2013 was not a good year for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
It had really started the previous year when what was supposed to be a landmark case against the Heythrop Hunt backfired spectacularly. It was the “staggering” cost of £330,000 which the society had to bear that brought the media spotlight onto the RSPCA.
From that time onwards, story after story hit national headlines reporting on the way in which the charity operates. Of course there were many positive animal welfare activities that were covered by local press, but it was the national press, which was virtually all negative, that set the tone.
The society’s prosecutions policy prompted a debate in parliament. Concerns were expressed by senior politicians not only about the number of prosecutions taken by this private body, but that numerous cases, often those taken against hunts, had failed for lack of sufficient evidence and the cost then borne by the taxpayer. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) came into being precisely to separate ‘investigators’ from ‘prosecutors’ in order to allow a detached view to be made on the merits of any case. Many wonder why this doesn’t apply to the RSPCA if their evidence is as sound as they claim.
The heavy-handed way in which some people were treated by officers of the RSPCA was given extensive press coverage to the extent that it became the subject of a BBC investigation. Concerns about the RSPCA’s lack of action taken against certain farms that are part of the ‘Freedom Food’ scheme have been raised by other animal welfare groups, in particular Hillside Animal Sanctuary (www.hillside.org.uk). Just recently evidence obtained by Hillside supporters found appalling conditions on a pig farm belonging to the scheme, but the RSPCA chose not to prosecute.
The RSPCA was formed to prevent cruelty to animals, yet when plans were announced by the government to cull badgers in attempts to curb bovine TB – a serious problem that has meant the slaughter of tens of thousands of cattle, a miserable death for badgers with the disease and a cost to the taxpayer of over half a billion pounds – the RSPCA opposed it for what can only be described as ideological reasons. The society went into top gear to prevent such a process, even though the shooting of badgers would be undertaken by marksmen in controlled circumstances. Yet during the debates in the run-up to the passing of the Hunting Act, the shooting of foxes by virtually anyone with a shotgun or rifle was deemed acceptable by the RSPCA and other anti hunting groups.
RSPCA officials sit on The Deer Initiative and the society accepts the culling of hundreds of thousands of deer every year. So oddly the society’s policy seems to be the culling of healthy deer is fine, but the culling of diseased badgers is not. The duplicity of officials when addressing some issues, choosing to ignore or demand scientific evidence whenever it suits them, is blatant. Even in the current debate on amending the Hunting Act to allow for more efficient fox control by hill farmers, the RSPCA has shown a stunning disregard for the science that backs such a call – and this despite the charity agreeing to the relevant exemption in the Hunting Act at its time of passing into law.
However, during 2013 things got worse. In numerous meetings around the country what should have been a calm and considered debate in support of efforts to curb bovine TB, was instead turned into to a campaigning issue. Public feeling was deliberately whipped up by the RSPCA, resulting in a call for a boycott of milk from farms that permitted the cull and for farmers and shooters taking part to be publicly “named and shamed”.
The RSPCA’s ‘solution’ is vaccination, even though a vaccine proven to be effective against bovine TB in badgers in the field does not exist, but that minor point didn’t stop an emotive advertisement stating, “Vaccinate or exterminate” being placed in the national press. The advert was later banned by the Advertising Standards Authority for being misleading.
Recently, it’s been revealed that the RSPCA sought details of the cull sites via a series of letters to DEFRA. Coincidentally, policing costs for the cull have just been released (£2.4 million) and it’s ironic that this cost has been criticised by the very people who encouraged protesters to invade the cull areas.
Worryingly, it was discovered that the RSPCA had access to information on the police computer. Through a Freedom of Information request, the Countryside Alliance discovered that details of firearms licences held by individuals have been passed to the RSPCA. Quite how this often sensitive and personal information is used is open to question and perhaps even more worrying is who, precisely, has access to it.
All this media attention inevitably led to questions surrounding the issue of salaries paid to a range of charity chief executives and senior officials, many of whom receive far more than any Member of Parliament and some of whom are paid more than the Prime Minister. The government is now considering strengthening the powers of the Charity Commission.
Little wonder then that the new Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, declined to become the society’s Vice Patron, a position that had been willingly accepted by his predecessors.
With such an onslaught of bad publicity and with some local RSPCA branches closing for lack of funds, it’s not surprising that officials within the organisation expressed concern.
A leaked memo written by Deputy Chairman, Paul Draycott, was highly revealing. Mr Draycott spoke of finances in decline, contracts with large businesses being put at risk due to the society being seen to be “too political”, having to “fight off the Charity Commission“, low morale and “disillusionment” amongst the staff, a “lack of confidence in senior management” and concerns about future legacies in the light of so much negative publicity. Mr Draycott makes an important point when he suggests training for some trustees who may not fully understand their role and the responsibility they carry. Remember, these are the people – not a statutory body – to whom the RSPCA is directly accountable.
So the next time we hear a public statement from an RSPCA official about how things are all fine and that money is pouring in, bear this memo in mind.
2013 ended with the Countryside Alliance’s Executive Chairman, Sir Barney White-Spunner, referring to the RSPCA as, “sinister and nasty” and looking at the above, one can fully understand why.
So much of the RSPCA’s work is to be highly commended and some will argue that such criticism of the society is an attempt to destroy it. That could not be further from the truth and there is no pleasure in seeing how this change from an animal welfare organisation to an animal rights group is slowly killing a once great institution.
Glyn Davies MP, in saying that he had previously been a strong supporter of the society, summed it up perfectly during that parliamentary debate last year, “I want my RSPCA back”.
Dear Jim,
I have recently found it horrid that the RSPCA, as a charity can make outrageous claims or support the very worse of loaded questions in public opinion polls recently to win by deception, something they are not prepared to debate publically with those who they abused. Surely the Charity Commission must have rules to prevent this sort of thing ?
