RSPCA PERVERSION

Well Cat I am not sure about the cases you have quoted BUt i certainly know that the RSPCA tell lies they told enough about me
After after i was raided and after many letters of complaint from me about my treatment (and my rabbits) at the hands of their inspectors i got a phone call from a Cnl. Black (not sure what sort of Cnl. he was)I was told that his THREE inspectors had all stated that i had invited them in and they would NEVER use force to gain entry into someone,s house (LIERS)I queried this as there was only two female inps.only to be told that the two female and one MALE inps.had all agreed that i had invited them in.Not sure where the male one came from but as i had my friend with me when they arrived and could therefore prove that they were lying the lovley Cnl.Black had to back down and admitted that he may have "got that bit wrong"would he have backed down if he had been in Court? Don,t think so he would have carried on lying just the same as his inps. did.
I had my vet come out to me and do a full inspectioc of my Rabbit house,he found nothing wrong and told RSPCA so In fact he told them that he wished all rabbits were kept the way mine were
RSPCA thought that i would be an easy target and they would get maximum publicity for taking my bunnies so who,s the MUGS now

The following is reproduced from one of our fellow fighters on an Austrailian anti RSPCA site;;

I agree with many of the points which you are trying to make - in the UK there are cases like Attorney-General v RSPCA (where the RSPCA were found to have perverted the course of justice and got fined for doing so) and RSPCA v Cruden (where they were found to have presented a dishonest case but their advocate is now a judge hearing these cases). However, publishing a stream of consciousness without particularity does not do sufficient credit to the work you undoubtedly put in. Insane statements like “the RSPCA have more power than the police” and “The RSPCA can have transcripts of Court Hearings altered” and “are able to gain complete acceptance from the Magistrate in Court for their fabrications of evidence, intimidation of witnesses and perjured evidence” is bonkers. When you say “The Magistrate when asked, when he would charge the witness with perjury said he would consider the provable lies of RSPCA witnesses. RSPCA provable perjury (lies) were considered as facts by Magistrates”. Who was this magistrate and what did (s)he do about this “provable lies” - when did this happen. “Who, what, when where, why, how, with what result?”