Malik Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 indeed, £330,000.00 + spent on a court case whilst killing over 3400 dogs cats and other pets (not for medical reasons), disgusting really! Took the words right out of my mouth. it is disgusting!!! i do have respect for most of the work they do, However, i do feel that this is a severe lack of judgment on their part. 330k + could have gone to a better cause and saved the lifes of the animals they were set up to protect.Not just put them down.... Also, have a look at the chief executive's salary. Doubtless other senior management are on equally obscene remuneration packages. If you work for charity, be chartiable! And please don't give me the guff, "That's what you have to pay or they'll go elsewhere." A retired senior executive could easily afford to do it free of charge. I used to work for a charity running an historic ship, we managed the business (BIG sums of money) plus ran a successfull passenger ship; not one sole involved took a penny in pay, from Chief Executive to office gopher, from Master to deck boy. It can be done. Very interesting point. i have often wondered when they say on the TV 'donate just £3 a month' how much of that actually lands on the ground to help whatever the charities cause and how much lands in someones back pocket? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeredup Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Took the words right out of my mouth. it is disgusting!!! i do have respect for most of the work they do, However, i do feel that this is a severe lack of judgment on their part. 330k + could have gone to a better cause and saved the lifes of the animals they were set up to protect.Not just put them down.... Very interesting point. i have often wondered when they say on the TV 'donate just £3 a month' how much of that actually lands on the ground to help whatever the charities cause and how much lands in someones back pocket? yeha i have though that a lot lately, how much money donated to these "charities" actually reach's the cause and how much get gobbled up in admin and management wages?? there was a piece on our local Granada news the other night abouta local RSPCA centre closing as it does not get enough money from the RSPCA to stay open? ? ? ? that would be like the RNLI telling us crew members to have a whip around to fill the boat up after each shout??? Edited January 7, 2013 by beeredup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE AD Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 did it done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crosshair Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 There is a link to this forum on the Briish Farm Forum, it seems they are looking for as many signatures as possible. It seems the RSPCA are not popular with anyone that has anything to do with the countryside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenhunter Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 yeha i have though that a lot lately, how much money donated to these "charities" actually reach's the cause and how much get gobbled up in admin and management wages?? there was a piece on our local Granada news the other night abouta local RSPCA centre closing as it does not get enough money from the RSPCA to stay open? ? ? ? Not absolutely sure but I think the local centres are responsible for raising their own funding with very little help from central office! In my book another instance of poor funding allocation and bad practice. GH that would be like the RNLI telling us crew members to have a whip around to fill the boat up after each shout??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) Am I being stupid here? Why were the RSPCA not awarded costs if they won the case against the hunt? Because it was a criminal prosecution. It wasn't a matter of the RSPCA suing the hunt for money (and they would have had no cause to), they were bringing a criminal prosecution under the Hunting Act. That is their right but it is at their expense. I had only caught a bit of this story but it mentioned that the 'whole hunt' had been convicted. Does anyone know what is meant by this? I presume that it refers only to the actual guys in pink who were directing the hounds? I cannot see how it can relate to everyone who happened to be present as they are simply followers and take no part in directing the dogs, hence, they cannot be 'hunting' under the terms of the Act. J. Edited January 8, 2013 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Because it was a criminal prosecution. It wasn't a matter of the RSPCA suing the hunt for money (and they would have had no cause to), they were bringing a criminal prosecution under the Hunting Act. That is their right but it is at their expense. I had only caught a bit of this story but it mentioned that the 'whole hunt' had been convicted. Does anyone know what is meant by this? I presume that it refers only to the actual guys in pink who were directing the hounds? I cannot see how it can relate to everyone who happened to be present as they are simply followers and take no part in directing the dogs, hence, they cannot be 'hunting' under the terms of the Act. J. Heythrop Hunt is a limited company so the company was prosecuted in addition to a couple of individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Heythrop Hunt is a limited company so the company was prosecuted in addition to a couple of individuals. Ah, right. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawkeye Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Took the words right out of my mouth. it is disgusting!!! i do have respect for most of the work they do, However, i do feel that this is a severe lack of judgment on their part. 330k + could have gone to a better cause and saved the lifes of the animals they were set up to protect.Not just put them down.... Very interesting point. i have often wondered when they say on the TV 'donate just £3 a month' how much of that actually lands on the ground to help whatever the charities cause and how much lands in someones back pocket? I remember a lot of years ago there was a program on TV cannot remember what it was called but Esther Ransen used to head it.. I remember on one show they checked out most of these so called charities and how much of your donation actually went to the charity. Out of every £1 collected 90pence went into administration and only 10p actually made it to the charity.. I have never given to any of these so called charities since.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stravenrab Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.