The RSPCA campaign against the badger cull was a good example of the sort of appalling propaganda used to get their way. The unruly behaviour of those incited by the RSPCA cost the tax payer a considerable amount of money to police. And still the Charity Commission refuses to say boo to this particular nasty goose. Perhaps it was an indication of support for people being named and shamed.
The RSPCA should have its charitable status withdrawn immediately until such time it can convince the Charity Commission that they operate within their guidelines and conduct themselves in a way so as not to antagonise the public and bring itself into disrepute. But who is going to hold the next to useless Charity Commission to account.
Dear Jim,
I sat up and stared, was I reading it correctly, a campaign of vilification against the RSPCA, had I read it wrong I wondered no it was “vilification”
So had the Countryside Alliance joined forces with other organizations as did the RSPCA, LACS and IFAW , then called themselves deadline 2015 in recognition of the date they want to see the RSPCA banned?
Has the countryside alliance led such a spiteful, nasty, dirty campaign against the RSPCA it has found itself in front of the ASA adjudicators and had countless rulings against them for misleading adverts? Like the town drunks appearing in court Monday morning and the magistrate shaking his head in disbelief and commenting ” same old faces” this was the case for the RSPCA and their bully boy gang members LACS & IFAW. At the time they had probably worked out a full page advertisement misleading and deceiving ordinary folk over hunting was well worth the two lined apology on the back page two months later. Worse than that off the back of this deceit, like Adolf Hitler takeover of Austria, they arrange for organizations to march into people’s homes and ask questions so loaded parallels can be drawn between that and the Nazi/ Austrian ballot paper of 1938.
Fortunately we have a database of polls over the years and this can give us the true picture and we don’t have to swallow the twisted bent conclusions given us by the gang of three. The Burns inquiry conducted a poll around villages where hunt kennels were based, the more townies who had moved to the villages the less the support for hunting.
And the most telling poll of all conducted in 1999, only 26 % of folk who knew of foxhunting taking place in their immediate area was the exact same figure for those who either tended or strongly oppose a ban or had no opinion. So it would appear where foxhunting takes place it is supported.
As the RSPCA, LACS and IFAW like conducting polls similar to those of nasty viscous dictators of the past and quietly clearly have a problem respecting activities of minorities who by and large have the support of their local area can I suggest they up root and take their nasty spiteful ways to a country more suited like North Korea.
Much as in a school, where the tone, ethos and range of activities reflect the views and character of the Head, so organisations such as the RSPCA mirror the character of their Chief Executive. The present leader of this charity has form from his time in a similar role at a cosmetic firm; where the latter gave significant funding to animal rights organisations.
I believe the only way in which we shall see a change in the inappropriate behaviour of the RSPCA will be to see a change at the top and a new CEO appointed. In the meantime, the Trustees of that charity would do well to exercise their own role more effectively in ensuring its activities fall within the Charity Commission guidelines as well as within the law of the land.
It is time the CPS resumed its own proper role also in making sure criminal prosecutions meet the criteria laid down for them to be brought. And where private prosecutions are brought by such organisations as the RSPCA and the latter lose their case, then they should not expect any of their costs to be funded by anyone other than themselves. It is shameful that the taxpayer should be required to foot the bill for any private prosecutions where the plaintiff is unsuccessful.
Only when the RSPCA is held accountable for its own actions will we see it return to reason and revive its proper role, which it is now obliged to neglect through lack of funds, the latter having been frittered away on excursions into the civil courts in ideological adventurism.
WoW! the above comments are obviously written by people who enjoy recreational animal cruelty. . I’m not the greatest fan of the RSPCA however they mostly do a damn good job and as their purpose is to prevent cruelty to animals of course they should be all over illegal hunting with dogs and prosecute the hell out of bunches of people who participate just the same as they would prosecute dog fighting rings or badger baiting. Do the above comment makers believe cruelty to animals should go unpunished? Or do you simply not classify British wildlife as animals? Maybe you support the slaughter of wildlife and think all the people trying to prevent the extinction of Rhinos and Elephants stupid. Or maybe you consider British wildlife less important than African wildlife. Whatever motivates you to attack a charity purely for doing its job is pretty unpleasant. It’s easy to sit and criticize but when your criticism is sour grapes because it might stop your illegal cruelty, most intelligent people will see through you.
You appear to think that because we have the Hunting Act, that any report of it being breached somehow equates to genuine cruelty, such as dog fighting or badger baiting – two activities you mention and which were strangely included in the latest poll on hunting. You ignore the fact that baiting is not the same as hunting, the difference between the two activities having been explained at the time of passing the first animal cruelty law in 1822 (championed by a foxhunter). The Hunting Act was introduced without any scientific basis but a lot of prejudice and consequently suffers from being very badly drafted. It creates technical offences, not animal welfare-based ones, and breaches should be seen as such. For the RSPCA to spend so much money on prosecutions under this law is undoubtedly a waste and can only detract from the good work that is done by the society in other areas.
Dear James, I would like to point out that you mention the RSPCA opposing the badger cull but accepting deer culls. . You say “So oddly the society’s policy seems to be the culling of healthy deer is fine, but the culling of diseased badgers is not.” How could you or anyone else possibly know if any of the killed badgers were diseased at all? Not a single one was tested and If you have looked into any of the science or independent expert opinion you will be very aware that the badger cull was flawed and should never have been allowed to happen. To kill a native wildlife species against the advice of top scientists who conducted the RBCT and in the process whip up anti badger propaganda within the farming communities is a disgrace and the NFU and DEFRA should be ashamed of themselves. A deer cull is in no way the same as a badger cull or fox hunting as neither badger or fox is killed for food.
You also say that dog fighting and badger baiting is not the same as hunting with dogs. How can it be classed as cruel to set a dog on another dog or badger but not cruel to do the same with a fox or a hare? They all feel fear and pain or am I missing something here?
