not have the experience to deal with them if you contact shg they may be able to help you (i think their is a link to them on this forum)also be aware that rscpa monitor all groups so be careful what you write as we are being watched

The facebook page is not available at present.

Rotten publicity is what they need but nothing seems to stop them. I have read several unflattering articles about them, people who know they have lied on their statements (as they did with me and which I can still prove, having held on to the paperwork). Legal Aid to be honest is a load of rubbish. They will do as little as possible, simply because they are paid PER CASE rather than per job (ie per phone call made, per phone call received, per letter, per every little detail). They never bothered to read thro' the pages of notes which I had written, they did not read the letters of support - numerous - which I had received from people who knew I had cared for my animal for 18 years. These included a letter of support from the chairman of a local registered animal charity. And the bummer is, if you plead NOT GUILTY you automatically get a stiffer sentence. There is a notice on the wall of the Mags' Court which actually states that "plead guilty up front and your sentence will be reduced" (by about 30% I believe).
It is very important that as many people as possible spread the word. I doubt you have much to lose by going public, altho your solicitor will advise against it.

I wish that a major newspaper would be brave enough to do a piece of journalism on the RSPCA redressing the balance and als0 posing the question why aren't they regulated by the CPS.
Our legal aid solicitor does not seem the want to fight for us now. He just muttered to me last week that we were an easy target.
Is there any hope that a journalist may news story this week. I believe that it is there big push this week to gain more publicity and MORE money. Is there anyone out there with ethics who would be prepared to do a story the timing would be wonderful for the RSPCA to get maximum bad publicity.

No surprises there then? The thing which constantly amazes is the fact that whatever the RSPCA are given is not enough for them. Kind, if somewhat naive people think they will make sure the proceeds of their estate are put to good use after their death but this does not happen with the RSPCA. One would think that the cottage and the Premium Bonds were a nice enough little windfall for them but clearly not. To destroy a small nature reserve, knowing that it was against Mr Brown's wishes, is quite shocking. What makes it more disgraceful is the fact that they are (supposedly) an ANIMAL charity and this was a small nature reserve for all manner of animals. I didn't think trees were normally felled at this time of year because of the likelihood of birds nesting in them? But what do I know?
This reminds me of the case when an old bachelor left half his considerable estate to the RSPCA and half to his surviving brother and they promptly took the surviving brother- he was a very old man - to court in a grasping attempt to get more than the £500,000 they had already got. They wanted a chunk of HIS half too.
You must copy this to as many sites as possible, Basil, people need to know why they should not trust them. Far better to leave your money to Celia Hammond or Cats' Protection. One does NOT hear stories like this about them. Money given to them is well spent. I wonder if Mr Brown took proper legal advice before leaving a will which could be over-ruled in this way? Luckily the cat went to a neighbour or she would have been bulldozed too.

The greatest joy in the life of animal enthusiast David Brown was the wild habitat he owned opposite his cottage that was home to foxes, badgers, hedgehogs and squirrels.

So when he wrote his will, Mr Brown chose to leave his property to the RSPCA – a charity he trusted.
But the RSPCA repaid his trust by selling the land to property developers, and last week, to the horror of his former neighbours, the habitat was flattened – in just 12 hours.


At least six trees, including two large oaks, were sawn down and the site reduced to muddy patch.
For Mr Brown had made one crucial mistake in drawing up his will – he expressed the ‘wish’ that the area be maintained as an animal sanctuary rather than making it a legal condition of the will.
This technicality allowed the RSPCA to ignore his wishes and instead cash in by selling both the cottage and the land for £295,000.

Neighbours suspected something might be happening when, a week before the diggers moved in, a plaque screwed to a tree in David’s honour was removed and attached to the side of his former cottage.
It read: ‘In loving memory, David, a good friend to us all. Not forgotten.’
The RSPCA’s actions have caused fury among Mr Brown’s neighbours in Alderley Edge, Cheshire.
Paul Welton said: ‘I remember him coming to see me after writing his will and saying, “It will be safe now.” For him it was the most important thing. The RSPCA has ridden roughshod over his wishes.’
Julie Richards, who took in Mr Brown’s cat after his death in 2007, said: 'We thought leaving it all to the RSPCA was a fantastic thing to do. He has been badly let down.’
Mr Brown had given £3 a week to the RSPCA for most of his life.
Despite suffering dyslexia, the 61-year-old would write down things that were important. After his death, Ms Richards found a notebook in his cottage in which he had written his wishes for his estate.
It read: ‘The house cleared and sold – money for RSPCA for cats’ home. Antiques to be sold. ¼ acre of land to be left undeveloped, can be used for animals.’

Mr Welton added: ‘It was teeming with wildlife and fruit. David would feed the foxes and badgers by hand.’
Another neighbour, Mark Duffy, 48, a design consultant, said: ‘I think what they have done is illegal and I am going to challenge it.
A team of them arrived last Wednesday and started going for it like an army assault team. We all suspect that it is only a matter of time before they apply to build houses on it.’
Mr Brown’s elder brother, Geoffery, 71, who lives nearby, said: ‘It’s very sad that this land has been left bare when my brother wanted it protected. I am really very angry.’ It is understood that the RSPCA decided to sell the land in 2008.


It was sold to companies connected to The Emerson Group, a development firm based nearby and owned by property tycoon Peter Jones.
The RSPCA, which also inherited £30,000 in premium bonds from Mr Brown, said: ‘Mr Brown wished us not to sell the land for building though this wasn’t a binding condition of the will. The RSPCA has used the money for its animals.’
Nobody from The Emerson Group was available for comment but a spokesman for East Cheshire Council said: ‘We are not aware of anything being done in breach of planning control.’