This is a reasonable account of the latest furore to engulf the RSPCA, only if you swallow all the RSPCA

propaganda that has dominated the public discussion of its prosecutions to this point in time. There is a lot more wrong that that. People should do a little digging. Here is an approach, and some header points, for newcomers to this issue to start the process of figuring out what is really going on with RSPCA prosecutions in general:

IS THE RSPCA OPERATING A MAJOR SCAM, WITH PARLIAMENTARY COMPLICITY AND BLESSING? - A CONSIDERATION OF THE RSPCA, AND ITS DE FACTO USURPATION OF THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR...
The main question is : are we looking at an integrated and very sophisticated scam - in conjunction with the complete abandonment of public and legal ethics? What is the real truth regarding the RSPCA-run prosecutions that we see regularly reported in such self-righteously congratulatory terms in our daily papers, and supported by the courts of the land? ISNT IT ASKING FOR TROUBLE if we allow the RSPCA 1) to advise Parliament on animal welfare legislation, and 2) act as a pseudo police-force and 3) run animal welfare prosecutions, and 4) collect from the fines imposed by the court? And isnt the likelihood of trouble increased if the RSPCA 5) regularly employs both QCs and high profile private lawyers paid way above the market rate, 6) with a donor provided slush fund it can deploy to intimidate or bribe witnesses or potential experts for the defence, or mount supplementary evidence in massive quantities, suitably edited and honed while 7) exploiting its PR provided reputation as a charity, as it 8) ruthlessly sells high quality animals it has seized from sanctuaries and breeders, 9) using the justification of the highly subjective neglect clauses of the animal welfare legislation it has helped draft - precisely to make this possible! Moreover, pondering the above, do we need to ask 10) why convictions follow a pretty standardised template, wherein the defence lawyer regularly makes strenuous efforts to get the accused to agree to a guilty plea, "in order to get the agony and expenses minimised?" And the high penalties of the animal welfare laws which encourage this submission to pressure are 11) fuelled by a complicit media publishing media releases given them by the RSPCA unedited, unchecked and completely verbatim even when these are best described as abusive and defamatory, as well as prior to trial, and using standard reliance on such subjective adjectives as appalling and phrases such as the worst case Ive ever seen this same while 12) simultaneously refusing to publish any comments, statements or questions from the accused. And where does it say that our courts should 13) run high impact trials without a jury before a single sitting magistrate under severe pressure to oblige his mates? Or allow that same magistrate 14) to grant court approval to the RSPCA to sell or dispose of seized (= stolen) animals PRIOR TO TRIAL, thus permitting the so-called shelters to support the fencing of stolen property under the remarkably thin disguise of Orwellian terms such as adoption and re-homing ? Etc. That's for a start. After that it seems it might be a good idea to check out the way the RSPCA uses surveillance data provides by the police. It is possible that the truth here would create a scandal several times the magnitude of the scandal created by the News of the World - if we could only get the truth on the table! Why not head over to http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/stop-rspca-prosecution-scandals-1 and sign up for a better way to look after and protect all those animals (great and small). The RSPCAs record in protecting animals is near universally condemned by all observers, and their prosecutions are socially tolerated because they are a release point for built up social tensions around guilt and punishment, a bit like football games are a substitute for tribal warfare, with the RSPCAs own motives more likely to be found in their lust for profit and power. In this view the great majority of RSPCA prosecutions have an eery parallelism with stonings of women selected for exemplary execution at the hands of mob violence in the middle east. Let us hope that the brave huntsmen riding forth into battle this week will tackle the broader issues of RSPCA prosecutions as well as their own particular agenda.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/342236