To be honest I think we’re just seeing one of the failure modes of the current legal system, but it isn’t really all that bad.
Abolishing private prosecutions altogether is not wise; in rare circumstances where the CPS will not prosecute for political reasons a private prosecution is the only way an injured individual might gain redress. In today’s legal system private prosecutions ought only be rare events, once per lifetime or otherwise extremely infrequently brought by individuals.
So, a reasonable fix is to limit any private individual, company or charity (or persons acting for these entities) to one private prosecution costs-paid per 25 year period. Should an entity like the RSPCA wish to conduct more such private prosecutions after their costs-not-liable one, then a bond of quarter of a million pounds would have to be paid into the court before proceedings could be heard.
Alternatively, said charity could simply pass their evidence over to the CPS for consideration.
That I believe retains the opportunity for private prosecutions of last resort to be heard, and also prevents wholesale abuse of the system by the RSPCA. Should they then lose a case, they would be liable for their own costs which would first be met from the bond, then by seizure of their assets by the Crown. As losing only a few of these cases would bankrupt the RSPCA, I dare say that they would refrain from privately prosecuting all but the firmest of cases.
Dear Jane,
I’m a little puzzled as to why my particular comments are anti RSPCA. My comments supports animal welfare (take your blinkers off) and minorities from being bullied and abused by wealthy charities who have friends like yourself who find it perfectly alright to use disgraceful representation on the cull of badgers and hunting/ dog fighting. If I ran an opinion poll about the RSPCA and roped in all manner of unsavoury people with loaded questions, how would you feel about the tactics used and more to the point how would you respond?
Dear Mike. . I have no blinkers and as I said I am not particularly a fan of the RSPCA but do commend the stand they made regarding the Badger Cull. . The NFU and DEFRA are the ones who misled the general public into believing that killing badgers would significantly reduce incidents of bTB in cattle even though the science and the wildlife and disease experts all disagree. Mostly healthy badgers were needlessly slaughtered and not a single one tested for disease. Such anti badger propaganda was whipped up that not only have farmers been taking matters into there own hands and illegally and cruelly gassing badger sets there have also been numerous incidents of illegal killing and set tampering up and down the country. . I have seen a lot of comments on various articles suggesting that the RSPCA should only care for domestic pets but these sorts of comments only seem to be the opinion of the people who support hunting and shooting. I’m not naive enough to believe that the people who happily dig out terrified fox cubs and either throw them to their dogs or then shoot them will ever be persuaded that what they do is wrong on both moral and cruelty grounds so therefore I believe it is vital for the likes of the RSPCA and LACS to stand up for these animals and the abuse they suffer. If you truly care about animal welfare then how can bashing a charity who sole purpose is concerned with animal welfare be helpful?
Dear Jane,
Thanks for getting back. Your claims about the NFU and DEFRA conspiring to hoodwink the public are ridiculous, have you considered looking at the evidence on TB, the cause and the effects on infected animals with bleeding lungs, drowning in their own saliva, struggling to breathe and according to human survivors, TB is one of the most awful of diseases to suffer from. The RSPCA did not support kindness by wanting badgers to suffer a long protracted death because of its own crusade for complete and utter domination over all matters of animal welfare.
Secondly Jane, your opinion on hunting is a personal prospective that has been acquired over a period of time without looking at the facts realistically. I too was like you in that regard some years ago (No, I didn’t have a sex change), until I opened my eyes and thought not only about protecting foxes, but why and how best to control the fox population in a practical way without unnecessary suffering. Also looking at ways that protected the natural environment and other species of wildlife dependent on the same well managed habitat.
You mentioned the use of terriers, the facts on this speak volumes for those who allow hunting on their land. Only something like 5% of landowners allow foxes that have gone to ground to be dug out and dispatched humanly. There is clearly two things at play here, one is that hunting is enjoyed by those who take part, but most importantly it is undertaken as a serious method of pest control, borne out by that small minority of landowners who insist that foxes on their land be killed irrespective of the circumstances.
I have long requested that both sides of the hunting debate get together and discuss the matter sensibly. The current law has not saved the life of a single fox and, with regards to hare coursing we are witnessing sustainable hunting being replaced by unsustainable hunting or poaching, which is threatening the entire hare population in Britain.
Jane,
Here is the problem I have, leading up to the Burns inquiry the RSPCA were propagating to Mp`s and members of the public they had scientific evidence proving hunting crueller than any other method. This apparently came from academics based at Bristol University so currently no different to the scenario you are giving to us over the badger cull, Agreed?
Along came the Burns inquiry and the scientific evidence was exposed by the man who originally conducted the research, he wrote to the inquiry explaining his research had been wilfully misrepresented by the anti-hunting brigade to suit their argument. The RSPCA changed their stance overnight, from claiming we have scientific evidence hunting is cruel to “in light of any evidence we should give the animal the benefit of the doubt” Burns went on to say there is no scientific evidence available.
So as I see it, whatever evidence you produce is irrelevant, if proved worthless you simply change your argument to suit as you have done in the past.
“Animal welfare then how can bashing a charity who sole purpose is concerned with animal welfare be helpful?”
LACS, RSCPA and IFAW had their say at the Burns inquiry,
He concluded, A ban would lead to other methods being used to replace hunting with dogs in the event of a ban.
He Concluded, We should therefore compare the various methods of control
He Concluded, Lamping if carried out by the correct person in the correct
conditions is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. Where this is not feasible there will be a greater use of other methods. He was less confident the use of shotguns was preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective, snaring is for particular cause for concern.
So the two methods most likely to replace hunting are less preferable, who in are you trying to kid about the intentions of the RSPCA and LACS. Try needing a cause to bring the funds.
Dear Jane
So deceitful and spiteful were the RSCPA, IFAW and LACS they ganged up on the Countryside alliance to try and obtain a ban and continued their campaign of misinformation to the public. Knowing full well very few folk would read the Burns inquiry they set about writing their own twisted version in an easy read format to deliberately mislead folk. This they called countdown to ban and to their embarrassment can still be download today,
Burns inquiry welfare comparison conclusion
Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern.
The twisted version contained in countdown to a ban
They concluded that where a need to kill foxes is demonstrated or perceived “lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out” In areas where lamping is not feasible, the use of dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns can be humane and effective…..
Modern technology and information sharing we can now see how utterly deceitful and nasty these three organizations were, and as much as they complain now they are simply reaping what they have sown.
Dear Jane,
With all due respect, please note not a single person from the RSPCA, IFAW or Lacks All Common Sense (LACS) have posted a comment in support of you. Proof if proof was needed that they know what a whole lot of lies they have been peddling, I’m not out to convince you old girl, but you would be better advised to keep one hand on your purse strings and the other on your knickers when courting those rascals.
This one paragraph so completely destroys the RSPCA, IFAW and LACS carefully constructed “Big Lie” on hunting. The less than dynamic duo from Bristol University should be offering refunds on account of this. How duped were the RSPCA, IFAW and LACS?
From the Peer reviewed study from the GCT in 2000,
Importantly, only a quarter of farmers had purely local
aims: three-quarters cited regional control of fox numbers as
an aim of their culling regime.
In all cases, the expectation of culling is to achieve a
temporary effect. Although the complete eradication of
foxes may be a justifiable conservation aim on continents or
islands where foxes have been artificially introduced (eg.
Australia), very few people would wish to see their
extinction from Britain. It is an accepted aspect of culling
that dispersal tends to even up fox density, so that culling –
like gardening or farming – is a temporary management
process.
Congratulations go to Giles Bradshaw who used the same analogy on this website a few months ago. Perhaps the RSCPA, IFAW and LACS should be funding Giles for advice he appears to know what he is talking about. And another advantage of using Giles as your expert in fox population and management is he stopped believing in Beatrix Potter stories as the age of ten.
Thank you Nigel I do think that LACS and the RSPCA should heed my advice which is that they should allow me to continue using my dogs to pursue wildlife down here in Devon. Indeed I know that they do just that! I’ve had a good year so far and have successfully had them after deer, a fox and a hare. I’m proud to stand up to this absurd law and am grateful to LACS the RSPCA and the police for letting me flout it with impunity.
I did intend to report on yet another deceitful piece of information on the Mammal society this morning but a tweet yesterday changed all that. I know a lot of nasty things get said via this method of communication, I am no angel myself, and accept it as part and parcel of the deal. However occasionally someone comes out with such a blatant lie as was the case with John Mann in the “Mann-gate” scandal its worth reporting here.
A lady whos name I will not mention informed me she was on her way to an RSPCA fund raising last night tweeted me with the following,
“not uncommon for a terrier men to bag a fox and let it go so the hunters can have their fun”
When I stated this was lie and to provide evidence, she replied with the following
“do you go to every single hunt? If not you cannot state it is not true. It is true”
Repeated requests for evidence receives the exact same response as we witnessed with “Mann-gate”
“It happens do some homework”
“I told you to do some homework, I don`t care if you do not believe me”
“I am telling you it happens, I am not doing you dirty work for you”
I can imagine them in the fart filled halls of last night’s fund raiser, quaffing bean sprout and lentil soup making up more deceitful nasty accusations in an attempt to demonize us, Ladies and Gentleman I give you the very nasty, spiteful, devious and deceitful RSCPA and its supporters.
Dear Nigel,
Steady on old boy, the RSPCA management structure may have some disgusting liars, but you can’t blame the innocent public for believing the RSPCA’s dirty tactics of exaggerating everything against rural dwellers with emotive advertising to obtain from them, money by using emotional blackmail?
Of course the minorities in rural Britain are slowly and systematically being bullied. It feels as though we are denied the human rights every other group in Britain takes for granted.
Hi Mike,
On reflection I agree with what you have said, I apologize to the supporters of the RSPCA who unknowingly would have been duped by this very nasty organization.
Knowing the RSPCA monitor this website, any respectable charity would have apologized by now and gave assurance’s its supporters were either better informed or given the evidence to back up their claims. Did Gavin grant not recently say to deliberately mislead people……………………oh why bother a leopard can’t change its spots.
The RSPCA involvement in the Burns-gate enquiry
Written and prepared for my dear partner Debbie, she can’t stand liars.
The anti-hunting Labour government bowed to pressure from the Countryside alliance and launched an enquiry into hunting with dogs. After all they had been constantly informed by the Big three comprising the RSPCA, LACS and IFAW of the evidence proving hunting cruel, the enquiry was to be a mere formality. What happened next caught everyone by surprise, the hunt saboteurs association refused to take part and the big three complained bitterly over the experts picked to evaluate the evidence, even though they had the well-known IFAW funded vehemently anti-hunting professor Harris as one of the leading experts. Even getting MPs to raise concerns of the makeup of the enquiry team, only raised suspicion, Blair was starting to see them for what they really were, confirmed by an insider anti, “he is starting to waiver” he commented. There apparent reluctance and aspersions they caste, was for good reason. Central to the debate was welfare and cruelty, the evidence they claimed to have was found to be flawed, and what was left was assumption and opinion. Burns was forced to state this in the report as well as there in being no scientific evidence to reach a view on cruelty. He was forced to look at welfare for his measure and to the utter dismay of the Big Three, (now calling themselves Deadline 2000) he found most methods likely to replace hunting in the event of a ban would cause more suffering. This was a catastrophic blow for Deadline 2000, but they had been prepared, a week before the final report was made available, they were spinning “The Countryside alliance is trying to distance itself from the report”. However his could not mask the bitter blow they would have felt and this one conclusion from the burns enquiry should have ended this nonsense once and for all. However deadline 2000 were gifted a reality check, they had made the all too often mistake of becoming so embroiled in the hunting debate they thought every other person in the country had felt the same way. To their delight this could not have been further from the truth, barely any members of the public read the report and nor did many Labour MPs for that matter, coupled with the presses attempts to show both sides they had escaped unscathed. This gave the Big three the chance to do what they do best, spin and deceive. Corrupting conclusions from the Burns report they gave their interpretation of the enquiry findings in easy to read downloadable documents, one such document was called “Countdown to a ban”. The main conclusion which did the damage from the Burns enquiry appeared to attract the most attention, please find below the Burns version, and the corrupted version from the Big Three,
Burns enquiry,
Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. *We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern.