Op-Ed: RSPCA warned on hunt prosecution, lodges press complaint

By Eileen Kersey Jan 27, 2013 - yesterday in Crime Comments - 1 Heythrop British charity, the RSPCA, Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is the largest and longest established animal charity in the World. Its recent Hunt prosecution has reportedly resulted in a loss of support. The RSPCA has centres around the UK. In towns, cities and rural areas the RSPCA has carried through investigations into allegations of animal neglect and cruelty. Some of its branches struggle to survive, financially. The Clough Road branch in Kingston-upon-Hull has launched various appeals, and held fund raising events, in order to keep this branch operational. Ten days ago the Telegraph reported that the UK charities watchdog had warned the RSPCA of excessive spending in bringing a 'Hunt' prosecution. On February 18, 2005 a ban on hunting with dogs became law in the UK. Recent polls suggest that the majority of people in Britain want that ban to stay in place. In December a survey published by the Guardian showed that '76% are against fox hunting being legalised, rising to 81% for deer hunting and 83% for hare coursing, based on a survey of 1,943 people.' The conclusion was that the majority of people in the UK wanted the ban to remain. The poll was carried out by Ipsos Mori. The Countryside Alliance, and England's 320 registered hunts, have campaigned hard for the ban to be lifted. Hunts still occur but are 'watered down'. Hunting supporters claim that it is '"half life", meetings with all the traditional finery and customs but the Hunt barred from deliberately running foxes or deer to their deaths.' Hunts which have broken the law have taken place. Prosecutions rarely, if ever, carried through. The UK coalition government, elected in 2010. promised a free vote in Parliament in 2012, regarding the fox hunting ban. David Cameron clearly backed reform. The government's environment secretary Own Paterson said in December that, 'there was no immediate likelihood of winning a Commons vote to make hunting legal again and that supporters of hunting would need to do "more work" to win around sceptical MPs. In December the RSPCA spent 326,000 prosecuting the Heythrop Hunt. The cost was nearly 10 times the cost of the defences 35,000 legal bill. The Heythrop Hunt is PM David Cameron's local hunt. According to the Telegraph report, The RSPCA met with the Charity's commission after Simon Hart MP, former Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, along with Tory peer Lord Heseltine, lodged a complaint. The Oxfordshire Heythrop Hunt has links to the Chipping Norton Set. A group of influential people including David Cameron and Rebekah Brookes. Cameron has rode with this hunt in the past. As the Guardian reported at the time, members of the Hunt believed the prosecution was politically motivated. Aimed at pressurising the PM so that he would not allow a free vote in Parliament. Perhaps what is most shocking is the damage that this prosecution has caused the RSPCA. Results of a poll revealed a few days ago show that the Heythrop Hunt prosecution has negatively affected the British public's perception of the RSPCA. The RSPCA's reputation recovered slightly in late January. OPINION Supporters of fox hunting in the UK are fighting hard to have traditional hunting with dogs reinstated in the Britain. When the ban came into force in 2005, those whose work was associated with fox hunting were hit hard, financially. That is always the case with such changes.

Is the reason that a ban will hit a person's pocket, or livelihood, enough to carry on with traditional methods? Advances often hit some people financially. The car, trains, bear baiting, ivory retailing and hunting whales are all prime examples. Does that mean that we must stand still? The RSPCA should not have had to bring this prosecution. Rather than condemning this charity, for the money it spent, ask why the 'law' of the land did not act? Ultimately the Charities Commission supported the RSPCA but 'bad press' had already damaged public perception of the charity. Whilst some Tory ministers may claim that the Heythrop prosecution was politically motivated, that is exactly what the RSPCA accusers are guilty of. Fox hunting in the UK was a very cruel "sport". It does not belong in the 21st Century. Was the RSPCAs reputation damaged due to the money spent on this prosecution or by pro-hunting sections of the media? The RSPCA has now made a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. We have started the formal process of making a complaint against the Daily Telegraph newspaper to the Press Complaints Commission after it failed to print an apology or offer a right to reply after printing a series of potentially defamatory articles. The stories are factually incorrect and reflect biased and unbalanced reporting style. The articles show clear support for the political agenda of the Countryside Alliance in seeking the return of blood sports. In their factual inaccuracies and bias they are not consistent with high standards of journalism. This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/342236#ixzz2JJki77n1