Big three corrupted version
They concluded that where a need to kill foxes is demonstrated or perceived: “lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out.” In areas where lamping is not feasible, * the use of dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns can be humane and effective if properly
*the use of shotguns deemed less preferable in the Burns enquiry has been switched to flushing to guns in the second version. For the record burns did not say flushing to guns was “effective” or “humane”
How any MPs can stand shoulder to shoulder with these very nasty, deceitful organizations is a sad reflection of the quality of some of our MPS. Here’s to hoping 2014 is just as unlucky as the last for the RSPCA.
I thought I would share this posting I made in reply to the League against cruel sports and their attempts to influence a possible debate into allowing a full pack of hounds to flush to guns. Not surprisingly it was removed from an anti-hunt website with the excuse it was being Bully Boy. I found this highly amusing as will James, the term I used “vacuous and brain dead” was meant to be tongue in cheek and first used by the anti-hunting Paul Flynn MP in response to information given him by the Middle way group.
Having come from the League against cruel sports website to read the article in its entirety I can report I have never read such vacuous brain dead rubbish in all my life. Since when did foxes live on farms and observe farms boundaries? What utter rubbish. Fox territories cross farm boundaries and if one farmer decided to kill a fox that shares his land that is his right to do so. More the point this very cheeky farmer probably has not lost a lamb to foxes as they are too busy munching their way through lambs on neighbouring farms, hence the visit of the hunt. Of course I smell a rat this is a setup, the farmer knew the hunt were coming, did he contact the hunt and inform them to say he had pregnant ewes in the field where the incident took place? Did he make any attempt to move his sheep? Of course not, this was a stitch up intended to influence the public and MP`s over the upcoming debate on the reintroduction of a full pack of hounds to flush to guns. The emphasis appears to be on his husbandry which we are told has not seen him lose a sheep in seventeen years. Sadly for the league against cruel sports this is irrelevant as the reintroduction of a full pack is for upland areas of Wales not Devon and Prof David Macdonald stated to the Burns inquiry in these areas improved husbandry is unlikely to be a cost effective option. The peer reviewed study used by the Burns enquiry also found in these areas before the ban 75% of foxes were taken with the use of dogs in an attempt to PREVENT livestock losses, so using common sense we can work out they are very likely to be having problems now with foxes. A devious nasty article designed to mislead the public and MPS, shame on the Mirror for printing it, especially with the caption of a fox being dragged away dying when it was clearly dead. Thanks to media like this and the voice it gives, we won’t get fooled again.
Credit where credit is due, I reposted with the following comment, this they allowed.
A peer reviewed study used extensively by the Burns inquiry team showed a major reason given by farmers for culling foxes was “Good Neighbour”. This means if a farmer who just grows crop and therefore is unlikely to find the fox a problem still culls because a foxes territory crosses over into neighbouring farms where the farmer there has livestock or game bird interests to protect. I am in no doubt this farmer mentioned in the above article is the most despised farmer in the district, and the utter rubbish of him wanting to remain anonymous even more so. Every farmer and every hunt member will know who he is. The bare faced cheek of allowing foxes to cross over into neighbour’s farms to dine on their lambs will infuriate the most passive of farmer. Now for the League against Cruel Sports – This type of headlining worked 15 years ago when stories only appeared in Papers and there was no way of replying. Now it’s a pointless waste of time, your deceit and misrepresentations are exposed to the public in second’s thanks largely to social media and comments sections.
As always feel free to plagiarise.
Dear Nigel,
Firstly LACS is a pro Labour group that supplies researchers and the material needed for the trouble makers who bang on about a complete load of tosh on hunting and why the badger cull should be stopped. Their only objective appears to be just as with the trade unions, is to raise money for the Labour party and hopefully lose valuable public support for its political opponents at elections. It does not support animal welfare or save the life of a single species in any way whatsoever. The whole thing is based on the public being gullible and very generous with their donations.
Three of the s*** stirring anti hunt MP’s who objected to hunting were former researchers for LACS. Their number could not influence the need for a ban based on a kinder alternative, but their reminders on a debt to the Labour party was grossly unfair and highly influential.
Hi Mike,
I remember all too well the huge whoops and cheers of sheer prejudice and spite emanating from the Labour Benches as Jack Straw announced the findings of the Burns enquiry, the biggest reserved for the announcement of potential job losses to the hunting industry. A mere 6,000 – 8,000, my how the countryside alliance got it all so wrong, 16,000 they said. Ignoring the fact the LACS had said only 1,000 job losses and Burns findings were roughly in the middle of the two estimates was irrelevant.
In contrast the solemn silence a week later as 6,000 job losses are announced to parliament in a factory in wales with the rows of bowed heads of the Labour ranks as they reflected the plight of those affected.
The arrival of the ban and the sheer determination to screw the hunting fraternity as much as possible, offering no worthwhile compensation as they did to the now banned fur farmers on their arrival in to power.
We are not talking here about a paying off a debt owed to a few, we are talking about a whole party complicit in a very nasty spiteful campaign not too far removed from Adolf Hitler’s vile activities.
Have they changed? Doubt it, would be nice to be proved wrong.
Hi James,
The delightful Mrs Miggins writes a blog similar to your own but in support of a ban. She appears to withhold comments, apparently because of trolling. We know this better as trying to hide what gullible fools they are. Why they are not pointing accusing figures at the LACS, RSPCA and IFAW for making them look so stupid is beyond me.
A special thank you to Shot_Fox for providing me with Ipsos Mori`s guide to Rurality, rural respondent’s and rural sampling points,
MrsMiggins
“Mr Bradshaw, in the Huffington Post, begins with some comments on his online poll, so I will begin in the same way.
Online polls are frivolous at best and do not reflect an accurate cross section of society. A scientific poll like the one commissioned by the League against Cruel Sports recently is a more accurate indicator of the mood of the people. The result of the League’s poll showed unequivocally that 80% of the population do not want to see a return of hunting with scenting hounds.
Scientific polling uses sophisticated research methods and random sampling to make predictions about a population. It can be used both in academic research and to gain an insight into how the majority of the public feel about a chosen topic. Random sampling is used in scientific polling because it allows small sample sizes to produce accurate population estimates.
The accuracy of scientific polling is assured because the group who are surveyed are selected at random. This is the key factor if we want to produce an accurate result. Polls, as in the one described by Mr Bradshaw, in which people CHOOSE to participate, such as Internet polls, are not scientific, and their results must be largely discounted.
An Internet poll on a newspaper website, in which readers decide whether to participate, can be said only to reflect the responses of readers who care enough to vote, and not the general population.”
The response to Mrs Miggins so far yet to be posted on her blog.
Mrs Miggins,
From the horses mouth, Ipsos Mori`s guide to Rurality, rural respondent’s and rural sampling points
“It is vital that if you wish to include a rurality analysis in your tables or a rurality definition into your sample design, you should understand what you are trying to achieve, and ensure that you use an appropriate definition”
In other words Mrs Miggins, find a formula that gives you the result you want.
It’s been well over 15 years and the countryside alliance are still waiting for Ipsos Mori to provide them with the result when rurality was self-defined and the question was asked if you support hunting or not to people who claimed to live in the middle of the countryside. Can’t think why that’s being held back can you Mrs Miggins?
Giles it would appear your polling is sounder than the others, the questions are not being paid for by clients using formulas to give them the best result.
More to follow on the delightful Mrs Miggins,
http://www.tekjournalismuk.com/animal-welfare-specialist.html
Draft, Comments welcome. If you think it crap or inappropriate say so.
A submission written and prepared for the investigation into making the RSPCA`s prosecution policy more acceptable to the British public. It has been assumed the evidence will be viewed without prejudice and any preconceptions or views the investigator may have on hunting are not relevant for purpose in this investigation. The views of the hunting community are not to be countered in mind when evaluating evidence they are to be taken as their views only. It is assumed the rights and wrongs of hunting play no part in this investigation. The evidence I provide will show the RSPCA`s policy on prosecutions will always be treated as nothing more than a spiteful dirty campaign against those they see as the enemy. The evidence is freely available via the web and in books and is known in its entirety or in part by the majority of individuals in the hunting community.
Why should the RSPCA care what the hunting community think – The hunting community are hardworking law abiding citizens who pay taxes, they pay more tax so the RSPCA can pay less. They contribute to its upkeep regardless of their views.
THE GENERAL VIEW OF THE HUNTING COMMUNITY.
Parliament decided not if we kill foxes but how. The belief of those that hunt is they do not want to see the extermination of the quarry species and believe their method of control overall is better than most other methods of control likely to be employed. This is supported by the Burns inquiry who compared the various methods of control from a welfare perspective,
Burn Inquiry conclusion,
“Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern”
THE EVIDENCE
The ban on hunting was achieved with a 1 million pound donation to the Labour party by PAL helped with an alleged £600,000 loan from IFAW. Additional funding of Labour MPs was made in their constituencies by the League against cruel sports. (Pye-smith, Rural Rites)
Claimed Scientific evidence from a research document called “how a ban will affect the fox population “by Professor Stephen Harris of Bristol University was used two years prior to the Burns investigation by the RSPCA to inform the public and MPS alike that at last scientific evidence proving hunting crueller than any other method existed. This was then written into the RSPCA submission into the Burns inquiry but was found to be flawed almost immediately when the original academic who conducted the research heard about how his research was being misinterpreted at Government Inquiry level. He wrote and informed them of this wrong doing, explaining “This has been a continuing problem with misinterpretation of my data that apparently began with an anti-hunting group in the U.S. That group’s web page attributed changes recorded in trapped foxes to changes in foxes chased by dogs. This is blatantly incorrect and, I suspect, wilfully done (1). Given the RSCPA was the biggest and most highly respected animal welfare organization in the world at the time it would only be acceptable if they graciously admitted the misinterpretation and bowed out of the inquiry. Sadly they choose not to and with typical animal rights mentality simple changed their story from claiming to have so much scientific evidence proving hunting crueller than any other method of control to one of “In light of there being no scientific evidence, the animal should be given the befit of the doubt”
Not only were the RSPCA before the Burns inquiry claiming to have scientific evidence of hunting be crueller than any other method they attempted to deceive the public with flawed information by way of pamphlets and newspaper adverts. They were forever in the dock at ASA hearings a sample of which can be found below,
RSPCA – In an advertisement concerning stag hunting, the ASA upheld a complaint that the advertisement gave the impression that stags are caught and killed by hounds. In fact, stags are brought to bay, (a defensive posture,) and shot with a licensed firearm or humane killer, a fact which the advertisement concealed.
The photograph in one advertisement claimed to show a hunted fox that had been killed by disembowelment. In fact, as the RSPCA later admitted, the picture was of a fox that had been shot dead, then partly eaten by hounds some time later. The ASA upheld a complaint that the picture was not genuine, and did not represent what happened to a fox killed by a hound. The ASA also asked the RSPCA “to ensure that they could demonstrate that the pictures used in future advertisements were representative.”
The RSPCA advertisements claimed that foxes are not an agricultural pest problem, citing the Ministry of Agriculture’s position as “the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food estimates the number of lambs taken by foxes to be not significant.” The Countryside Alliance submitted to the ASA an actual text of the Ministry’s position, which reads “The Ministry does not consider foxes to be a significant factor in lamb mortality nationally, but it should be stressed that this is against a background of widespread fox control by farmers.” The ASA asked the RSPCA “to ensure that they did not select quotations in a way that could mislead in future advertisements.”
RSPCA – In an advertisement concerning stag hunting, the ASA upheld a complaint that the advertisement gave the impression that stags are caught and killed by hounds. In fact, stags are brought to bay, (a defensive posture,) and shot with a licensed firearm or humane killer, a fact which the advertisement concealed.
On the announcement of Burns inquiry findings they had teamed up with the International fund for animal welfare (IFAW) and the League against cruel sports (LACS) and formed an alliance called the campaign for the protection of hunted animals. They then continued a campaign of misinformation to the public via claimed scientific research documents in which they twisted important conclusions to suit their argument. One such example can be found below and is taken from “Countdown to a ban”
Burns enquiry Conclusion,
Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. *We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern
The campaign for the protection of hunted animals version
They concluded that where a need to kill foxes is demonstrated or perceived: “lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out.” In areas where lamping is not feasible, * the use of dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns can be humane and effective if properly
*the use of shotguns deemed less preferable in the Burns enquiry has been switched to flushing to guns in the second version. For the record burns did not say flushing to guns was “effective” or “humane”
CONCLUSION
From their behaviour it can be seen the RSPCA have moved more to an animal rights position and it they are were economical with the truth in obtaining a hunting ban in the first place. This suggests any prosecution they bring against the hunting community whilst out hunting is nothing more than their spiteful dirty campaign against those they see as the enemy. It therefore can be concluded prosecutions against the hunting community whilst out hunting will only ever be acceptable by the Crown Prosecution service as the RSPCA are quiet clearly not to be trusted.
(1) Terry Kreegars sumssion to the Burns inquiry
To Whom It May Concern:
I recently received an e-mail appearing at the bottom of this message. Since this information refers to my research, I felt it important to set the record straight.
The statement, “a North American study showing that hunting a fox for five minutes in a ten acre enclosure causes as much physiological suffering as catching one in a leg-hold trap. On post-mortem the foxes showed haemorrhage of heart and lungs and congestion of adrenal glands and kidneys. Blood analyses showed high levels of enzymes reflecting tissue damage” is INCORRECT.
I have not published that chasing a fox with a dog causes changes that are less than/equal to/greater than being trapped. The post mortem changes that are quoted are applicable ONLY to TRAPPED foxes. We never published post mortem analyses on CHASED foxes. It appears that people are taking trapped fox data and applying it to chased foxes. The only published data referring to chased foxes are the elevated heart rates and body temperatures that appeared in the Canadian Journal of Zoology (see below).
The statement “Red foxes caught in foothold traps developed Classical stress responses characterised by increased HR [heart rate], increased HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical] hormones, elevations of serum chemicals, and neutrophilia” is CORRECT as it refers only to TRAPPED foxes. However, if a reader is not reviewing the information critically, it may appear that these findings apply to chased foxes as well.
This has been a continuing problem with misinterpretation of my data that apparently began with an anti-hunting group in the U.S. That group’s web page attributed changes recorded in trapped foxes to changes in foxes chased by dogs. This is blatantly incorrect and, I suspect, wilfully done.
I personally have no stake in this issue in the U.K. other that trying to insure that the objective truth is disseminated. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Terry J. Kreeger, DVM, PhD
Wildlife Veterinarian
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Any individual,who wishes to see the law enforced can bring a private prosecution. This historical right, which goes right back to the earliest days of our legal system, remains a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of authority. The RSPCA had been prosecuting animal cruelty cases since before the formation of the CPS and the police force. Let me remind you gentlemen that the CPS can stop any private prosecution at any time if it is felt a case is not in the public interest or there is not enough evidence for a case to succeed. With that in mind one would ask why, in the Heythrop case, the CPS did not stop the prosecution in the initial stages. and why generally the AG himself said in Parliament that the RSPCA have an invaluable role to play in prosecuting animal cruelty. He went on to praise the RSPCA saying those cases would not always be taken up by the police and the CPS. Those of us who are against hunting cruelty are at a loss to understand why the hunting fraternity insists on attributing our anti hunting stance as being some kind of jealous backlash against those you refer to as ‘toffs’. Why would normal people hate toffs? You never actually explain this odd reasoning beyond a vague allusion. I would also take issue with your assertion that ‘story after story about the RSPCA hit national headlines’. Indeed the RSPCA were vilified in the Press, but you omitted to explain that it was only in the pro hunting press who set out to discredit and destroy the RSPCA with inaccurate, and in some cases, untrue stories intended to damage the reputation of the RSPCA as a charity. This was done in the vain hope that RSPCA prosecuting powers would be removed, in which case, pro hunting packs could break the law with impunity with little risk of prosecution. Your motives in this are as clear as day, no one is fooled, and I don’t understand why you keep persisting with the nonsense that hunters are victims of an inverted class system. Hunting is not humane or necessary, and hunters don’t in anyway provide a service to either the farming community or conservation. Time after time hunters have failed to produce a case for hunting, and if you weren’t so bloodthirsty in your intentions I would have to honestly admire your persistence.
Pattie
You really should listen to precisely what people are saying about the RSPCA and not make this into a ‘them and us’ situation that resolves nothing.
The CPS was formed to separate the investigative role of the police from the prosecuting role and this was done for a very good reason – so that an objective eye can assess the validity of a case which must pass the ‘public interest’ test.
Can it really be the right that a body that combines these two roles, and indeed has a campaigning role too, is able to be that objective? That situation is at the core of this problem.
All charities have a duty of care as to their funds, so why does the RSPCA not hand over any information about a case to the CPS and give their expertise as and when it is necessary? In a situation where the CPS refuses to prosecute, the right to take a private prosecution will of course remain open to the society, but they would then have to explain their reasons for doing so. That would save an enormous amount of charity money donated for genuine animal welfare work.
You always tend to see everything in simplistic ‘black and white’ terms, like so many people do when they want to shut down a debate.
This is about getting the RSPCA back on the rights lines, because, as you know, there are many people, including former staff members (and not just the “right wing press”) who are unhappy about its current approach.
Dear Patricia,
For some inexplicable reason you have overlooked the cruelty that the RSPCA has been able to evade. Who will expose the RSPCA for using captive bolt guns when all respectable animal welfare charities refuse its use in the UK- that’s based on the concerns of unnecessary cruelty? Who will expose the back room tactics of the said RSPCA who are reported to slaughter in excess of 60,000 stray, lost or stolen rehome able dogs placed in their charge by a trusting public within days.
The RSPCA is opposed to the humane badger cull based on socialist party politics. Clearly the RSPCA considers badgers with the advanced stages of TB coughing up blood and drowning in their own saliva to be kindness and not cruelty. Survivors of TB have spoken of it being the most awful of experiences imaginable. Even I could not wish for that on my worst enemy, but making enemies based on party politics is what the RSPCA appears to be all about now days.
Please enjoy the AR PR spin machine at its finest, apparantly peer reviewed research is an opinion, my post first, spin second.
Killing for sport, Peer reviewed study against your assumptions
and PR spin.
Most farmers (62% to 75%, depending on region) gave
two or more reasons for culling foxes. Local fox culling for
the benefit of neighbours was widely cited by farmers in all
regions (35-54%), but only 6.5% of this group gave ‘good
neighbour policy’ as their sole reason for culling, so the
principal motivation for virtually all farmers is self-interest.
Sport was usually cited in combination with other
reasons. In mid-Wales, not a single farmer cited sport alone.
In the east Midlands 57% cited sport, but only 14% cited
sport alone.
Is hunting with dogs necessary to `pest control|` ? No there’s no verifiable data
Apart from 94% of farmers in mid-wales cited protection of livestock as a reason for culling foxes and 75% of the foxes killed in this area involved dogs in some way. And culling was done to prevent damage, ie kill the fox before the damage is done. The RSPCA in the past have claimed figures from DEFRA for lamb losses to be 2%, which shows fox control as pest control is clearly working as intended.Ie prevent damage.
By making the above claim only proves you dont really know what you are talking about. Nothing more than PR spin, save it for the gullible.
Spin Machine,
You are confusing ‘data’ with ‘evidence’. Opinions are not ‘evidence’.
You will, of course, recall that Burns asked the Countryside Alliance to provide evidence to the Inquiry that hunting with dogs was necessary to ‘pest control’. It was unable to provide any evidence.
So, to be clear: it’s OK to harry foxes to their eventual evisceration, in part, as a sport – “amusement, diversion, fun” – as long as it’s enjoyed in conjunction with of some other claimed object, however unsubstantiated?
14% of respondents in the E Midlands kill foxes for no other reason than sport, “amusement, diversion, fun”? You will agree that that is totally unacceptable.
THE PENNY DROPS
Please find a typical conversation I have over twitter with Anti`s on my daily commute to work. Amazingly stay at home mums, secretaries and benefit claimants are ideally suited to advise farmers on both fox control and animal husbandry, this despite them claiming the fox does not need controlling in the first place.
Talking to one anti, with two other copied in the conversation, talking about the Burns report.
Me, No you only give me what you want to see
Anti, Giving you facts straight from report
Me, All methods have welfare implications
Me, So what did it say about shooting can have serious welfare implications yes or no?
Anti, Of course they do, Hooorah
Anti, Not best , refers to shooting in daylight
Me, Yes because that’s when shotguns are used. No range with shotguns at night with lamp
Anti, Most foxes killed at night using lamping, that’s why it’s called lamping
Me, And again, where this is not feasible or safe, what next?
Anti, Tell me were its not feasible or safe
Me, Well Burns states it 7 times in the report then concludes it. Funny why you struggle with this
Anti, I`m asking you
Me, Upland areas lowland areas with criss cross footpaths, before the ban someone was shot dead by lampers Spoke to farmer once who said he would not use a rifle for that very reason . that’s why we were there
Anti, Maybe if that farmer worked on his husbandry he wouldn’t need guns or you!
Me, Exposed as rubbish by Prof D Macdonald simply some areas improving husbandry is not a cost effective
Anti, So farmers will not pay to protect their livestock
Me, Plus most get fox control free, Mate gets invited to shoot foxes for farmer. Him its sport, the farmer pest control. No different from us.
Anti, Not all farmers have issues with foxes why is this, good husbandry.
Me, Culling takes place over 88% of surveyed land.
Me, So in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe?
THE PENNY DROPS
Anti, but that doesn`t mean hunt supporters, Had this convo
2Anti, rubbish u where there to get yer kicks watching dogs gut foxes NO OTHER REASON
2Anti, He is doing my head in with his half-baked info, pls leave me out of this stupid conversation
3rdAnti, me too, can`t stand him talking shit any longer
Anti, Me too
2ndAnti, All that killing innocent foxes has twisted yer brain, am blocking you.
Dear Nigel,
Very good. The trouble with people like the opponents of hunting talking absolute crap about issues they have no knowledge over is that after a while they start to believe in it. Patricia is a good point and case, she took a while to win over – but soon realised she was talking nonsense.
I do like her immensely because she makes me laugh with her mischievous ways and I have forgiven her for wanting to push me under a train.
Hi Mike,
Chuckle Chuckle, One guess who the 2ndAnti is?